Fine criteria - seems hit and miss?

[BrendaRobinson]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/27-people-fined-hundreds-pounds-1322468

A total of 27 people from across the South West have been fined huge sums for attempting to ride on Great Western Railway trains in Bristol without paying for a ticket.

In one instance a man was fined £440 for attempting to travel without paying the measly £1.50 train fare.

In the court registers for February 28, 2018, it shows that Bristol Magistrates’ Court spent a large part of the day dealing with prosecutions of people who attempted to dodge fares.

All of them received fines and were ordered to pay other costs which made up cash totals far in excess of the amount of money they tried to avoid paying – in some cases literally hundreds of times more.

First guy dodges a £4.40 fare and is fined £440.

Third one is fined the same but was dodging a £104.80 fare?

What criteria is being used to set the fine amount?

 

[221129]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/27-people-fined-hundreds-pounds-1322468
First guy dodges a £4.40 fare and is fined £440.

Third one is fined the same but was dodging a £104.80 fare?

What criteria is being used to set the fine amount?

The first person probably didn't turn up so was fined in their absence.

 

[Llanigraham]

Fine levels are fixed as a percentage of their weekly wage. All those fined £440 seem to have not attended Court so their wage is a presumed amount.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/27-people-fined-hundreds-pounds-1322468
First guy dodges a £4.40 fare and is fined £440.

Third one is fined the same but was dodging a £104.80 fare?

What criteria is being used to set the fine amount?

It seems they were all convicted of offences under Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The current Sentencing Council Guidelines suggest that the sentence for being convicted of such an offence is likely to be a fine of between 25% and 125% of the offender's relevant weekly income. If the circumstances of the matter are judged to be the same in all the cases, and if the offenders do not attend court or make any plea, then an income is assumed, and the offence Category will end up being the same. This is likely what resulted in the fines being the same. And as illogical as it might sound, the fine for evading a £100 fare can be the same as for evading a £1 fare. What matters in eyes of the law in this context is the principle, not the amount.

What I disagree more with is the fact that GWR had prosecution costs of £160 awarded against all of these people. Solicitors (or whoever they use to prepare and present their case) are not cheap, that I admit - but in a batch job of 27 prosecutions for the same offence, where all of them were convicted in their absence (and hence likely to have taken an hour or two in Court at most), the costs surely could not add up to £4320. It rather seems like a money-making scheme to me.

I am also unconvinced that all of these people were truly intending to avoid payment - I would have thought prosecutions under Byelaw 18 would be more appropriate in most cases. I wonder how many of these would have been convicted of the RoRA offence if they had actually turned up and defended themselves (preferably with a well-qualified solicitor with experience of railway prosecution defence).

 

[Master29]

Quite frankly it`s irrelevant whether any were intending to "avoid payment" or simply not turn up at court. Pure speculation and academic now anyway..

 

[Puffing Devil]

What I disagree more with is the fact that GWR had prosecution costs of £160 awarded against all of these people. Solicitors (or whoever they use to prepare and present their case) are not cheap, that I admit - but in a batch job of 27 prosecutions for the same offence, where all of them were convicted in their absence (and hence likely to have taken an hour or two in Court at most), the costs surely could not add up to £4320. It rather seems like a money-making scheme to me.

The costs include those of bringing the matter to court, not just the appearance fee. Costs can always be questioned by the defence and the bench, and I know of benches who have asked that question.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It seems they were all convicted of offences under Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The current Sentencing Council Guidelines suggest that the sentence for being convicted of such an offence is likely to be a fine of between 25% and 125% of the offender's relevant weekly incom

There are no published guidelines for the Byelaw Offences - usual practice is to default to the RORA guidelines for similar Railway Matters.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The costs include those of bringing the matter to court, not just the appearance fee. Costs can always be questioned by the defence and the bench, and I know of benches who have asked that question.

I would certainly be encouraged if these costs had been questioned. As it is, it seems rather like a batch job operation. I bet each prosecution on average didn't take more than 5 minutes to go through.

There are undoubtedly costs of bringing a prosecution, employing back-office staff, postage of letters and so forth, but I very much question that this could have added up to £4320 (and if it does, I'd like to see a breakdown of how this arises). I feel that it would have been more appropriate for the compensation to be in the sum of whatever a Penalty Fare would have been, and for the awarded costs to more accurately represent the real average.

There are no published guidelines for the Byelaw Offences - usual practice is to default to the RORA guidelines for similar Railway Matters.

The mention of "intent to avoid" in the newspaper article in each offender's summary suggests to me that these were all RoRA prosecutions.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I am also unconvinced that all of these people were truly intending to avoid payment - I would have thought prosecutions under Byelaw 18 would be more appropriate in most cases. I wonder how many of these would have been convicted of the RoRA offence if they had actually turned up and defended themselves (preferably with a well-qualified solicitor with experience of railway prosecution defence).

That article lists their convictions and their fines but gives no details whatsoever about their cases so what are you basing that statement on? Nothing.

 

[Puffing Devil]

For non-attenders, it is very much a batch job. A world weary bench may not pay much attention to the costs demanded. The compensation is the fare avoided; a penalty fare is a punishment outside of the court process.

Moral: Pay your fare or your penalty fare. If you are summonsed to court, attend.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I am also unconvinced that all of these people were truly intending to avoid payment - I would have thought prosecutions under Byelaw 18 would be more appropriate in most cases. I wonder how many of these would have been convicted of the RoRA offence if they had actually turned up and defended themselves (preferably with a well-qualified solicitor with experience of railway prosecution defence).

And just what evidence do you have to make that statement?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

And just what evidence do you have to make that statement?

It is not a statement of facts - it is an opinion. In my experience, most people are willing to pay for their ticket if they are asked to (though there are some which would not voluntarily do so). In the absence of the accused turning up, their guilt is assumed. From this, I surmise that there may have been some amongst this list of convictions who did not actually commit the offence they were convicted of (but rather, the less serious Byelaw 18 offence).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That article lists their convictions and their fines but gives no details whatsoever about their cases so what are you basing that statement on? Nothing.

As replied to Gareth Marston, I find it hard to believe that all these people truly had intent to avoid payment of their fare (either according to the legally accepted test or the question of their true intent). I certainly believe that they may have committed Byelaw 18 offences, but I would have expected that there would be a mixture of prosecutions for the two offences. Instead, there are merely prosecutions for the RoRA offence.

 

[Puffing Devil]

As replied to Gareth Marston, I find it hard to believe that all these people truly had intent to avoid payment of their fare (either according to the legally accepted test or the question of their true intent). I certainly believe that they may have committed Byelaw 18 offences, but I would have expected that there would be a mixture of prosecutions for the two offences. Instead, there are merely prosecutions for the RoRA offence.

You don't know. You weren't there.

The defendants all had the opportunity appear in court to plead their cases and chose not to. Had they made the effort to attend the matters may have been settled out of court, or even a byelaw charge could have been substituted. That is why we have the court at the final arbiter in Railway Ticking disputes.

If refer back to my earlier post -> Moral: Pay your fare or your penalty fare. If you are summonsed to court, attend.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It is not a statement of facts - it is an opinion. In my experience, most people are willing to pay for their ticket if they are asked to (though there are some which would not voluntarily do so). In the absence of the accused turning up, their guilt is assumed. From this, I surmise that there may have been some amongst this list of convictions who did not actually commit the offence they were convicted of (but rather, the less serious Byelaw 18 offence).

So your saying pay when challenged is acceptable and the railway shouldn't try and enforce National Rail Terms and Conditions?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So your saying pay when challenged is acceptable and the railway shouldn't try and enforce National Rail Terms and Conditions?

Not at all, that's not what I said or meant. What I said was "most people are willing to pay for their ticket if they are asked to" - and hence prosecuting them for intending to avoid payment of their fare is not necessarily justified. Prosecuting them for failing to buy a ticket before boarding a train, when there were facilities to do so, would be justified.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Not at all, that's not what I said or meant. What I said was "most people are willing to pay for their ticket if they are asked to" - and hence prosecuting them for intending to avoid payment of their fare is not necessarily justified. Prosecuting them for failing to buy a ticket before boarding a train, when there were facilities to do so, would be justified.

Again, supposition.

You don't know. You weren't there.

The defendants all had the opportunity appear in court to plead their cases and chose not to. Had they made the effort to attend the matters may have been settled out of court, or even a byelaw charge could have been substituted. That is why we have the court at the final arbiter in Railway Ticking disputes.

If refer back to my earlier post -> Moral: Pay your fare or your penalty fare. If you are summonsed to court, attend.

 

[Llanigraham]

I would certainly be encouraged if these costs had been questioned. As it is, it seems rather like a batch job operation. I bet each prosecution on average didn't take more than 5 minutes to go through.

Your ignorance of the legal process does you no good. Each case is an individual entity. Each case is investigated individually. Each case has the paperwork prepared individually. There is very little "batch operations".

There are undoubtedly costs of bringing a prosecution, employing back-office staff, postage of letters and so forth, but I very much question that this could have added up to £4320 (and if it does, I'd like to see a breakdown of how this arises). I feel that it would have been more appropriate for the compensation to be in the sum of whatever a Penalty Fare would have been, and for the awarded costs to more accurately represent the real average.

Again, you assume that it is a "batch operation". It isn't. As said, each case is dealt with individually.

 

[Llanigraham]

Not at all, that's not what I said or meant. What I said was "most people are willing to pay for their ticket if they are asked to" - and hence prosecuting them for intending to avoid payment of their fare is not necessarily justified. Prosecuting them for failing to buy a ticket before boarding a train, when there were facilities to do so, would be justified.

I suggest you look up the legal meaning of "intent".

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

I’m amazed that the paper can report what happened on 28March 2018

 

[6Gman]

It is not a statement of facts - it is an opinion. In my experience, most people are willing to pay for their ticket if they are asked to (though there are some which would not voluntarily do so). In the absence of the accused turning up, their guilt is assumed. From this, I surmise that there may have been some amongst this list of convictions who did not actually commit the offence they were convicted of (but rather, the less serious Byelaw 18 offence).

But that's the problem. Paying your fare is not a voluntary option to be complied with only when asked. It is a legal obligation which these people failed to meet.

Was there intent? I've no way of knowing (nor - I suspect - do you) but none of the defendants seem to have considered it worthwhile challenging the accusation.

 

[falcon]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/27-people-fined-hundreds-pounds-1322468
First guy dodges a £4.40 fare and is fined £440.

Third one is fined the same but was dodging a £104.80 fare?

What criteria is being used to set the fine amount?

£440 is the fine for non attenders.
The sad thing is 27 people have not been fined because most if not all of them are false name and/or addresse cases. They don't exist,the address does but they don't.

 

[gray1404]

If you do not turn up to court is it still possible to have your earnings taken into account?

 

[Puffing Devil]

If you do not turn up to court is it still possible to have your earnings taken into account?

Yes - guilty plea by post and returning a means form.

 

[najaB]

...and hence prosecuting them for intending to avoid payment of their fare is not necessarily justified...

Intent is determined by action.

 

[221129]

Not at all, that's not what I said or meant. What I said was "most people are willing to pay for their ticket if they are asked to" - and hence prosecuting them for intending to avoid payment of their fare is not necessarily justified. Prosecuting them for failing to buy a ticket before boarding a train, when there were facilities to do so, would be justified.

That is paying when challenged which is a case of intent to avoid payment..

 

[221129]

£440 is the fine for non attenders.
The sad thing is 27 people have not been fined because most if not all of them are false name and/or addresse cases. They don't exist,the address does but they don't.

And you know that how?

 

[gray1404]

I'm assuming the fine would be lower for someone on benefits or a low wage.

If someone was on a really high wage would they be fined more or would average earnings just be the maximum figure considered?

 

[falcon]

And you know that how?

LOL.That's why 27 of them don't turn up at court that's why. It's called giving a false name and address on the train and then the matter is persued against an individual that does not exist.
I suppose one can believe that is not the case if one want's to.LOL

 

[221129]

LOL.That's why 27 of them don't turn up at court that's why. It's called giving a false name and address on the train and then the matter is persued against an individual that does not exist.
I suppose one can believe that is not the case if one want's to.LOL

So you dont know then...