Fine criteria - seems hit and miss?

[falcon]

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?

Not if they don't turn up at court. It's £440 standard.

There is an online calculator that tells you what fines are issued related to income.

There are hundreds of prosecutions in the courts every year against people that do not exist. All they have done is give false ID on the train or station. The mater is then persued with no answers to the letters before action because the people don't exist. Then the summons are issued and no one attends.The fines are then handed out to the people named on the summons that don't exist. It's a huge problem.

Hens the need for a national identity card.

 

[falcon]

So you dont know then...

Yes I do.

 

[snail]

There are hundreds of prosecutions in the courts every year against people that do not exist.

How many hundreds? Do you have a source for this information?

 

[njamescouk]

Hens the need for a national identity card.

good luck with that.

perhaps the traincos could just brand the cattle before loading them instead of all the aggro associated with id cards?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

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.

And you know that how?

How many hundreds? Do you have a source for this information?

The Criminal Procedure Rules 3.13(2).c.(ii) state "if the defendant does not attend, the trial may take place in the defendant’s absence"

The MoJ publishes statistics each quarter. The number of 'no shows' by Defendants in Magistrates Courts in 2016 which led to cases being recorded as 'ineffective' was 5,349. On average, over recent years, between 70,000 and 200,000 and other cases will have proceeded in the absence of the Defendant (i.e. the trial was 'effective').
Data is collected and analysed across a wide range of offences, but I am not aware that the MoJ publishes an analysis of these figures to identify the proportion of 'no-shows' per offence, nor the number applicable to the rail industry - the individual TOC's Prosecutions would have access to that, but that data wouldn't be in the public domain.
The MoJ adopts a 'write-off' procedure which applies when certain conditions arise : these include an inability to trace the convicted Defendant after reasonable attempts over 12 months. When that decision is taken, then the Prosecution should be informed, though not always are. Again, totals of these 'write-offs' would be available to the individual TOCs but would be treated as financially sensitive.

EDIT To add more detail. [numbers rounded for convenience]
The number of Prosecutions brought to the Mags Courts for Railway Fare Evasion and related ticket irregularities over recent years has varied across the range of 18,000 to 42,500 p.a.

In 2015 that number was 23,900, of which 18,700 were convicted and 5,000 were withdrawn by the Prosecution.
80 of these persons were under 18 y.o. and 4350 were 18 to 21 y.o.
4,250 were female, 16,500 were male and 3 were Companies (or other bodies).
Only 11 of those who were convicted were taken into immediate custody, all for a term of 3 months or less; 9,800 were given a fine over £300 and only 1 was given a fine over £1000. In addition to fines, orders to pay Compensation were agreed in 16,900 cases, with the majority being under £25 in Compensation, though 6 were over £500.
Only 52 were given an 'absolute discharge'.

Also in 2015, there were 37,800 Prosecutions for other Railway Offences [which I understand includes Byelaw Offences], of which 28,900 were convicted, and 8,700 withdrawn by the Prosecution.
Only 2 were taken into immediate custody - both for a term of up to 3 months ; Almost all were fined, the majority of fines (ca 20,000) were in the range £150 - 250 ; 17 were given a fine over £500, and 1 with a fine over £1000.
In addition to fines, Compensation orders were agreed in 26,700 cases with the majority being under £25, though 1 was over £500.
Only 86 were given an absolute discharge.

In 2015 the number of Prosecutions for ALL offences in the Mags Courts was 1,492,000.
IF the proportion of 'no shows' for Railway Offences was in proportion to those for all other offences, then we'd expect about 200 cases p.a. being 'ineffective following a 'no-show' (plus those cases that continue in the absence of the Defendant). However, I expect that due to the circumstances around the place of detection of a ticket offence, and the generally low sense of guilt, the perception of a low level of opportunist risk involved, the lack of arrest at the time of detection, the lack of involvement by a Police officer, etc. then the proportion could be expected to be significantly higher. Perhaps many times higher.

EDIT. Values of Fines and Compensation
In the year 2015, Sentencing for Railway Fare Evasion and other ticketing irregularities amounted to a total value of all fines awarded by Magistrates of £5,260,000 and total Compensation of £184,000 ;
Sentencing for other Railway Offences [which I understand includes Byelaw Offences] amounted to a total value of all fines awarded by Magistrates of £5,300,000 and total Compensation of £288,000.

Again, there is no easy way to analyse which proportions of these convictions, nor what total amounts of fines and compensation, would become uncollectable.

When an accused person fails to enter a plea and fails to attend and fails to provide a statement of means to a Magistrates Court, then the Court has the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000 for that failure.
When an accused person is convicted and fails to comply with the Court's order (i.e. fails to pay the fine imposed or fails to meet the agreed repayment terms), then the Court has the power to increase the fine.

EDIT 12th March : more clarification and detail.

 

[RPI]

What happens a lot is the defendant gives a correct name that is quite often verified by means of a credit or debit card or other means where no address is shown, then out of date address details are provided, the defendant thinks that the railway wont pursue a prosecution over a small fare, after several months and a prosecuion in their absence the courts manage to track them down via their employer and the outstanding amount is deducted from their wages. This quite often then results in the defendant making a statutory declaration.
Don't forget that the TOC wont receieve their costs usually until the defendant has made a payment, therefore if the problem of false details was as widespread as the earlier poster suggested then do you really think a TOC as a business would persist with such measures?

 

[Fare-Cop]

£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.

The fact is that a many have simply moved address and didn't notify anyone. In a majority of these cases the Courts enforcement teams catch up with them and fines get paid over the following few months.

A few will go to their local Court and make a Statutory Declaration saying 'I didn't know about the prosecution' because they may wish to enter a not-guilty plea, at which point the case will normally be re-listed and starts again from the point at which the Summons was issued.

Added note: Sorry, for some reason the post above didn't display on my PC when I began typing, but I can confirm that is certainly my experience too

It is sometimes found that after a Court has accepted a Stat.Dec. on the strength of what the defendant has said without the prosecution present, when the not-guilty plea is heard at trial, under robust questioning the defendant reveals that 'they might actually have had papers and had forgotten about it'