Naming and Shaming Fare Dodgers

[najaB]

There is no way it is costing them anything near that much...

You try instructing a solicitor to appear in court. You'd be lucky to get change out of £300.

But it's not good enough having 99% of convictions being safe. 100% must be, and if that cannot be guaranteed then we should not be letting companies like GWR prosecute cases.

I agree, the aim should be 100% - but the solution to the (much less than) 1% isn't to change the law, it's to fix the problems that cause the (much less than) 1% to be unsafe.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I don't think there is any liability for Court costs in most criminal cases - these costs are costs applied for by the prosecutor.

The CPS has a standard scale of costs which they apply for on conviction.

Other prosecutors (TOCs, RSPCA, Councils, etc) have their own scale of costs to bring a prosecution. The defendant and the bench can challenge these and ask for a breakdown and justification. In many cases, the costs and surcharges far exceed the "means tested" element on a financial penalty, which makes the notion of means testing laughable.

For example, the first-time offender, on benefits, pleading guilty to a minor offence, such as a Byelaw offence, above the threshold for a Conditional Discharge:

Fine £40
Victim Surcharge £30
CPS Costs £85

Total £155 + compensation, such are fare evaded or goods stolen or damage caused.

CPS is a police prosecutions factory, the TOCs will claim that their processes are more complicated and they have to also cover the costs of their own investigations, hence their higher charges.

Anyone convicted now should think themselves lucky that they were not convicted in the period in 2015 when the Criminal Courts Charge was brought in by a certain Mr Grayling. That was an additional £150 and upwards on any sentence in the court, more if it went to trial. Many magistrates resigned in protest and the unfair charge was withdrawn.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Which is why the first stage should be a Penalty Fare system, with a robust appeals system.

Agreed.

If that fails, then there is the criminal court system to fall back on.

There is at the moment, but that's not appropriate in my view.

Making this a civil matter will do nothing

Far from it - it will make it a much fairer system.

There is no punitive element

A Penalty Fare is already punitive, with a minimum of £20 or twice the fare, but it that isn't considered sufficiently punitive then this can of course be increased.

There is no increasing enforcement for persistent offenders

If someone shows signs of persistently failing to pay their fare, that could be used as evidence for a then more justifiable RoRA prosecution.

Monies owed in the County Court do not result in imprisonment if unpaid

Do you really think someone who doesn't pay their fare to travel by train justifies being imprisoned? When we have all sorts of other vile types getting off with suspended sentences for stabbings and what not? Would you like to see your taxes spent that way?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You try instructing a solicitor to appear in court. You'd be lucky to get change out of £300

An utterly disingenuous comparison. The TOCs do these prosecutions in a factory-like manner, with often less than 5 minutes being spent on each case if the defendant doesn't turn up. Their costs, I'm sorry to say, can never possibly hope to amount to £160 for something like that. There is no other way around it other than that there is a fair element of profit in it, or alternatively that offenders are paying for the indirect costs of running Revenue Protection operations as a whole, which is not correct.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It's not even about splitting hairs. I meant the term "theft" in a general way - do you think that failing to use available ticketing facilities because you didn't realise they existed, for instance, is something that justifies being a criminal offence? Does that constitute anything malicious to you?

That is why we have penalty fares; they should be used in situations like this. They can be appealed on the grounds of signage, and even run to court.

I would certainly favour more County Court based enforcement. For one, a CCJ is less of an issue to most people than a criminal conviction (even if non-recordable). And if someone does find themselves on the receiving end of a CCJ, they can eliminate it from their record and put the matter behind them by paying it up within the allotted time (usually 30 days or so). No such grace is given to honest individuals convicted under Byelaw 18.

The majority of people who end up in court do not have two pennies to rub together. They will not clear a CCJ, and it will be returned as uncollectable by the bailiffs.

If the TOCs truly used Byelaw 18 only to punish those who "seemed" up to no good, but where it couldn't be proven, I'd have a little more understanding. But that's simply not the case - it is used indiscriminately and in a way it simply wasn't intended to be used, as numerous posts in the Disputes & Prosecutions sections aver. Its previous sole purpose being to allow for the removal of ticketless passengers from the railway, it is only in relatively recent years that it has become a nice little earner, and a stick with which to beat the unwary, for the railways.

You have real examples to back up this assertion?

Ultimately, I agree that there ought to be sanctions, criminal if necessary, to discourage (fraudulent) fare evasion. But RoRA already exists for that, much as do a number of other laws (e.g. petrol station bilking). Byelaw 18 seeks to criminalise what is in almost any other industry or facet of life a civil matter between the two parties. There is no reason it can't be decriminalised if it doesn't reach the standards of RoRA, and instead dealt with by means of a predictable and fairer Penalty Fare, for instance.

It's not a civil relationship. The Railways are a function of the state.

I won't even go there about taxes and the like, as that has no relevance to the matter at hand. In terms of checks and balances, at least in the County Court there is a trained Judge (often a former solicitor/barrister), as opposed to some lay Magistrates in the Magistrates'. There is no reason the current system of Penalty Fares appeals can't interlace with the County Court system of recovery of unpaid Penalty Fares - and in fact, the current Regulations make (a currently pointless) provision for that. Penalty Fares are certainly punitive, or if they are not deemed sufficiently punitive then they can of course be increased.

Magistrates are trained and are very well versed in the bread and butter law that comes before them. They also sit with a legal advisor, previously called a clerk, who provides, err, legal advice. Legal advisors are qualified solicitors or barristers. I know one that also sits as a Disrtict Judge.

The fact that most passengers manage step 1 is great. But then again, most passengers board at stations where the ticketing facilities are obvious, and don't require anything other than an ordinary A to B single or return. However, not all passengers come into that category. At many smaller stations ticketing facilities can be very non-obvious, or even if obvious, they may be inaccessible due to arrangements for crossing the line, or there may be a long queue. Alternatively they may not accept the payment method the passenger wants to use, or they may not sell the ticket the passenger is after. There are so many ways in which there might, for all practical purposes, be no ticketing facilities. It is OK for most, but there are a number of people who are entirely in the right (morally and/or legally) and yet who find their name smeared by an article such as the originally linked one. That simply isn't acceptable, and it wouldn't happen if it were all a civil matter.

The vast majority of those "smeared" in the article did not show up in court. The two who were convicted pleaded guilty and were dealt with. Show some evidence of a wrongful conviction.

 

[Puffing Devil]

If someone shows signs of persistently failing to pay their fare, that could be used as evidence for a then more justifiable RoRA prosecution.

No they can't - if the Penalty Fares have been issued, it can't later be prosecuted. The history may be used after conviction or very possibly a bad character application may be made. That would be it.

Do you really think someone who doesn't pay their fare to travel by train justifies being imprisoned? When we have all sorts of other vile types getting off with suspended sentences for stabbings and what not? Would you like to see your taxes spent that way?

As a first step, no. On a pathway to compliance, yes. We need sanctions to ensure compliance and to punish those who stick the metaphorical finger up at society.

For example, here's the typical journey for a persistent shoplifter:

Store Warning/Ban -> Penalty Notice for Disorder -> Court: Conditional Discharge -> Court Fine -> More Fines -> Unpaid Work/Probation -> Home Dentention Curfew -> Prison (Suspended Sentence) -> Actual Prison

Does a person deserve to go to prison for shoplifting - certainly not for a first, or many subsequent offences? No. Do they eventually reach the end of the road? Yes.

 

[Puffing Devil]

An utterly disingenuous comparison. The TOCs do these prosecutions in a factory-like manner, with often less than 5 minutes being spent on each case if the defendant doesn't turn up. Their costs, I'm sorry to say, can never possibly hope to amount to £160 for something like that. There is no other way around it other than that there is a fair element of profit in it, or alternatively that offenders are paying for the indirect costs of running Revenue Protection operations as a whole, which is not correct.

They pay for the cost of bringing the cast to court, not just the 5 minutes of court time.

How many TOC costs breakdowns have you examined?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That is why we have penalty fares; they should be used in situations like this. They can be appealed on the grounds of signage, and even run to court.

Indeed, but they are designed to run to County Court, not to a criminal Court.

The majority of people who end up in court do not have two pennies to rub together. They will not clear a CCJ, and it will be returned as uncollectable by the bailiffs.

Then that is no different to the situation with unpaid fines. But at least it gives those who didn't even realise they were breaking the law (of which we have numerous examples here every month and week) an opportunity to settle the matter without such a massive risk to themselves.

You have real examples to back up this assertion?

Which part of it? Almost all of it you can back up yourself by reading the D&P threads.

It's not a civil relationship. The Railways are a function of the state.

When one travels on the railway, one holds a contract with the private operator that operates the service. The Government doesn't come into that part of it - their involvement is limited to more general matters. But even if it were a contract which had an involvement with the Government, it remains something that should be, and is in certain parts of the UK, a civil matter. The railways managed fine without a prosecuteable Byelaw 18 for many years, why does it suddenly need it now but not before, and not in Scotland?

Magistrates are trained and are very well versed in the bread and butter law that comes before them. They also sit with a legal advisor, previously called a clerk, who provides, err, legal advice. Legal advisors are qualified solicitors or barristers. I know one that also sits as a Disrtict Judge.

Yes, but ultimately I would prefer to have a trained Judge deciding on the matter than a lay person.

The vast majority of those "smeared" in the article did not show up in court. The two who were convicted pleaded guilty and were dealt with. Show some evidence of a wrongful conviction.

Whether or not they turned up to Court, there can be no doubt that at least a couple of them will have been prosecuted in questionable circumstances. Not engaging with the process is not good, but a lot of people are afraid of the Court process and that is understandable.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

They pay for the cost of bringing the cast to court, not just the 5 minutes of court time.

How many TOC costs breakdowns have you examined?

I'm sorry, but there is just no way that a batch prosecution of 40 odd people costs GWR £6000 odd. That is just so implausible that I simply can't believe it.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I'm sorry, but there is just no way that a batch prosecution of 40 odd people costs GWR £6000 odd. That is just so implausible that I simply can't believe it.

Believe it or not. Unless you have experience and evidence you can bleat all you like.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Believe it or not. Unless you have experience and evidence you can bleat all you like.

Can you show us a breakdown then?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Indeed, but they are designed to run to County Court, not to a criminal Court.

Really? Your evidence for this?

Then that is no different to the situation with unpaid fines. But at least it gives those who didn't even realise they were breaking the law (of which we have numerous examples here every month and week) an opportunity to settle the matter without such a massive risk to themselves.

If you fail to pay your court fines you will eventually go to prison. Fail to pay your CCJs and divert your income to other things, you will pay nothing. The criminal court also has a greater range of powers to extract money, including deduction from benefits and wages.

Which part of it? Almost all of it you can back up yourself by reading the D&P threads.

I see people asking for advice. I don't see anyone who has been convicted unfairly. Show me someone who has.

When one travels on the railway, one holds a contract with the private operator that operates the service. The Government doesn't come into that part of it - their involvement is limited to more general matters. But even if it were a contract which had an involvement with the Government, it remains something that should be, and is in certain parts of the UK, a civil matter. The railways managed fine without a prosecuteable Byelaw 18 for many years, why does it suddenly need it now but not before, and not in Scotland?

Scotland, as you know, is a separate legal system. It varies in many ways from England and Wales. Railways in the UK are privately operated on behalf of the State.

Yes, but ultimately I would prefer to have a trained Judge deciding on the matter than a lay person.

The logical extension of this is the removal of trial by jury? Or replacement of all lay Magistrates with District Judges, where a single person makes a decisions on sentencing with no consultation?

Whether or not they turned up to Court, there can be no doubt that at least a couple of them will have been prosecuted in questionable circumstances. Not engaging with the process is not good, but a lot of people are afraid of the Court process and that is understandable.

That is nothing but supposition without a shred of evidence to support it.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Can you show us a breakdown then?

No - when I reviewed them in court I never thought to remove the prosecution papers for later review in an internet forum.

 

[najaB]

Whether or not they turned up to Court, there can be no doubt that at least a couple of them will have been prosecuted in questionable circumstances.

I doubt it.

 

[najaB]

I'm sorry, but there is just no way that a batch prosecution of 40 odd people costs GWR £6000 odd. That is just so implausible that I simply can't believe it.

Let me introduce you to Argument from Incredulity.

 

[35B]

I'm sorry, but there is just no way that a batch prosecution of 40 odd people costs GWR £6000 odd. That is just so implausible that I simply can't believe it.

I work for a large organisation, and see how the costs of that organisation mount up. By the time that you consider not just the direct salary costs of the prosecution team, but also the wider costs of employment, I have no difficulty in believing that figure. Indeed, I suspect it make be a tad conservative.

 

[najaB]

By the time that you consider not just the direct salary costs of the prosecution team, but also the wider costs of employment, I have no difficulty in believing that figure. Indeed, I suspect it make be a tad conservative.

It's my understanding that TOCs don't actually employ solicitors directly but rather have them on retainer. It's my experience that solicitors charge per-case rather than per-hour. Even with "mate's rates" £160 per case is very good going.

 

[Stigy]

It's my understanding that TOCs don't actually employ solicitors directly but rather have them on retainer. It's my experience that solicitors charge per-case rather than per-hour. Even with "mate's rates" £160 per case is very good going.

I know at my TOC we don’t use solicitors. I’ve never known us to have solicitors get involved in anything bar employment cases such as tribunals.

The costs involved in these cases are not even a true reflection of the actual amounts it costs a TOC to take a matter to court. TOCs rarely get their money back in such cases. Also, how anybody can say this is a ‘nice little earner’ is beyond me? For a start, the article doesn’t actually stipulate just how much investigation work went in to securing these convictions. This alone can easily bump up their costs.

 

[35B]

I know at my TOC we don’t use solicitors. I’ve never known us to have solicitors get involved in anything bar employment cases such as tribunals.

The costs involved in these cases are not even a true reflection of the actual amounts it costs a TOC to take a matter to court. TOCs rarely get their money back in such cases. Also, how anybody can say this is a ‘nice little earner’ is beyond me? For a start, the article doesn’t actually stipulate just how much investigation work went in to securing these convictions. This alone can easily bump up their costs.

My point entirely - the multiplication effect on staff wages (let alone hiring externals) is very powerful. £6k for 40 cases doesn't seem at all much on that basis.

 

[najaB]

I know at my TOC we don’t use solicitors. I’ve never known us to have solicitors get involved in anything bar employment cases such as tribunals.

Again, I am not in the industry, but I was given to believe that they retained a local solicitor to actually present the cases in court. So the only involvement that the solicitor would have would be on the day.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Again, I am not in the industry, but I was given to believe that they retained a local solicitor to actually present the cases in court. So the only involvement that the solicitor would have would be on the day.

In my experience, not a local solicitor. Definitely, the same person would come back to every Rail court, which used to be monthly.

 

[Stigy]

Again, I am not in the industry, but I was given to believe that they retained a local solicitor to actually present the cases in court. So the only involvement that the solicitor would have would be on the day.

Oh right, I always thought you were in the industry?

We use our own prosecutors in court, as do most other TOCs I’m sure. This is the same whether it’s a trial or a guilty plea. Of course, now there’s the Single Justive Procedure, for Byelaw cases there’s no need for a prosecutor either assuming the criteria is met.

The costs involved would still outweigh what we get back at court though, that’s why it’s often more beneficial to settle out of court.

 

[Llanigraham]

An utterly disingenuous comparison. The TOCs do these prosecutions in a factory-like manner, with often less than 5 minutes being spent on each case if the defendant doesn't turn up. Their costs, I'm sorry to say, can never possibly hope to amount to £160 for something like that. There is no other way around it other than that there is a fair element of profit in it, or alternatively that offenders are paying for the indirect costs of running Revenue Protection operations as a whole, which is not correct.

Sorry, but that reply suggests that your dislike of the current legal system employed by the ToC's is clouding your judgement. As numerous threads on here have proved in the past they spend a lot more than 5 minutes on cases.

 

[Stigy]

Sorry, but that reply suggests that your dislike of the current legal system employed by the ToC's is clouding your judgement. As numerous threads on here have proved in the past they spend a lot more than 5 minutes on cases.

I’d be interested also, to know what some people think is a reasonable amount to ask for in costs. I’d say that £160 is barely breaking even in terms of what it costs to get a matter to court.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I’d be interested also, to know what some people think is a reasonable amount to ask for in costs. I’d say that £160 is barely breaking even in terms of what it costs to get a matter to court.

That's a tricky question, as you'll see from my example earlier, the whole issue of costs and surcharges can make a mockery of what is supposed to be a means-tested punishment.

I don't think the TOCs should be out of pocket when prosecuting fare evaders, though I can also see an affordability argument when cases come to court. Revenue management is a cost of doing business - perhaps the legal enforcement should be passed over to the CPS to take to court?

I know a lot of people think that criminals should pay - literally and figuratively - for their crimes; the bottom line is that many at the lower end of society don't have any spare cash and that may be why they dodged the fares in the first place. It's easy to say charge them - try sitting through a day or two in the Magistrate's Court and see the business that comes through the door then see what your view is.

 

[Stigy]

That's a tricky question, as you'll see from my example earlier, the whole issue of costs and surcharges can make a mockery of what is supposed to be a means-tested punishment.

I don't think the TOCs should be out of pocket when prosecuting fare evaders, though I can also see an affordability argument when cases come to court. Revenue management is a cost of doing business - perhaps the legal enforcement should be passed over to the CPS to take to court?

I know a lot of people think that criminals should pay - literally and figuratively - for their crimes; the bottom line is that many at the lower end of society don't have any spare cash and that may be why they dodged the fares in the first place. It's easy to say charge them - try sitting through a day or two in the Magistrate's Court and see the business that comes through the door then see what your view is.

I know what you are saying, but that’s why the fines are means tested (£30 I believe is the going rate if the defendant is on benefits?).

I’ve been in the enforcement side of the rail industry for 12-years and have seen my fair share of court cases (TOC cases and CPS ones). I disagree that the CPS should take on these cases, and I’m sure you’d agree if you’ve seen how they deal with other cases. I doubt very much if there would be any cases getting as far as court with the CPS running things (and that’s not because of a lack of evidence....it’s just that they generally don’t prosecute for things like fare evasion). I’ve seen how they operate first hand. They don’t get their numerous nicknames for nothing.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I agree that the service from the CPS has collapsed in recent years and I feel sorry for many in the organisation who try to do their best with dwindling resources. Many are overworked and, as a result, often underprepared when they arrive in court; I blame the continual cuts imposed by the government - they've kept cutting when there is nothing left to take.

If we had a functioning CPS that could be relied on to process a case to court, would that be an option?

 

[najaB]

If we had a functioning CPS that could be relied on to process a case to court, would that be an option?

For me, yes definitely since it would remove the accusation that there was a profit motive behind prosecutions.

 

[transmanche]

Anyone seen this in other regions? I honestly felt more sad for the people in this article ending up with £800 costs over a tiny fare.

Yes, and not only in the local newspapers. About ten years T&W Metro started putting up posters at their stations with the heading 'Loser List', which listed people convicted for fare dodging, where they were from, along with their fine, etc.

They were regularly updated for a few years, but seem to have disappeared now.

 

[neilmc]

I'd like to see some huge posters - for example, in the entrances to local supermarkets - with big pictures of certain people saying something like:

"This is John Scroater of 33 Acacia Avenue, Altrincham. He works for Grabbem Rail and is constantly refusing to accept perfectly valid tickets/ charging incorrect penalty fares/ threatening people with the police under false pretences/ refusing to sell cheap ticket combinations, etc, etc. Fair's fair.