MG11 / Direct Prosecution

[Stigy]

So assuming they write a new letter, rather than modifying a template, two hours of work, for someone not even earning £20 an hour, plus the RPI's 15 minutes? =~£45

I'd say 45-minutes for the MG11 is more realistic, then they'd obviously round it up to the nearest hour of course ....I'm quite quick but struggle for less than 30-minutes fully typed....

I think the whole settlement thing borders on extortion anyway...Which is why the letters are cleverly worded I think...:roll:

 

[RPI]

we don't agree that intent to avoid the fare has already been proven.
The lie may have been intended to avoid being prosecuted, and not to avoid paying the fare.

So by his actions in intending to avoid prosecution he subsequently would have intended to avoid his fare at that point in time so I stand by my view.

Yes there does have to be intent but that intent can be subject to a failure to comply with the act, thus there is no mens rea in such offences.

 

[barrykas]

I think the whole settlement thing borders on extortion anyway...Which is why the letters are cleverly worded I think...:roll:

Depends how strong a defence the alleged fare evader thinks they've got really.

Though given the choice between an out of court settlement and a potential fine of up to £1000, or three months in prison in the case of a second or subsequent offence, and a criminal record, I'd guess the majority would settle out of court.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[Clip]

Theres a lot talked about his intent to pay and the fact that the machines were not working anyway. From his own post he admits he boarded the train without a ticket - which he knew was wrong. He also knew that the barriers are normally open at his destination at that time of night so id say he pretty much never even attempted to pay as his story to the RPI at the end would have been 'Sorry mate,ticket machine wasnt working at XXX.. thus he could've bought a ticket from the RPi. But no. he attempted to avoid the fare and thus should get prosecuted..I see no other arguement against it really.

I was stopped by FGW couple of weeks back. I had to buy a ticket for 2 pounds. It was a friday and i was just coming back from work (after a stressful meeting with my boss)... there was a train and I had to rush and take the train (genuine reason).But I realise travelling without ticket is wrong!

It was almost 9 pm and normally the barriers are open. I was blocked and asked for my ticket. here was the problem. I didnt know the laws here ( i am an immigrant) and just gave an excuse saying it was lost and the inspector asked me to go to a differnt officer and buy a ticket. (I was surprised as to why he didnt ask me to pay penalty and assumed my story worked) I approached the other officer and he asked me where is my original ticket.

so he just lied.

 

[Stigy]

Depends how strong a defence the alleged fare evader thinks they've got really.

Though given the choice between an out of court settlement and a potential fine of up to £1000, or three months in prison in the case of a second or subsequent offence, and a criminal record, I'd guess the majority would settle out of court.

Cheers,

Barry

Depends on the offender I guess. Obviously the punishment you listed is for breach of a RRA 1889 offence and as such, alot of said offenders aren't too bothered about the outcome, as it rarely gets as severe as you mention. Byelaws obviously still hold a criminal conviction too, just no prison and non-recordable.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't think its helpful to contemplate how the salary of the office staff compares with the amount of money being offered - the £100 suggested here certainly has doubtful bearing on the costs incurred getting to that stage.

What is much more helpful is to consider what possible further costs and what possible income lies ahead!

The Company is being given a simple choice: accept £100 now with no further expenditure on evidence gathering, briefing legal professionals and incurring legal costs, OR, disregard the offer and continue incurring professional costs in the hope of being awarded a much more substantial fine by the Court?
When you consider the costs of legal work that lie ahead, then maybe much of a £1000 fine is attributable to the evidence gathering and professional costs (as well as the admin mentioned by others above), so the net benefit to the Company of proceeding might only be around £100, with the risk (albeit small) that the prosecution will fail.

In that light, perhaps £100 would be attractive. Whether a Company might adopt a policy favouring prosecution or favouring acceptance of 'offers' is another matter.

 

[island]

The company isn't "awarded" the fine, they only get compensation of the value of the ticket that should have been purchased, plus costs (sometimes). Whatever the amount of the fine is goes to HM Treasury.

The company may wish to continue with a prosecution despite a letter as a deterrent. I remember seeing an email posted here from LUL indicating it was not prepared to settle a prosecution incident for this reason.

 

[RPI]

A TOC will never offer an out of court settlement, it's up to the accused to offer to pay the fare plus cost's, if a TOC did offer then it could very well be deemed as blackmail.

 

[Stigy]

A TOC will never offer an out of court settlement, it's up to the accused to offer to pay the fare plus cost's, if a TOC did offer then it could very well be deemed as blackmail.

Indeed, which ios why I mentioned cleverly typed letters....Some people need a small boot to offer a settlement...