Is it right that being able to afford a solicitor seems to improve the chances of avoiding prosecution?

[SuspectUsual]

Regulars here will note that it re-enforces comments often made on here that chances of a warning and not prosecution seem to be notably increased if a solicitor is used.
Aa mentioned before this places those that can afford to engage a solicitor at a notable advantage over those who can not. But that's for a different thread.

And this is that thread!

Should it be acceptable that money can effectively allow a fare evader to avoid prosecution?

Should the decision to prosecute or not be based on the facts of the case, not the size of the wallet?

 

[Bishops]

Solicitors are expensive and isnt the financial penalty they can get for someone along with the high fees better for the railway then it going to court and the penalty Being what ever they impose which probably is far far less?

 

[LYradial]

No, it is not right, there is a case updated today relating to misuse of a freedom pass where a solicitor has obtained a warning from TfL despite all the advice we gave that prosecution was almost inevitable.

so TfL got nothing from this

i am curious to know what arguments were put forward to obtain this result, it seems most unjust to me that having a spare few hundred pounds can effectively buy you preferential treatment

 

[Fawkes Cat]

No, it probably isn't right.

What would you propose to do about it? If the solution involves some sort of public funding, please say where this money would come from, and how it would be prioritised against other public spending.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Should the decision to prosecute or not be based on the facts of the case, not the size of the wallet?

it seems most unjust to me that having a spare few hundred pounds can effectively buy you preferential treatment

Decisions about prosecution are still made based on the facts of the case.

But what are the facts of the case?

It requires skill to present your case in a way which covers all the salient points, is clear and concise, highlights all relevant mitigating circumstances, and deals with any more technical or legal matters which may be relevant to the situation.

A well-meaning amateur will probably do better at this than someone who doesn't know anything about how the system works and doesn't know how to explain themselves very well. And an experienced skilled lawyer will probably do better again than the well-meaning amateur.

I'm firmly in the well-meaning amateur section. I know a quite a bit about a quite a bit in my day job but, when I send things over to the lawyers, they come back with loads of things I'd never even have considered. That's why we pay them the big bucks.

The bigger wallet simply buys you access to that experienced skilled lawyer.

Is it fair? No, it isn't.

 

[ikcdab]

This is just life. Those who can afford it can always get something better. Better house, better car, more expensive foods or travel first class on the train. And when you are in court, some people can afford more expensive lawyers that genuinely get better outcomes. Its what our whole political system is about.

 

[SuspectUsual]

No, it probably isn't right.

What would you propose to do about it? If the solution involves some sort of public funding, please say where this money would come from, and how it would be prioritised against other public spending.

I don't know, which I why I started a discussion

What I do know is that it feels instinctively wrong to me that someone with access to money can get a different type of justice than someone who can't, and it seems very disappointing that TfL allow this to happen.

 

[WesternLancer]

No, it probably isn't right.

What would you propose to do about it? If the solution involves some sort of public funding, please say where this money would come from, and how it would be prioritised against other public spending.

well, probably would mean TfL would have to take the line with the solicitor that they were still going to prosecute.

 

[bb21]

What I do know is that it feels instinctively wrong to me that someone with access to money can get a different type of justice than someone who can't, and it seems very disappointing that TfL allow this to happen.

This is true in all walks of life. Even if you can somehow ban paid for legal advice, you will still have the issue some people will have access to more knowledge which others won't, so it will never be truly equal in the way you want it.

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely we're just bumping into the reality that, whilst we like to pretend that we are all subject to equal justice under the law, our justice systems (both criminal and civil) really are pay to play. If you have financial resources you will secure better outcomes by virtue of those resources. If you want to silence someone who is saying things about you that you don't like and you have money you can bury them in litigation until they run out of money. If the Government gets it into your head that you're guilty of a crime you can bankrupt yourself defending against that accusation (and if you are found not guilty good luck getting much of anything back to compensate, even worse if you're found guilty and letter have the conviction quashed, you'll get nothing for the time list in prison).

Obviously criminal law still has the vestiges of a Legal Aid system for those who are on a low income facing a criminal prosecution but with most of the cases we see here on the Forum it's at such an early stage that Legal Aid would not be available so you have to fly blind and rely on your own faculties and the likes of this Forum.

Is it right? I don't think so not when it comes to matters like this. Life is unfair, of course it is, it always will be. Some of us will have more than others and nicer things than others. That's just how the world works. But it still feels like this is rough edge to life that we should do more to smooth out.

It shouldn't be the case that when someone can drop a few hundred on getting a solicitor to write a good letter with their mitigation well argued and laid out they get away with a warning but someone who cannot afford that cost ends up with a criminal conviction and that that potentially entails.

 

[SuspectUsual]

This is true in all walks of life. Even if you can somehow ban paid for legal advice, you will still have the issue some people will have access to more knowledge which others won't, so it will never be truly equal in the way you want it.

Indeed, but this is about as low level as offending can get. The speed with which these cases seem to get dealt with once solicitors are involved makes me think they’re not long heavily-legal conversations with TfL.

Are TfL hearing a solicitor and promptly moving the case to the “too difficult” pile?

 

[ainsworth74]

Are TfL hearing a solicitor and promptly moving the case to the “too difficult” pile?

I reckon there might be an element of that but I suspect the main factor is probably that a solicitor can coherently and clearly advance mitigation in a way that many people cannot. The standard of the average persons written English is alarmingly poor and it's often worse when English isn't your first language. See the quality of some first drafts that people post on here. Someone with very good mitigation might well fail to put that across clearly and end up prosecuted yet someone with the same mitigation presented carefully and clearly will simply recieve a warning.

 

[The exile]

Over its entire existence human “civilisation” has failed to come up with a social system that doesn’t involve some people being “privileged” over others - it’s just what gets you that privilege that has changed -brute force, birth, money, political “soundness”, who or what you know….Of all those f those, money is probably the easiest to “control” (by redistribution, subsidy etc) - we just seem to choose not to do it.

 

[Buzby]

I believe there is a quote attributed to Charlie Louvin (a US Country singer) who said: 'In this world, you can get as much justice as you can afford, and if you can't afford much justice, you won't get much'. I don’t think he’s far wrong.

 

[WesternLancer]

Indeed, but this is about as low level as offending can get. The speed with which these cases seem to get dealt with once solicitors are involved makes me think they’re not long heavily-legal conversations with TfL.

Are TfL hearing a solicitor and promptly moving the case to the “too difficult” pile?

this is something I wonder - get all the low hanging fruit.

The other side of the costs is that to push back on a letter from a solicitor requires the organisation (TfL in this case) to be prepared to pay staff capable and knowledgeable enough to rebut the solicitors points - that has resource implications. That is not simply about the fact that the solicitor might be better able to advocate on behalf of their client.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Are TfL hearing a solicitor and promptly moving the case to the “too difficult” pile?

I doubt it.

A lawyer can identify and express the salient points- especially any mitigation- in a way that a lay person often simply cannot.

The average adult in the UK has the reading age of a 10-year-old child. 18% of adults are functionally illiterate. With the best will in the world, these people could have the best mitigation in the world but if they can't express themselves in writing then it simply won't be taken into account.

It absolutely isn't fair.

The speed with which these cases seem to get dealt with once solicitors are involved makes me think they’re not long heavily-legal conversations with TfL.

They will be short conversations, but that doesn't mean they are not legal conversations.

Whatever TfL's prosecutions policy says, there is a strong focus at the moment on the misuse of private prosecutions. Public prosecutors have to consider whether a prosecution is in the public interest. This isn't just whether a prosecution can be brought, but whether it should be brought. Private prosecutors don't have to but there is scrutiny. A letter from an experienced skilled solicitor explaining all this may sometimes assist in prosecutors' decision making.

 

[Mawkie]

Perhaps an FOI to determine the percentage of incidents that are dealt with by a solicitor and ultimately disposed of with a warning is in order?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Perhaps an FOI to determine the percentage of incidents that are dealt with by a solicitor and ultimately disposed of with a warning is in order?

It would also need the comparative figures for unrepresented incidents to have any meaning.

 

[furlong]

There's also the fact that a third party (the solicitor) can introduce an element of objectivity (outside observer, no emotional involvement) that the person on their own cannot.
This can speak much better to the 'public interest' test.

 

[SuspectUsual]

It would also need the comparative figures for unrepresented incidents to have any meaning.

I’m tempted to put an FoI in along these lines, but even this wouldn’t tell the whole story because we wouldn’t know the genuine level of mitigation in each set of data. It would have to assume that the “quality of mitigation” was the same in both, which it probably wouldn’t be

The other side of the costs is that to push back on a letter from a solicitor requires the organisation (TfL in this case) to be prepared to pay staff capable and knowledgeable enough to rebut the solicitors points - that has resource implications

This makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps a “too expensive” pile rather than a “too difficult” one

 

[LYradial]

I am not sure that the ability to present mitigation is significant, mitigation should reduce the penalty, not be used to prevent prosecution when guilt is established.

i suspect that a solicitor will persuade Tfl that it is not worth the effort and time involved in pursuing a case when he will press for a minimum sentence and ask for time to pay and challenge the costs and potential fares avoided.
it is often said on here that only the one offence when stopped can be proven and you don’t have to have other unproven offences taken into consideration.

so TfL will end up with e.g. £5 fare avoided and maybe £30 costs payable in drips at £ a month.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps an FOI to determine the percentage of incidents that are dealt with by a solicitor and ultimately disposed of with a warning is in order?

TfL probably do not hold that data.

 

[Mattplans]

TfL should really consider out of court settlments. Why can't a financial penalty and a stern warning of prosecution if caught again do the trick?

This was one of the first cases I read on the forum https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-first-time-fare-evasion.246151/#post-6150839 and one of my favourites, but I think it makes clear that there should be another option between 'Warning' and 'Prosecution'. It's quite a huge leap between the two, and is it really in anyone's interest for TfL to be jumping to arbitrary prosecution in almost every case? Perhaps as part of that FOI req, it could be asked how many people re-offend after being prosecuted, but as far as acting as a general deterrent I wouldn't say it's doing a good job? It certainly feels as if London fare evasion is at an all-time high, and perpetrators are more brazen than ever before?

On balance, I'll also be asking GTR how many offenders offered OOC come across their desk again . I imagine the number is relatively low, the involvement in the 'system' is sufficient enough to 'scare straight' an adequate amount of individuals and it is really reflected through some of their posts on the forum. Those that have built a trail of the fare evasion through short-faring and doughnutting feel especially stupid - it does often feel like there isn't a case that GTR won't offer a settlement for. That said, a fair few maintain a flippant attitude.

 

[Horizon22]

I don't know, which I why I started a discussion

What I do know is that it feels instinctively wrong to me that someone with access to money can get a different type of justice than someone who can't, and it seems very disappointing that TfL allow this to happen.

I hardly think TfL are allowing this to happen. This is just the nature of individuals having access to varying levels/scales of disposable income and that is a fundamental economic / societal / cultural issue that no one organisation can solve.

 

[35B]

TfL should really consider out of court settlments. Why can't a financial penalty and a stern warning of prosecution if caught again do the trick?

This was one of the first cases I read on the forum https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-first-time-fare-evasion.246151/#post-6150839 and one of my favourites, but I think it makes clear that there should be another option between 'Warning' and 'Prosecution'. It's quite a huge leap between the two, and is it really in anyone's interest for TfL to be jumping to arbitrary prosecution in almost every case? Perhaps as part of that FOI req, it could be asked how many people re-offend after being prosecuted, but as far as acting as a general deterrent I wouldn't say it's doing a good job? It certainly feels as if London fare evasion is at an all-time high, and perpetrators are more brazen than ever before?

On balance, I'll also be asking GTR how many offenders offered OOC come across their desk again . I imagine the number is relatively low, the involvement in the 'system' is sufficient enough to 'scare straight' an adequate amount of individuals and it is really reflected through some of their posts on the forum. Those that have built a trail of the fare evasion through short-faring and doughnutting feel especially stupid - it does often feel like there isn't a case that GTR won't offer a settlement for. That said, a fair few maintain a flippant attitude.

We're assuming that it is in the interests of justice that these cases are disposed of out of court. While I'm sympathetic to that view, I think there's a certain amount to be said for making the outcome about the offence, rather than their being a commercial incentive to the victim organisation to bypass court. This is at the most minor level of criminality, but ultimately the idea that justice is subject to commercial advantage makes me slightly uneasy.

 

[furlong]

If the police handled this, the offender would almost always be offered a caution in the first instance. Penalty Fares try to fill the gap, but often can't be used so we're left with unsatisfactory ad hoc alternatives and in the case of TfL that means choosing between over-zealous prosecutions wasting court time or too-lightweight warnings.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am not sure that the ability to present mitigation is significant, mitigation should reduce the penalty, not be used to prevent prosecution when guilt is established.

That is precisely what the public interest test is about. It’s not whether a prosecution can be brought, but whether it should.

All of this goes to show that the criminal law often isn’t the best way to resolve these issues. If it were a purely civil matter then, counter-intuitively, this issue would start to fall away. A civil claim isn’t about the public interest in prosecution, it’s about pounds and pence.

I’m actually surprised TfL don’t use the civil law more in these cases. They are extremely aggressive when congestion charges, parking tickets, etc are unpaid.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2026 ==

ultimately the idea that justice is subject to commercial advantage makes me slightly uneasy.

Me also. I don’t think they should be allowed to offer out-of-court settlements based on the criminal law.

The railway should be forced down the civil route. Unless the offence is at the level of a Fraud Act offence, it shouldn’t be going anywhere near a criminal court. Same with the TV Licence.

 

[35B]

Me also. I don’t think they should be allowed to offer out-of-court settlements based on the criminal law.

The railway should be forced down the civil route. Unless the offence is at the level of a Fraud Act offence, it shouldn’t be going anywhere near a criminal court. Same with the TV Licence.

In fairness, TfL don’t. I’ve mixed feelings about the criminal law in minor cases such as these, but my real discomfort is where criminal sanctions are used to drive civil outcomes.

 

[Egg Centric]

To turn the question around, what would the point in solicitors be if they didn't improve their clients' outcomes?

If we then accept that solicitor is a valid profession - well, how do we ration access to this profession? We've decided as a society that the general answer to this question is money as experience shows other ways of rationing resources are less effective.

Another way we ration resources is through talent/intelligence. And that's where the forum comes in - the smarter fare evader (if that's not an oxymoron) will have the sense to google their issue and come here and deal with it themselves (or in the case of TfL be advised to try option a). The less intelligent ones will just bury their heads in the sand. If all 20 000 or whatever of them came here the forum would be absolutely swamped.

(Yet a third way is through Darwinian means. Yet other fare evaders will just run away!)

 

[johncrossley]

.It shouldn't be the case that when someone can drop a few hundred on getting a solicitor to write a good letter with their mitigation well argued and laid out they get away with a warning but someone who cannot afford that cost ends up with a criminal conviction and that that potentially entails.

People keep saying in this section that a criminal record isn't that important.