Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,554
Fair or not, it is how the courts work.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Did not evade fair. TOCs behaving like gangsters.
- Thread starter damola3
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,703
Then you could take it up with your MP, but it won’t help you on the short term
It's just Russell's Teapot analogy in practice as many defence claims would be broadly unfalsifiable.
Maybe not, but it's irrelevant due to the fact that OP didn't even try the ticket machine!
Whether you perceive it to be "fair" or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans I'm afraid. It's the law, it's been the law for 46 years, and if you think it should be changed you need to write to your MP.
soccermad
Member
It sounds really fair to me if you want to rely on staying that it was out of order ?
Egg Centric
Established Member
Bear in mind you could easily do this (someone correct me if I'm wrong) by taking the stand under oath and testifying to it*, and if the TOC had no evidence the other way I can't really see how the mags could find against you unless you clearly had zero credibility for other reasons.
*Not correct terminology no doubt
Mattplans
Member
Yea I’m also wondering what might constitute ‘proof’ ?
How is someone without a phone or camera supposed to prove a ticket machine is out of order? Even if the screen was on, it might be a more niche bug preventing it from working. Ie today SWR TVMs were rejecting all card payments. Seems pretty hard for one to prove if not picked up by the toc.
I wonder if this has ever actually been used to prosecute someone
How is someone without a phone or camera supposed to prove a ticket machine is out of order? Even if the screen was on, it might be a more niche bug preventing it from working. Ie today SWR TVMs were rejecting all card payments. Seems pretty hard for one to prove if not picked up by the toc.
I wonder if this has ever actually been used to prosecute someone
The magistrates are not bound to accept any statement made under oath as factually correct. Opposing counsel could of course simply cross examine the accused, too.
"A man on the platform told me I could get on the train" for example is an unfalsifiable claim in retrospect and cannot be relied upon. The magistrates must decide if the exception applies on the balance of probabilities.
Egg Centric
Established Member
Sure, hence my caveat about having zero credibility. But if there's one person testifying under oath and set against it is... well... nothing... then in practice if both the story told and the person telling it is credible it would be perverse not to accept it imo.
Ofc opposing counsel (is that right word when it's just solicitors or not even that I think in some cases? not saying it's not, genuine question) can probe at the story. But someone who isn't making it up it should "pass" that. Ironically not in this case the OP since he didn't check!
They don't have to have "zero" credibility, all the magistrates must do is decide if, on the balance of probabilities (that is: 51% sure), that unsubstantiated and unevidenced assertion is true. They do not have to treat witness testimony as gospel or factually correct and may use their own intuition or common sense to assess credibility. So you can't just stand up and say a giant teapot dressed in a SWR uniform gave you a golden ticket which authorised you to get on board the train. That is unfalsifiable but also not something a magistrate is likely to accept as having happened.
If you claim the machine is broken and the company says "look we run 750 machines and the contract costs £50m a year, our logs don't show evidence of an error with the machine" then what else can you do? Often, magistrates simply have to decide based on intuition whether someone is telling the truth or not - and that does not necessarily mean they think they are being lied to.
Anyone can say the machine is broken, or that they were given permission to travel. But they have to *prove* it on the balance of probabilities, not just assert it as true. Sometimes that's just going to be tough titty for someone who is truthful but cannot prove to the magistrates that the exception applies. Good things for people in this situation to do are perhaps to take pictures or video of broken machines, or revisit the station to demonstrate the fault, or ask the prosecution to disclose evidence about how many faults there have been, etc.
The standard of proof for guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, or "sure", to produce a verdict.
The standard of proof for a defendant to show an exception is on balance of probabilities.
Where the burden of proof is on the defendant the lower standard of proof is required.
Surely the “beyond reasonable doubt “ that is up to the railway to prove is “did person x travel without a ticket”? If person X effectively says “yes, but the only means of purchasing said ticket was broken” it’s up to person x to provide convincing evidence that it was reasonable for them to believe that was the case. (Eg - there was an “out of order” notice on it - whether it really was out of order or not).
That's basically it - though by "convincing" we are only talking about making the magistrates believe that it is more likely you are telling the truth than not. The magistrates will no doubt be faced with two stories in such a situation, and each side will be able to ask questions of each witness. The fullness of the exchanges will help magistrates form an opinion about who should be believed as giving a factually accurate account.
If at the end of it the magistrates can't decide one way or another "50:50, either side here could be right, could flip a coin" - the defendant does not get the benefit of doubt and the exception is not proven to the required standard, and the defendant will be convicted.
Does this mean that magistrates are not omniscient, and sometimes what transpires in court is not a completely accurate picture of what happens? Yes. Life is complicated and opaque.
Kilopylae
Member
They could
- Note down the TVM's serial number and the time on the station clock.
- Raise the issue at the station help point and ask for a call reference number to cite later.
- Ask a member of the public to take a photo and e-mail it to them.
- (Assuming this isn't in DOO territory), seek out and alert the guard once the train arrives.
It's not rocket science that if a ticket machine is broken - and you're planning to get on the train without a ticket - you should do something to draw attention to the issue before you walk head-first into a revenue block.
A camera is useless if one doesn't bother to check the TVM in the first place.
gembercannelle
Member
Please forgive my ignorance, but why does one have to use C2C app specifically? Would it not be possible to buy tickets through another operator or a third-part retailer (such as Uber)?
Yes, although this is all irrelevant to the case.
gembercannelle
Member
It seems relevant to me: OP says the app was not working so they decided not to approach the machine. I have been in a situation when certain TOC's website/app was not working quite a few times. My solution typically was to use another TOC or another app. (I say typically, because sometimes I would just buy ticket from the ticket office - when I know one exists & will be open).
It’s of at least questionable relevance because the availability or otherwise of an app is as yet of no significance in a case of fare evasion - no-one can be required to use one. The relevant factor is the availability of a working ticket machine and the OP has said they didn’t check.
It's not relevant because whether or not the app was working is not a defence to the alleged offence committed.
I still don't understand the claim that if an app doesn't work for whatever reason (and this could be down to a localised issue on the handset, such as poor signal or data issues that only impact specific users) then the TVM won't work.
CharlieSpotted
Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2014
- Messages
- 964
The claim seems to be based on prior experience - that they had found that, on previous occasions, when the app didn't work the TVM also didn't work. That may be true in some circumstances, of course - perhaps some back-end issue could take both out at the same time.
But (as has already been pointed out here) just assuming that's the case on all occasions, without even trying, is unwise and doesn't put you in a good position.
It may indeed be true that a TVM was out of service at the same time as the app not working. Assuming they use the same systems to sell tickets, surely every app and website would have failed too. Not only that but the ticket office would be unable to sell tickets.
Indeed, it would mean no ticketing facilities nationwide and I know this HAS happened but on those occasions all railway staff would be aware and would likely stop doing any revenue duties because there would be loads of ticketless passengers. I'd be expecting to see a lengthy thread on here about such an incident.
Therefore I find it rather unlikely that there's any link between an app that sells tickets over the web and the system operating on a TVM. Not least because TVMs self report, and I believe that if a TVM went offline then the fact it wasn't in communication with a server would itself be a sign of a fault.
Indeed, it would mean no ticketing facilities nationwide and I know this HAS happened but on those occasions all railway staff would be aware and would likely stop doing any revenue duties because there would be loads of ticketless passengers. I'd be expecting to see a lengthy thread on here about such an incident.
Therefore I find it rather unlikely that there's any link between an app that sells tickets over the web and the system operating on a TVM. Not least because TVMs self report, and I believe that if a TVM went offline then the fact it wasn't in communication with a server would itself be a sign of a fault.
L3sterSantos
Member
If you don't pursue these things to the fullest extremes, enforcement officers and revenue protection begin to think they are untouchable. Many such cases of people in roles with just slight authority losing their minds when power is unchecked and they aren't held to account. Standards for security roles are slipping. Railway - like most of the country - is now populated with outsourced and contracted security officers and it very often seems as if the training they receive is nothing more than a single memo or powerpoint. Something goes wrong? Apologise, admonish the contractor, rinse and repeat. That was going to be the behaviour of Harrow Borough Council before pressure mounted for them to discontinue their contract with Kingdom. (case linked below) OP has done the right thing by pursuing this case. Even if it made no material change it definitely makes clear to these people that there are members of the public willing to challenge their behaviour and they are not untouchable.
I think of cases like this:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...ent-officers-sacked-threatening-b1286041.html - 2 outsourced council contractors switch off body cams during a confrontation with the member of the public while threatening violence to them
https://www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/in-the-courts/btp-officer-convicted-of-assault--london/ - British Transport Police officer convicted of assault after they decided it was appropriate to put a 15 year old girl in a headlock and beat them in response to a fare irregularity
These are just 2 examples of the type of behaviour that festers when power is left unchecked. These are not normal reactions or responses, and it arises when enforcement officers begin to believe they are beyond repreive in every situation and untouchable.
I think of cases like this:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...ent-officers-sacked-threatening-b1286041.html - 2 outsourced council contractors switch off body cams during a confrontation with the member of the public while threatening violence to them
https://www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/in-the-courts/btp-officer-convicted-of-assault--london/ - British Transport Police officer convicted of assault after they decided it was appropriate to put a 15 year old girl in a headlock and beat them in response to a fare irregularity
These are just 2 examples of the type of behaviour that festers when power is left unchecked. These are not normal reactions or responses, and it arises when enforcement officers begin to believe they are beyond repreive in every situation and untouchable.
I accept that is the law. I just don't think it is intuitive or clear that the burden is on the passenger to prove a ticket machine is out of order. If you had a phone to take a picture with it of, chances are you'd just use the phone to buy a ticket anyway? It's not been made clear in this thread what can definitely count as proof or not. I think it is not fair because it's not even mentioned in the NR Conditions of Carriage, and the quoted exemption comes from Statute Law. I accept there may be people here who are very knowledgable about this sort of thing..... but this is far from representative of the wider population.
You may be missing nuance here. With Penalty Fares, the burden of proof lies with the train company to prove the machine was working. With prosecutions, while it's raised as a defence, the burden technically lies with the passenger BUT the investigator bears a duty to pursue any potential line of defence prior to any prosecution and then to assess and hand over to the defence any evidence that might assist that defence.
The reality is once it's mentioned that the ticket machine wasn't working, ticket machine logs will be checked. What we've usually seen before on other threads is evidence produced to prove that tickets were sold around the times in question and therefore it was not out-of-order. Of course if there were faults reported, or an inexplicable gap in ticket sales at the relevant times compared to the normal pattern of sales, such evidence would have to be given to the defence and could be debated in court if need be.
The nuance here is that the train company is obliged to provide the defence with whatever evidence they possess that might help to prove the ticket machine was not working. They know that, and as long as they know you intend to make that argument, if the evidence they find shows it was not, then they are unlikely ever to prosecute in the first place.
It is important when you make statements such as this, that you make it clear you are expressing your opinion on how the rules should be so that readers do not inadvertently interpret them as an accurate statement of law and procedure.
Prosecutors are not under a duty to "pursue any potential line of defence", or go looking for evidence for the defence, that is the defence's job. The prosecutor's duty is to disclose any evidence that they possess which came into their possession during the investigation and tends to undermine their own case.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If the defence requests it in the proper manner, yes.