Search results

Quite. What we seem to be discussing is the meaning of justice and whether strict liability needs NOT be employed in cases where a passenger has acted honestly. PF have some good examples but I am sure there are more--passenger has a stroke and is unable to see or function but manages to crawl...

I am not arguing against the fact that By law 18 is one of strict liability. I am arguing it is wrongly designated as such as there are too many possibilities of abuse such as PF listed...

I suspect this is why they dropped the case. As a former officer of the court, I think my evidence would have been well received and a good magistrate will usually take the justice route over a technical breach of a "mere" by-law especially where there is no dishonesty involved. I would like...

Your problem is that you see every breach of the rules as "guilt." If a passenger has PAID but makes a mistake or someone steals their tickets they are not GETTING AWAY with anything. Only dishonest people "get away" with things. You do not seem to grasp the concept of justice. Here are...

Under English law a person IS innocent until proven guilty. This case was never tried and I would have taken them to task under 18 (iii) having asked the barrier inspector why it did not work on the auto-barrier. It is open to question whether the by-laws are subject to consumer legislation...

I think you have missed the point. I purchased my ticket in advance. I am talking about justice and not the technical strict liability that arises under 18 (1). Justice demands that the innocent not be persecuted. If a passenger pays, justice demands that they not be asked to pay again...

The Mods let me know that the other thread is locked so this may get merged. Just to let everyone know that, following representations by a Detective Inspector from the transport police to Southern Rail (who had referred the matter to the CPS for their view), their prosecution against me has...

I agree that some people do try to play the system. But equally some passengers make honest mistakes and a system that utilises fear and initimidation without any discretion will eventually be taken to task. Room for discretion should always be allowed and especially in cases like my own where...

I think most are agreed that there is no case to answer for intentional fare evasion. However, this is the only basis of their claim and because there is no reasonabale justification for threatening a criminal prosecution based on intentional fare evasion the Section 21 Theft Act Offence...

If they chnage the statement of facts to refer to a strict liability offense I may offer settlement if thmannedey withdraw their claim--even then they will have difficulty as Section 18 (3) (iii) provides a defence if a person in authority authorised travel. As previously stated, I attempted to...

The Statment of Facts is set out in RPSS letter. No summonse-only an indication that legal proceedings have been commenced to answerthe facts set out in their letter. It reads like an indictment and states as the basis for the claim that I did not pay the FARE due. It then goes on to say that...

Complicated indeed. Section 5 of the RRA provides as follows: (3)If any person— . (a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or Intent is necssary. I agree that I only had part of a valid ticket but...

Quite--but so far they are proceeding on the basis of "intentional fare evasion" and in their statement of facts they said the fare was not paid for the journey. They are not referring in the notification of proceedings anything related to failing to hand over a ticket--they assume I did not...

I will have to consider how to proceed if Southern let me know what legislation they will use. It gets sticky because RPSS are their agents and anything they pass on to me is binding on Southern. Thus, if they change their minds and rely on a completely different set of laws I could argue that...

Very helpful--thank you. You are right that RPSS will hand this back to Southern as it is Southern that the Police have paid a visit to and one of their senior managers is apparently looking into the case.

I think it is arguable that the inspector at the barrier was reasonably relied upon by me to do his job--inspect. Waving me through after I pointed out that the ticklets failed to operate the barrier would suggest to a reasonable judge that the inspector failed in his duty and led me to believe...

Its not so much courage as outrage! As they qualify their quotation of the relevant act with a charge that requires intent I think the vagueness would be construed in my favour. No charge can stick if it is a breachof "other legislation." I will keep you all informed of progress. As of...

18(3) iii. No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket. I appreciate your caution. I would argue that I relied on the gateline staff to approve of the ticket I was carrying because it failed to work the...

It has been useful so my thanks to all. I will press on as, so far, the Rail network are threating criminal proceedings for "intentional fare evasion." I can prove payment and thus no intent and that is really the end of it. If they amend their allegations to include some other offence...

From their letter the prosecution is based on "Intentional Fare evasion." This is why I am repeating the requirement of intent. The first threatening letter simply refers to Section 5.3a of the RRA 1889 or other current legislation. For a charge to be made it must specify what Statute is...