Crime and punishment

[exile]

If someone inadvertently breaches a railway bylaw is it fair to describe this as a "crime"?

"The Railway Byelaws may be pursued in a similar manner, though do have 3 significant differences from the other Acts we’ve mentioned:
a) they create Offences which do not result in a Criminal record (and would not normally appear from a CRB check of the PNC if successfully prosecuted);"

 

[cool110]

Yes, while they are not recordable offences they are still tried in criminal courts. In addition as they are strict liability offences intent does not matter in any way.

 

[najaB]

Yes. They have broken a law, so it's a crime.

 

[Llanigraham]

CRIME: The breaking of a Law.
CRIMINAL: Those that break Laws.

It does not matter what the Law is, from By Law to Statute, if you break it you have committed a CRIME.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If someone inadvertently breaches a railway bylaw is it fair to describe this as a "crime"?

It would be very unfair (and untrue) to describe a breach of any Statute, the common law or Byelaw as anything other than 'a crime'. Crimes are only created by breaches of these 3 categories of action.

Whether they are intentional or inadvertent breaches can be a defence to many breaches, but not all. There is no correspondence between whether 'intent' might be a defence or not, and whether the crime is under a Statute, the common law or a Byelaw.

Your question relates to Crime and Intention, but your thread title refers to Crime and Punishment. Is there something you 'intended' to learn but 'inadvertently' failed to ask?

 

[CheesyChips]

There should be extra points for using the that exact thread title with your username Exile!

 

[exile]

Yes, while they are not recordable offences they are still tried in criminal courts. In addition as they are strict liability offences intent does not matter in any way.

"The Railway Byelaws may be pursued in a similar manner, though do have 3 significant differences from the other Acts we’ve mentioned:
a) they create Offences which do not result in a Criminal record (and would not normally appear from a CRB check of the PNC if successfully prosecuted);"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am, of course, thinking of 18.2, which you can be in breach of if someone steals your wallet with your ticket in it.

The trouble with attaching emotive words to offences which are technical is that they lose their common sense meaning. If someone who has their wallet stolen is a criminal, what do you call the person who stole the wallet?

 

[najaB]

The trouble with attaching emotive words to offences which are technical is that they lose their common sense meaning.

As soon as you asked the question on the previous thread I knew this was what you were getting at. The words "crime" and "criminal" are being used in their literal senses with no 'emotional baggage' attached. Breaking the Byelaws is a crime and is punished in the criminal legal system.

If someone who has their wallet stolen is a criminal, what do you call the person who stole the wallet?

Also a criminal for committing a separate criminal offence.

 

[exile]

"The Railway Byelaws may be pursued in a similar manner, though do have 3 significant differences from the other Acts we’ve mentioned:
a) they create Offences which do not result in a Criminal record (and would not normally appear from a CRB check of the PNC if successfully prosecuted);"

I know I've repeated this a few times before but no-one is taking any notice of it.

The fact you don't get a criminal record for a breach of a bylaw means that officialdom does recognise a difference between the two types of offence.

So - if you evade fares (intent being established by, for example, failing to buy tickets at origin, on train, or destination) that is treated differently from bylaws 18.1 or 18.2

The legal system is there to achieve justice - and the cause of justice is not helped by calling someone who has their wallet stolen a "criminal".

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought for a minute we were in for an essay on Dostoyevsky.
This was WS Gilbert's satirical take on making the punishment fit the (railway) crime (The Mikado, 1885):

The idiot who, in railway carriages,
Scribbles on window-panes,
We only suffer
To ride on a buffer
In Parliamentary trains

 

[Haywain]

The legal system is there to achieve justice - and the cause of justice is not helped by calling someone who has their wallet stolen a "criminal".

Having a wallet stolen does not make someone a criminal, it is a seperate event that does that. However, such circumstances would seem highly likely to see the victim of the first crime benefitting from discretion at the detection of the second, in my opinion.

 

[najaB]

I know I've repeated this a few times before but no-one is taking any notice of it.

We've noticed it. And noticed that it's totally irrelevant. There are many non-recordable crimes. They are still a result of breaches of the law and are still prosecuted through the criminal legal system.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . .
I know I've repeated this a few times before but no-one is taking any notice of it.

The fact you don't get a criminal record for a breach of a bylaw means that officialdom does recognise a difference between the two types of offence.

The distinction you are trying to illustrate here is true across all areas of criminal law, and not just on the railways.

There is an explanation on this forum of which Offences will be recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) and which will not, here : http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2177302#post2177302

If you look at the leading source, the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations, you'll see that some Statutes create both types of offences - the recordable and the non-recordable.

It's not "the fact you don't get a criminal record for a breach of a bylaw means that officialdom does recognise a difference between the two types of offence" but that we have the National Police Records Regulations which categorises the two consequences of committing offences - recordable and non-recordable.

 

[Llanigraham]

"The Railway Byelaws may be pursued in a similar manner, though do have 3 significant differences from the other Acts we’ve mentioned:
a) they create Offences which do not result in a Criminal record (and would not normally appear from a CRB check of the PNC if successfully prosecuted);"

I know I've repeated this a few times before but no-one is taking any notice of it.

The fact you don't get a criminal record for a breach of a bylaw means that officialdom does recognise a difference between the two types of offence.

So - if you evade fares (intent being established by, for example, failing to buy tickets at origin, on train, or destination) that is treated differently from bylaws 18.1 or 18.2

The legal system is there to achieve justice - and the cause of justice is not helped by calling someone who has their wallet stolen a "criminal".

I suggest that you do some research into the British Legal system before carrying on with this "discussion".
To break a Law means that you have committed a CRIME, and just because it is a By law offence on the Railway, or in any other place, make no difference; you have committed a CRIME and therefore are a CRIMINAL.

And I am quite sure that if your last "example" ever occurred, then as long as the theft of the wallet was reported to the Police then it would be looked upon favourably by the railway company, which of course does not fit with your anti-rail opinion.

 

[krus_aragon]

This was WS Gilbert's satirical take on making the punishment fit the (railway) crime (The Mikado, 1885):

Or how about this updated version, for Northern Rail:

The idiot who, in railway carriages,
Hides himself in the bogs,
Without a ticket,
Will be told where to stick it,
And pay eighty quid, clever clogs.

 

[PaulLothian]

I suggest that you do some research into the British Legal system before carrying on with this "discussion"...

Worth noting there is of course no such thing as the "British Legal system"!

England and Wales share one, and Northern Ireland has a system that has similarities to E&W, but is nevertheless distinctively different.

Scotland has its own system which is substantially different. In Scotland, crimes are defined by Common Law, offences are defined by statute. Therefore ...

To break a Law means that you have committed a CRIME, and just because it is a By law offence on the Railway, or in any other place, make no difference; you have committed a CRIME and therefore are a CRIMINAL.

...is not totally accurate!

As to what Common Law is, I have heard it described as the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of the Scottish judicial system; it is based on past decisions, on changes made in the light of appeals, and on academic writings.

I have so far found no evidence of Scotrail pursuing prosecutions for fare evasion, but then its conductors are in my experience very efficient!

 

[najaB]

I have so far found no evidence of Scotrail pursuing prosecutions for fare evasion, but then its conductors are in my experience very efficient!

That is largely due to the fact that there's only been one (two?) private prosecution(s) in Scotland in the last century.

 

[PaulLothian]

That is largely due to the fact that there's only been one (two?) private prosecution(s) in Scotland in the last century.

Well, I knew there weren't many...

 

[exile]

I suggest that you do some research into the British Legal system before carrying on with this "discussion".
To break a Law means that you have committed a CRIME, and just because it is a By law offence on the Railway, or in any other place, make no difference; you have committed a CRIME and therefore are a CRIMINAL.

OK, where in the legal system are the words crime and criminal defined? Chapter and verse please

And I am quite sure that if your last "example" ever occurred, then as long as the theft of the wallet was reported to the Police then it would be looked upon favourably by the railway company, which of course does not fit with your anti-rail opinion.

It wouldn't be possible to report the theft until you discovered the loss. Whether such a case has occurred or not, the TOC would be within its rights to prosecute.

I'm not anti-rail - I am anti describing someone who is the innocent victim of an event being branded a criminal.

 

[Romilly]

OK, where in the legal system are the words crime and criminal defined? Chapter and verse please

In England and Wales, where a criminal offence is created by legislation, the wording used is along the lines "If a person [does something], the person commits/is guilty of an offence."

The legislation will then go on to fix the maximum fine and term of imprisonment if the person is convicted of the offence on indictment or if the person is summarily convicted (although some offences can be tried only in one of those ways: if so, only one of those ways will be mentioned).

Convicted on indictment means convicted following trial in the Crown Court. Summarily convicted means convicted by a magistrates' court. Both of those courts have jurisdiction in criminal cases. So what creates criminal liability in legislation is the use of "offence" in conjunction with "convicted on indictment" and/or "summarily convicted".

 

[najaB]

It wouldn't be possible to report the theft until you discovered the loss. Whether such a case has occurred or not, the TOC would be within its rights to prosecute.

On presentation of evidence of the theft - for example the police report - an attempt by the TOC to prosecute the ticketing offence would be thrown out by the magistrate on the grounds that it wasn't reasonable.

 

[DaleCooper]

OK, where in the legal system are the words crime and criminal defined? Chapter and verse please



It wouldn't be possible to report the theft until you discovered the loss. Whether such a case has occurred or not, the TOC would be within its rights to prosecute.

I'm not anti-rail - I am anti describing someone who is the innocent victim of an event being branded a criminal.

Your problem seems to be with your understanding of the word "criminal". A criminal is simply someone who is guilty of a crime and remember not all crimes are necessarily immoral acts in themselves, they are merely those acts which are defined by legislation as crimes. A criminal is not a bloke in a striped jumper carrying a bag marked swag, it is not a tattooed thug nor million pound fraudster it's just any ordinary citizen who happens to have committed a crime whether knowingly or not, it is you who is attaching unneccesary opprobrium to the word.

Remember, Nelson Mandela was a "criminal".

 

[Romilly]

To be fair to exile, legislation does not generally say "if you do this, you commit a criminal offence/crime" but achieves that result in the slightly indirect way that I described a couple of posts earlier.

Indeed, some offences in legislation start off looking just the same as any criminal offences but turn out to be civil offences because they are punishable with penalties which, if disputed, are considered by tribunals that form part of the civil justice system. Any first-year law student's textbook with an Introduction to the England & Wales Legal System will need quite a chunk of pages to address the division between the criminal and civil justice systems. Ultimately, though, if something is described in legislation as an offence, and is required by legislation to be tried in one or other of the Crown Court or magistrates' court, and if the court can impose a sentence on a person convicted of the offence, it is a criminal offence.

 

[exile]

In England and Wales, where a criminal offence is created by legislation, the wording used is along the lines "If a person [does something], the person commits/is guilty of an offence."

The legislation will then go on to fix the maximum fine and term of imprisonment if the person is convicted of the offence on indictment or if the person is summarily convicted (although some offences can be tried only in one of those ways: if so, only one of those ways will be mentioned).

Convicted on indictment means convicted following trial in the Crown Court. Summarily convicted means convicted by a magistrates' court. Both of those courts have jurisdiction in criminal cases. So what creates criminal liability in legislation is the use of "offence" in conjunction with "convicted on indictment" and/or "summarily convicted".

That isn't what I asked - which was a definition of the words "crime" and "criminal".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your problem seems to be with your understanding of the word "criminal". A criminal is simply someone who is guilty of a crime and remember not all crimes are necessarily immoral acts in themselves, they are merely those acts which are defined by legislation as crimes. A criminal is not a bloke in a striped jumper carrying a bag marked swag, it is not a tattooed thug nor million pound fraudster it's just any ordinary citizen who happens to have committed a crime whether knowingly or not, it is you who is attaching unneccesary opprobrium to the word.

Remember, Nelson Mandela was a "criminal".

So you're telling me the words "crime" and "criminal" have no negative connotations? Nonsense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair to exile, legislation does not generally say "if you do this, you commit a criminal offence/crime" but achieves that result in the slightly indirect way that I described a couple of posts earlier.

Indeed, some offences in legislation start off looking just the same as any criminal offences but turn out to be civil offences because they are punishable with penalties which, if disputed, are considered by tribunals that form part of the civil justice system. Any first-year law student's textbook with an Introduction to the England & Wales Legal System will need quite a chunk of pages to address the division between the criminal and civil justice systems. Ultimately, though, if something is described in legislation as an offence, and is required by legislation to be tried in one or other of the Crown Court or magistrates' court, and if the court can impose a sentence on a person convicted of the offence, it is a criminal offence.

That's your interpretation, which means that someone who has their wallet stolen (if it contains a train ticket), has committed a crime and is a criminal.

 

[ComUtoR]

I have committed a crime and I do not have a criminal record.

 

[exile]

On presentation of evidence of the theft - for example the police report - an attempt by the TOC to prosecute the ticketing offence would be thrown out by the magistrate on the grounds that it wasn't reasonable.

In the particular case that put me onto this train (!) of thought, the OP had lost their ticket. A loss can also be reported to the police, but apparently this wouldn't have moved the TOC to drop the case.

 

[ComUtoR]

That's your interpretation, which means that someone who has their wallet stolen (if it contains a train ticket), has committed a crime and is a criminal.

They are a victim.

 

[DaleCooper]

So you're telling me the words "crime" and "criminal" have no negative connotations? Nonsense.

It is you who are making those connotations, I see it as a spectrum from justified action against immoral regimes at one end to heinous crime at the other.

That's your interpretation, which means that someone who has their wallet stolen (if it contains a train ticket), has committed a crime and is a criminal.

You really need to be more precise if you're going along that line of argument. It is not a crime to have your wallet stolen even if it contains a train ticket, the crime, if any, might or might not follow. I think that has already been pointed out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have committed a crime and I do not have a criminal record.

Me too, more than once.

 

[Romilly]

.... which means that someone who has their wallet stolen (if it contains a train ticket), has committed a crime and is a criminal.

Not quite. The relevant offence under discussion is not producing a valid ticket when asked to do so by an authorised person. Accordingly, if there is no such request, there cannot be a crime: merely being a victim of a theft is not a crime.

In addition, not everyone who commits a crime is tried and convicted of it. I suspect that there is a difference of opinion as to whether "a criminal" means someone who commits a crime (even if not detected, or where detected but not prosecuted, or where prosecuted but found not guilty), or only someone who is convicted of committing the crime by a court. It's probably a case of different meanings in different contexts.

 

[exile]

So, to try to summarise the discussion

A crime can be defined as

1. A breach of criminal law (whether leading to a conviction or not) (ie a burglar who hasn't been caught is a criminal)

2. A offence that has led to a conviction in a criminal courts (whether or not a law is broken) (so a burglar who has not been caught is not a criminal)

3. An offence which has led to a conviction and will show up on a DBS (CRB) check, thus being evidence of a person having "bad character" and may be taken into account in a decision as to whether to employ them.

4. A general description of someone who is of bad character.

Presumably, which definition one chooses will depend on the context.

In the original thread, being rude to the OP was justified on the basis he had committed a crime, even though it was (according to the OP's evidence anyway) inadvertent.

I still maintain that was unfair.