Fare evasion or avoidance?

[Antman]

No. Travelling by train every day without buying a ticket is evidence of criminal intent.

But in this case there are no facilities for him to buy a ticket are there?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Travelling by train every day without buying a ticket is evidence of criminal intent.

It may be evidence of intent to evade the fare due, but I don't see how you are so certain. If the origin and destination are unstaffed, with no TVM, and the passenger pays when approached, it would be impossible to show intent to evade the fare, even if the passenger admits they choose a certain part of the train because the guard isn't usually in it. Sitting away from the guard and hoping to escape is not fare evasion, unless you've deliberately walked past an opportunity to buy the ticket.

 

[najaB]

But in this case there are no facilities for him to buy a ticket are there?

There are. From the guard on the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It may be evidence of intent to evade the fare due, but I don't see how you are so certain.

That's the point - they would put the evidence before the court and have a magistrate decide if the evidence is compulsive enough.

 

[yorkie]

There are. From the guard on the train.

Only if the NRCoC is changed to require a particular coach to be boarded. This suggestion has been made before and there are good reasons against it.

 

[najaB]

Only if the NRCoC is changed to require a particular coach to be boarded. This suggestion has been made before and there are good reasons against it.

Oh, I understand that and agree that they shouldn't be changed. What I'm pointing out is that a passenger who is observed repeatedly choosing to board in the carriage that would allow ticketless travel, could well be found to have demonstrated intent to avoid payment.

Do it once - no problem. Do it thirty times - questionable at best.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...If the origin and destination are unstaffed, with no TVM, and the passenger pays when approached, it would be impossible to show intent to evade the fare...

Thought about this some more and paying on demand is actually giving the TOC a gift. Paying on demand shows that the passenger (a) knows that a fare is due; and (a) knows that it's possible to pay that fare on the train.

Subsequently continuing to travel for free by avoiding the guard is arguably clear evidence of intent to avoid payment. Again, it's not about any single instance but rather the pattern of behaviour.

 

[exile]

Oh, I understand that and agree that they shouldn't be changed. What I'm pointing out is that a passenger who is observed repeatedly choosing to board in the carriage that would allow ticketless travel, could well be found to have demonstrated intent to avoid payment.

And who's going to "observe" this behaviour? The Archangel Gabriel? Certainly not the conductor.

I know for a fact that if I join a particular train at an unstaffed station and get off at another one, I will never be asked to purchase a ticket, regardless of where I sit. Is this evidence of criminal intent?

 

[Antman]

There are. From the guard on the train.

But if the guard doesn't go into the part of the train he travels in the passenger has had no opportunity to buy a ticket!

 

[najaB]

And who's going to "observe" this behaviour? The Archangel Gabriel? Certainly not the conductor.

Some TOCs do have plainclothes inspectors who do exactly this.

I know for a fact that if I join a particular train at an unstaffed station and get off at another one, I will never be asked to purchase a ticket, regardless of where I sit. Is this evidence of criminal intent?

If there is no way it was possible to buy a ticket, then no.

But we're discussing the case of someone who actively avoids the opportunity to buy a ticket. In reb0118's example, the passenger is repeatedly observed deliberately avoiding the guard by boarding the front unit which means they have to walk further and stand out in the elements rather than boarding by the nearest door and being able to take shelter. He described it as a quiet service so it can't be in order to get a seat.

A magistrate being presented this evidence will be asked to consider if these are reasonable actions or demonstrate intent to avoid payment.

 

[exile]

Some TOCs do have plainclothes inspectors who do exactly this.

Watching where people sit?

A magistrate being presented this evidence will be asked to consider if these are reasonable actions or demonstrate intent to avoid payment.

A magistrate with an ounce of common sense would tell the prosecution to get stuffed, on the basis that we are not obliged to sit in particular parts of the train (as long as the accommodation is of the correct class) in order to avoid prosecution, and advise the TOC to hire staff to sell tickets rather than plain clothes inspectors to entrap passengers.

 

[Llanigraham]

Watching where people sit?



A magistrate with an ounce of common sense would tell the prosecution to get stuffed, on the basis that we are not obliged to sit in particular parts of the train (as long as the accommodation is of the correct class) in order to avoid prosecution, and advise the TOC to hire staff to sell tickets rather than plain clothes inspectors to entrap passengers.

The magistrates will listen to the evidence given to them and form an opinion on that. They will not (and cannot) tell a TOC to do anything like you suggest.

 

[najaB]

Watching where people sit?

Among other things, yes. Where they have reasons to suspect that a passenger has been fare dodging they will conduct surveillance operations.

A magistrate with an ounce of common sense would tell the prosecution to get stuffed, on the basis that we are not obliged to sit in particular parts of the train (as long as the accommodation is of the correct class) in order to avoid prosecution, and advise the TOC to hire staff to sell tickets rather than plain clothes inspectors to entrap passengers.

I'm sorry but that is not the case. A magistrate will look at the evidence presented and evaluate it against the charges that have been laid. As long as the evidence has been gathered lawfully they won't concern themselves with the operations of the train company.

 

[Antman]

A magistrate with an ounce of common sense would tell the prosecution to get stuffed, on the basis that we are not obliged to sit in particular parts of the train (as long as the accommodation is of the correct class) in order to avoid prosecution, and advise the TOC to hire staff to sell tickets rather than plain clothes inspectors to entrap passengers.[/QUOTE]



I think you've hit the nail on the head and I cannot imagine any TOC would be wasting resources watching where a particular passenger sits in the first place!

 

[simonw]

Watching where people sit?



A magistrate with an ounce of common sense would tell the prosecution to get stuffed, on the basis that we are not obliged to sit in particular parts of the train (as long as the accommodation is of the correct class) in order to avoid prosecution, and advise the TOC to hire staff to sell tickets rather than plain clothes inspectors to entrap passengers.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of entrapment.

 

[najaB]

I think you've hit the nail on the head and I cannot imagine any TOC would be wasting resources watching where a particular passenger sits in the first place!

As I said several times, it is unlikely to happen in anything other than the most extreme cases.

 

[Llanigraham]

I think you've hit the nail on the head and I cannot imagine any TOC would be wasting resources watching where a particular passenger sits in the first place!

Magistrates listen to the EVIDENCE put before them. They do not take anything else into account.

 

[6Gman]

My take is simply that the rail industry is fundamentally fraudulent and dishonest in its charging structure and the way it treats passengers so whatever you can do to regain the advantage without committing a criminal offence or telling lies is fair game - whether split ticketing, loophole tickets or strategic sitting!

No it isn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In this scenario, if the guard had come round on your return journey, should one offer to pay for the morning's journey as well? No-one would, of course...

I would. I have.

It's called honesty.

Paying your share.

 

[bb21]

This is just going around in circles. Closed.