Fine/Prosecution Letter SWT

[MikeWh]

Many laws hinge on what is reasonable, and ultimately, a judge or jury will decide based on the facts of the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

Which is of course why TOCs will often not let a case get anywhere near a court if there is any doubt that the judgement might go against them.

 

[jacksonbang]

Well if you still havent found your ticket after 5 minutes then there is something wrong with you or you don't have it on your person.
?

Or you are sane and have misplaced the ticket on your person? Surely this can happen on a massively used railway service although I fully accept to cross an open barrier without the ticket to hand will always look somewhat suspicious.

Actually an interesting idea would be to have closed barriers.

 

[Clip]

Or you are sane and have misplaced the ticket on your person? Surely this can happen on a massively used railway service although I fully accept to cross an open barrier without the ticket to hand will always look somewhat suspicious.

Actually an interesting idea would be to have closed barriers.

Which is why the rest of my post you didnt quote states that just about everyone wouldve had or at least found their ticket before they get to the barrier.

 

[Deerfold]

The man on the Croydon omnibus is the common answer.

I've never heard that answer before.

The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is quite common.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

 

[Islineclear3_1]

And not forgetting the "forgotten" disabilities that aren't visually obvious such as there are people who have mild learning disabilities with poor planning and executive function, those with dyslexia etc who would benefit by having a little more extra time to look for their ticket

But of course, one can argue that these people should then prepare by starting to look for their ticket when their train nears its destination

 

[jacksonbang]

Which is why the rest of my post you didnt quote states that just about everyone wouldve had or at least found their ticket before they get to the barrier.

Agreed. Using an open barrier without the ticket to hand but with a self assurance that it is on you somewhere is a risk.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . I am very shocked that they have so much power (which clearly enables them to go beyond what the regulations were intended for).

You shouldn't be.
Anyone can bring a Private Prosecution - whether or not there is industry-specific legislation; and many bodies are empowered to create Byelaws which they may bring forward to a Prosecution.

From memory, there's already been one (unsuccessful) judicial review challenging the validity of the byelaws as a whole.

Convictions under the earlier versions of the Railway Byelaws were quite often overturned on Appeal where the Byelaws were found to be ultra vires. In recent times, I am not aware of any JR, but there were two challenges by way of Appeal - Boddington took his challenge to the Byelaws to the House of Lords but it was dismissed following a lengthy analysis ( Boddington vs British Transport Police [1998] UKHL 13 ), and Inegbu took his challenge to the Appeal Court but in a counter-appeal by the CPS it was held that the mechanism of prosecuting Railway Byelaws was valid ( Crown Prosecution Service v Inegbu (2008) EWHC 3242 ).

Additionally, you might have questions as to whether the £100 sought is a fair and accurate assessment of the direct costs incurred in your case. See for example this judgement

Is that helpful? It was a Chancery case, a matter of equity it seems, and not a Criminal conviction. The question of costs in a Private Prosecution is an interesting one, but with the potential to recover costs and compensation from a Private Prosecution through the Courts, as debated in Zinga, (R (Virgin Media Ltd) v Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52) then I don't see where the notoriously frivolous litigant Perotti helps us.

 

[furlong]

it was held that the mechanism of prosecuting Railway Byelaws was valid ( Crown Prosecution Service v Inegbu (2008) EWHC 3242 ).

Thanks, that was the case I was thinking of, so not JR. To my knowledge, the specific questions relating to byelaw 18 have not been considered.

Regarding the question of the level of out of court settlements, indeed I can find nothing directly applicable, only several other judgements (and DfT correspondence released through FOI) that suggest the courts would only enforce compensation for loss and direct costs relating to an actual prosecution or settlement and there can be no element of indirect costs or penalty. Contrast this situation with Penalty Fares where it is clear that the company concerned can legitimately keep the proceeds and make profit.

 

[Haywain]

Regarding the question of the level of out of court settlements, indeed I can find nothing directly applicable, only several other judgements (and DfT correspondence released through FOI) that suggest the courts would only enforce compensation for loss and direct costs relating to an actual prosecution or settlement and there can be no element of indirect costs or penalty. Contrast this situation with Penalty Fares where it is clear that the company concerned can legitimately keep the proceeds and make profit.

I'm not sure what penalty fares have got to do with court imposed fines and costs, given that the former are provided for by specific legislation. They are not the same as an out of court settlement in any way.

 

[jmenzies31]

Just an update for everyone. I sent a letter to SWT notifying them I intend not to settle and that I felt I would be able to successfully defend any attempt to prosecute and set out the reasons discussed earlier in the thread. I received a response yesterday confirming the matter was now closed.

Doesn't really add much in the way of helping others in the future other than confirming the sentiment that they don't tend to prosecute unless it's watertight.

Thanks for all your input.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Great to hear the outcome, thanks.

Yes, you're quite right that a prosecution should not proceed where the totality of the Evidence does not suggest that it would succeed (a principle known as "the full code test" which would also apply if it was the state that was bringing a criminal prosecution for some other offence).

 

[bb21]

Just an update for everyone. I sent a letter to SWT notifying them I intend not to settle and that I felt I would be able to successfully defend any attempt to prosecute and set out the reasons discussed earlier in the thread. I received a response yesterday confirming the matter was now closed.

Doesn't really add much in the way of helping others in the future other than confirming the sentiment that they don't tend to prosecute unless it's watertight.

Thanks for all your input.

Sounds about right.

A very odd case to pursue if they did.