Ignored mg11?

[jon0844]

The circumstances could mean a very lenient punishment though. Isn't that for a court to decide?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The circumstances could mean a very lenient punishment though. Isn't that for a court to decide?

Yes, as part of aggravating and mitigating factors of sentencing.

 

[RPI]

I very much doubt that this will be charged as a byelaw somehow! the intent is clear, and to say that the penalties are too high is rediculous, if they were too high then it would be a deterrent and no-one would fare dodge!

 

[Stigy]

The circumstances could mean a very lenient punishment though. Isn't that for a court to decide?

The fact that the OP is on JSA will dictate a much lesser fine at least (probably about £100?)

 

[jon0844]

if they were too high then it would be a deterrent and no-one would fare dodge!

Exactly. It would be a good thing, not a bad thing. You don't make fines really low so not to punish people who break the law!

 

[al_zaine]

I accept what I did was wrong but in the grand scheme of things it truly is a minor offense. I was truly bemused when The ticket inspector told me I could go to court. I told him that it was a bit extreme and he replied that it's the same as stealing a tin of beans lol. So what was his point I wonder? In a honest society they would never prosecute for tin of beans... or this! I have not been dishonest, I'm just a chancer and took a gamble which I lost but to give me a criminal record and a fine of somewhere in the region of £250-£300 is absurd, especially if you take into consideration that I only got a total fine of £185 for possession of 2oz and a quarter of Weed! Basically Its because a big company own the trains whereas no big company owns weed. They probably make their profit of foolish fare evaders like me but to be honst I don't know where the money goes because the trains are the exact same as they have been for years! Now I know why they have all those community police officers at the train stations for fare evaders. Its the same as when they sit at the side of roads pulling over loads of cars and inspecting them for being road safe (more like checking for road tax)..... its all about taking money... from both the rich and the poor.
Again I will like to just state that I know I was in the wrong and I would accept it as fair to pay anything up to £150 but beyond that is just what I am being prosecuted for... theft!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

In a honest society they would never prosecute for tin of beans... or this!

Umm... yes they do.

 

[al_zaine]

Umm... yes they do.

Erm yeah they do! BECAUSE it's not an honest society with common sense! and the court's waste their time with giving people fines while letting people walk who have carried a knife for example. I don't think you understood me ralphchadkirk.

 

[EM2]

I have not been dishonest...I will like to just state that I know I was in the wrong

Of course you have been dishonest. You boarded a train, with no ticket and with no money. You therefore had no intention of *buying* a ticket. You wanted a free trip.
And then you state you know you were in the wrong. So you know that what you did was dishonest.

 

[the sniper]

Erm yeah they do! BECAUSE it's not an honest society with common sense!

The irony of someone who's committed at least two offences moaning about the lack of an honest society is rather bemusing...

 

[Stigy]

I accept what I did was wrong but in the grand scheme of things it truly is a minor offense. I was truly bemused when The ticket inspector told me I could go to court. I told him that it was a bit extreme and he replied that it's the same as stealing a tin of beans lol. So what was his point I wonder? In a honest society they would never prosecute for tin of beans... or this! I have not been dishonest, I'm just a chancer and took a gamble which I lost but to give me a criminal record and a fine of somewhere in the region of £250-£300 is absurd, especially if you take into consideration that I only got a total fine of £185 for possession of 2oz and a quarter of Weed! Basically Its because a big company own the trains whereas no big company owns weed. They probably make their profit of foolish fare evaders like me but to be honst I don't know where the money goes because the trains are the exact same as they have been for years! Now I know why they have all those community police officers at the train stations for fare evaders. Its the same as when they sit at the side of roads pulling over loads of cars and inspecting them for being road safe (more like checking for road tax)..... its all about taking money... from both the rich and the poor.
Again I will like to just state that I know I was in the wrong and I would accept it as fair to pay anything up to £150 but beyond that is just what I am being prosecuted for... theft!

I don't like JSA to be honest, but I put up with it and keep paying for it with all the other tax payers

You say you're honest, yet you bunk trains and get done for possesion of weed. £185 fine? I imagine it wasn't your first time, and a caution was out of the question tghen...Hmm, honest.

 

[al_zaine]

I think your idea of honesty is different than mine. I have not lied in anyway, although I know people who have given false names and addresses and not been found out, for a number of things, including the cigarette police :P
I expected someone to voice their opinion about the JSA factor. What can I say, other than if you weren't paying taxes towards helping people sustain a life while out of work which could include yourself one day it would only go towards funding some weapons to kill people in a war or something.
The weed was my first offense actually, which was in 2008 and I've actually quit smoking totally from 8-9months ago, so best to stop painting a picture of me in your mind based on these tidbits of information. Yes I am on JSA and yes I have been caught on the train without a ticket but I'm not a bad person and at the end of the day, I will pay the fine and get the added conviction on my criminal record and carry on with my life.

 

[222007]

The fact that the OP is on JSA will dictate a much lesser fine at least (probably about £100?)

A case i was at court for got a reduced fine but only because there JSA had been STOPPED. other the judge said the fine would have been a higher so i'm not convinced that would help.

Also on the subject of a tin of beans. You take them with paying its shoplifting well by jumping on a train and not paying for the service is the railway equivilent (apologizes for the spelling) of shoplifting. Also i'd like to add that anyone who thinks fines that can be dished out for the offence here including the OP should realise a crime is a crime regardless and should be punished especially as the OP has admitted deliberate fare avasion!

 

[Stigy]

A case i was at court for got a reduced fine but only because there JSA had been STOPPED. other the judge said the fine would have been a higher so i'm not convinced that would help

JSA alone wont lessen the fine, but the means form will, assuming the OP is skint. If they fail to fill in the means form or they fill it in incorrectly, then the fine will likely be higher.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think your idea of honesty is different than mine. I have not lied in anyway, although I know people who have given false names and addresses and not been found out, for a number of things, including the cigarette police :P
I expected someone to voice their opinion about the JSA factor. What can I say, other than if you weren't paying taxes towards helping people sustain a life while out of work which could include yourself one day it would only go towards funding some weapons to kill people in a war or something.
The weed was my first offense actually, which was in 2008 and I've actually quit smoking totally from 8-9months ago, so best to stop painting a picture of me in your mind based on these tidbits of information. Yes I am on JSA and yes I have been caught on the train without a ticket but I'm not a bad person and at the end of the day, I will pay the fine and get the added conviction on my criminal record and carry on with my life.

I apologise if I'm stereotyping, but.....JSA, Fare evader and been convicted for possesion tends to speak for itself in most cases. I have nothing against JSA if used correctly, but you painted your own picture a few posts back, which did look frighteningly like the usual suspects I see all too often, using the abreviation 'JSA' very loosely...

 

[al_zaine]

crime is a crime regardless

I hear that, but you're not going to send someone away for 10 years for stealing a tin of beans nor are you going to give a fine to a rapist.
All I'm saying is the £250-£300 fine doesn't match the crime, showing that with the fine I received for a large quantity of illegal substance on my person back in 2008!
The fine don't match the crime, that's my point! personally no more than £150 is fair. Yeah, you can be flexible depending on what train and for how long the journey is but my journey was extremely small.

I apologise if I'm stereotyping

It's ok, I understand.

 

[222007]

but you're not going to send someone away for 10 years for stealing a tin of beans

Nah just 5 years

 

[spacehopper]

Latest UPFN I did many months ago has just gone to court fare £2.00, fined by the court just under £300. This isn't some nasty RPI catching some unemployed pot head with a unvalid ticket and doing a PF. This was chance for an honest passenger to pay railway what was owed. They decided not too resulting cost much more than a few cans of beans.

 

[RPI]

the best one I saw in the magistrates was a £950.00 fine for a £4.70 fare! and that was a businessman from a certain town with a racecourse near Reading.....

wasn't a first offence though.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I've kept out of this thread so far, but for the benefit of others following this in the future, I do want to confirm that Stigy has correctly stated the sentencing procedure :-

JSA alone wont lessen the fine, but the means form will, assuming the OP is skint. If they fail to fill in the means form or they fill it in incorrectly, then the fine will likely be higher.

 

[Yew]

Surely there is some better way than hundreds of pounds woth of fine, for a few pounds of fare that could have been entirely accidental (rush to get on time for a train, forget wallet and tickets)

I work at tesco, and when sombody fills up their car without any cash, they put their details and sign a promise to pay. Unless they drive off OFC. Surely the railways could do somthing similar?

I suppose the issue is Balancing punishing fare evaders, and Helping the average joe that gets caught short

 

[clagmonster]

Yew, on the railway if you turn up at a staffed booking office with no cash, you can arrange for someone else to pay on your behalf from another station. This is the railway's equivalent to the TESCO form filling exercise. This can help people caught short.
Someone walking past said booking office and onto the train with no cash is the equivalent to driving away from the petrol station.

 

[spacehopper]

Surely there is some better way than hundreds of pounds woth of fine, for a few pounds of fare that could have been entirely accidental (rush to get on time for a train, forget wallet and tickets)

I work at tesco, and when sombody fills up their car without any cash, they put their details and sign a promise to pay. Unless they drive off OFC. Surely the railways could do somthing similar?

I suppose the issue is Balancing punishing fare evaders, and Helping the average joe that gets caught short

Well that's what they were given- the DFS option- pay later- just they didn't pay later so ends up in court.

 

[yorkie]

Yew, on the railway if you turn up at a staffed booking office with no cash, you can arrange for someone else to pay on your behalf from another station. This is the railway's equivalent to the TESCO form filling exercise. This can help people caught short.
Someone walking past said booking office and onto the train with no cash is the equivalent to driving away from the petrol station.

No, you've got it mixed up I think!

If someone put petrol in their car, then went to pay (after putting petrol in) and then realised they had accidentally left their wallet at home, they would be asked to pay later, and not threatened with prosecution.

If someone does the same by train, they would be threatened with prosecution!

I think Yew is proposing that, providing someone wasn't caught walking out of their destination station without declaring their need to pay, they should be offered a similar facility.

The railway scenario of someone seeking to buy a ticket without any cash would be the equivalent of going into a petrol station before inserting any petrol and asking if they have permission to put in the petrol and pay later. I do not know if petrol stations offer such a facility and I do not believe Yew's post implies that they do (or, for that matter, that they do not) as it doesn't appear to address that scenario.

 

[clagmonster]

Possibly so. That said, I suppose a better analogy is an UPFN, which can be given in some cases if a passenger is on a train without means to pay the full fare. Presumably in this case, for whatever reason, it was deemed more appropriate to go straight down the MG11 route in this case.

 

[bb21]

I hear that, but you're not going to send someone away for 10 years for stealing a tin of beans nor are you going to give a fine to a rapist.
All I'm saying is the £250-£300 fine doesn't match the crime, showing that with the fine I received for a large quantity of illegal substance on my person back in 2008!
The fine don't match the crime, that's my point! personally no more than £150 is fair. Yeah, you can be flexible depending on what train and for how long the journey is but my journey was extremely small.

Look mate. It is perfectly understandable that you feel aggrieved by the potential consequences and felt (rightly or wrongly) that it is a punishment that is way too harsh. Especially when you are already in a difficult situation, it could feel even worse. However fairness is a subjective word. Everyone has a different perception as to what constitutes fair treatment, and who is to say what is universally fair and what is not? A serious crime in one person's eyes might not seem a big deal in someone else's, and vice versa. We form our own opinions based on things from our upbringing, surrounding environment, friends and family, media, etc. In my own opinion, theft (which is what you effectively did) is far more serious than being caught in possession of some Class B/C drug, but this is only my opinion. Unfortunately the law does not distinguish the degree to which you have committed a crime, in respect of a criminal record, but rather whether you were guilty or not. If you end up being found guilty, then you really cannot say that a criminal record is unfair as you committed a crime. If you feel that it is unfair that a small mistake like this can end up costing you your future, such as in employment, then I feel that your frustration should really be directed at the potential employers that might reject you for such a small matter, rather than the railway.

All I can say is follow the advice given here, as many people on this forum have a wealth of experience in these matters. This is the way the law is at the moment, until it is changed in the future. It might be a dear lesson, however I'm sure that you will learn in the future not to do it again. Best of luck and I'm afraid you might need it.

 

[island]

I work at tesco, and when sombody fills up their car without any cash, they put their details and sign a promise to pay. Unless they drive off OFC. Surely the railways could do somthing similar?

The distinction here is that until the person drives off, it is a civil matter — the person has incurred a debt to Tesco and agrees to pay it. The same applies if you are unable to pay for a taxi or unwilling to pay the full bill in a restaurant because you were dissatisfied with the food quality; as long as you provide your (genuine) name and address you are entitled to walk out the door unmolested.

On the train, it is a criminal matter because of Railway Byelaw 18 (failure to produce a ticket on demand), and perhaps the Regulation of Railways Act (travelling with intent to avoid payment of fare). If a customer is genuinely without funds and is at a staffed station, they have several options, including having someone else pay over the phone for them, before they travel.

 

[Stigy]

The distinction here is that until the person drives off, it is a civil matter — the person has incurred a debt to Tesco and agrees to pay it. The same applies if you are unable to pay for a taxi or unwilling to pay the full bill in a restaurant because you were dissatisfied with the food quality; as long as you provide your (genuine) name and address you are entitled to walk out the door unmolested.

On the train, it is a criminal matter because of Railway Byelaw 18 (failure to produce a ticket on demand), and perhaps the Regulation of Railways Act (travelling with intent to avoid payment of fare). If a customer is genuinely without funds and is at a staffed station, they have several options, including having someone else pay over the phone for them, before they travel.

Very well put. In this scenario though, the OP intentionally set out to avoid payment, which would be the equivalent to a drive-off at a petrol station. Having said that, even, as you say, the Byelaw 18 offence is criminal as opposed to Civil, whereby no direct intention to avoid payment needs to be established. Obviously different at a fuel station, as the matter is always civil, unless the driver just drives off, then it becomes theft.

The Penalty Fare is a civil matter, only becoming criminal if left unpaid, as the original byelaw is to be prosecuted as opposed to the civil matter of an unpaid debt.

 

[Flamingo]

Large penalties are applied to the STATISTICALLY VERY FEW cases of fare evasion that come to court 'Pour encourager les autres' (as Voltare said).

However, in my (limited) experience, it's usually repeat offenders that end up in court, or a history of previous offences.

Sorry mate, you are the one that may be made an example of this time.

 

[al_zaine]

Large penalties are applied to the STATISTICALLY VERY FEW cases of fare evasion that come to court 'Pour encourager les autres' (as Voltare said).

However, in my (limited) experience, it's usually repeat offenders that end up in court, or a history of previous offences.

Sorry mate, you are the one that may be made an example of this time.

What you have posted makes absolutely no sense to me. You start by saying not many of the cases brought to court receive a large fine and continue telling me that its usually repeat offenders or those with a history of previous offenses that even end up in court yet for some reason I will be made an example of. How did you come to that conclusion? was it the part about having previous offenses that gave you the impression I would be made an example of? That for me can be the only thing that would allow your post to make sense.

 

[Stigy]

Large penalties are applied to the STATISTICALLY VERY FEW cases of fare evasion that come to court 'Pour encourager les autres' (as Voltare said).

However, in my (limited) experience, it's usually repeat offenders that end up in court, or a history of previous offences.

Sorry mate, you are the one that may be made an example of this time.

It's only statistically very few when you take in to account a lot of first offenders offer to settle the matter out of court. If nobody done this, then 9 times out of 10 the TOC will continue to court. If no offer if made by the offender, then the only other option is to proceed to court.

Even first offences can end up in court, and it all depends on the severity of the offence. For many a 5.3(a), I'd imagine the TOCs will proceed to court anyway. For ticketing Byelaws however, depending on the case, I'd imagine TOCs find it far easier to settle out of court.