intention to prosecute

[bb21]

The OP did not join a train without a valid ticket contrary to Railway Byelaw 18 (1) unless her train's first calling point was outside the Oyster PAYG area. All of the trains around the time the OP says she travels call at (among other places) West Hampstead Thameslink. So she had a valid ticket entitling her to travel with her when she joined the train. Byelaw 18 (1) does not require anything more.

The problem with Byelaw 18(1) is what is "a valid ticket entitling him to travel"? A valid ticket for any random journey from that station, or a valid ticket for the intended journey?

I would imagine most magistrates would interpret this as the latter, although it is not impossible for the former interpretation to prevail.

But as you say, this boils down to whether anyone would be willing to risk it, thereby a conviction and the associated financial costs, albeit without a criminal record.

 

[island]

You didn't say it had to call at more than one station - Watford Junction is inside the Oyster area. Though, I suppose, it's only timetabled as a pick-up call.

An Oyster card with only PAYG credit is not a valid ticket entitling you to travel on a train to Edinburgh, whereas it is a valid ticket entitling you to travel on a train to St Albans (although not all the way to St Albans itself).

 

[najaB]

An Oyster card with only PAYG credit is not a valid ticket entitling you to travel on a train to Edinburgh, whereas it is a valid ticket entitling you to travel on a train to St Albans (although not all the way to St Albans itself).

Edinburgh was used as hyperbole to emphasise that I don't believe a ticket/smartcard that is valid for travel from A to B is sufficient defence against a byelaws prosecution when the intention was to travel from A to C.

Substitute Edinburgh for Norwich if you want (with Stratford being in the Oyster area).

 

[island]

Edinburgh was used as hyperbole to emphasise that I don't believe a ticket/smartcard that is valid for travel from A to B is sufficient defence against a byelaws prosecution when the intention was to travel from A to C.

Substitute Edinburgh for Norwich if you want (with Stratford being in the Oyster area).

I think (again from a non-legal trained point of view) that you are reading something into the bylaws that isn't there.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There is no loophole here, and there's no mystery about what Byelaw 18.1 means. The passenger commits the offence if they board a train (for the purpose of travelling on it) without being in posession of a ticket which is valid for that train, and valid at the time and place at which they perform the action of boarding.

There's no need to worry that a Court might be led to use this offence for another circumstance, namely for a passenger who over-travels the validity of their ticket, as this is where Byelaw 18.2 would take over. And there's no need to be anxious about the risks in clarifying these facts if accused of a Byelaw 18.1 offence.

Where I think it is unwise to give feefee more hope than is appropriate is in presuming that an Investigating Officer would view the circumstances as appropriate for a Byelaw 18.1 Offence.

I think it is much more likely that feefee's explanation will lead to her being allowed to settle the matter administratively (by way of a payment towards costs). The next most likely outcome is, as 455 driver noted in the first page, that the incident would be considered as a Byelaw 18.2 matter, and that the interview on arrival would be considered as the moment when she failed to hand over their ticket for inspection when requested. I don't think this will be the outcome but if it is, then the cost is not likely to be great (and probably not worth contesting, on financial grounds).

 

[island]

I think it is much more likely that feefee's explanation will lead to her being allowed to settle the matter administratively (by way of a payment towards costs). The next most likely outcome is, as 455 driver noted in the first page, that the incident would be considered as a Byelaw 18.2 matter, and that the interview on arrival would be considered as the moment when she failed to hand over their ticket for inspection when requested. I don't think this will be the outcome but if it is, then the cost is not likely to be great (and probably not worth contesting, on financial grounds).

Would you please be good enough to comment on the applicability of Byelaw 18 (2) in the context of the fact that the OP mentioned above that she was not asked to hand over her ticket and of the case of Burns v FCC [2012] EWHC 1305?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Would you please be good enough to comment on the applicability of Byelaw 18 (2) in the context of the fact that the OP mentioned above that she was not asked to hand over her ticket and of the case of Burns v FCC [2012] EWHC 1305?

As I wrote, I thought it likely that "the interview on arrival would be considered as the moment when she failed to hand over their ticket for inspection when requested".
None of us know what is written in the Inspector's notebook, nor what might have been written in feefee's reply to the Investigating Officer, but, on the fragments that we do have, my 2nd most probable outcome of the Investigating Officer's decision is as stated. A Byelaw 18.2.

Burns hardly helps - the respondent was not present. Of course you are quite right to raise the question of whether an inspection took place or not, but ultimately the matter is decided on the basis of Evidence. So without access to the Inspector's notebook, and having only feefee's recollections to go on, what else should we guess about the actions of a Ticket Inspector other than that they inspect tickets?

If I replay feefee's description of the event, she was holding the Oyster Card (her ticket) when she asked where to 'tap out', her question was heard and that ticket was observed (as an invalid ticket), she was interviewed about her journey and ticket. The conditions are complete.

Does that help?

I expect an administrative settlement is likely, though some helpful assistance on here might increase the probabilities of an acceptable agreement to both parties.

 

[Busaholic]

What is worrying in this and some other cases is how civil matters (railway byelaws and their application) can somehow mutate into criminal proceedings not on the basis of fact or rationality but on the passenger's ability to pay or the willingness to accept 'guilt'. Refusal by a TOC to accept an 'offer of payment' which may then lead to a criminal prosecution seems tantamount to blackmail. The railway industry will soon, at this rate, have the same reputation as clampers did to car parking, with a myriad of petty, often unpublished regulations designed to trap the unwary. The already-criminal with a record won't give a damn about such things, but the uncriminal will. Ask yourself, assuming you have an unblemished record, how you would feel about being accused of a criminal act, one that you had no intention of committing and were unaware of having done so. Please don't come up with the old canard about ignorance of the law being no excuse: after all, how often in these posts has it been said that the TOC (or, rather, the guard or Revenue Inspector, who are merely the servants of said TOC) has 'made an honest mistake' (as opposed, I suppose, to the dishonest mistakes they could be accused of)? Passengers, apparently, are not part of the human race and are not allowed such luxuries.

By the way, just to make my position clear, I've never been accused ot fare evasion nor have any of my family or friends that I am aware of, so no axe to grind.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I gave up reading this post at the point I've cut off the quote:

What is worrying in this and some other cases is how civil matters (railway byelaws and their application) can somehow mutate into criminal proceedings not on the basis of fact or rationality but on . . . .

Where do "civil matters" come into feefee's worrying situation or any like it?

What are you trying to say? Do you think there is a civil debt to be enforced against feefee in the Magistrate's Court? Do you think that the Railway Byelaws are a Civil matter? Where have you got these ideas from? Why are we responding to her simple request following a simply journey out of the Oyster zones with so much confused speculation?

For the avoidance of doubt, the Railways are private property. The public are entitled to travel by rail. The principal condition is they they posess a ticket. That is a statutory requirement. The Railway Operators are also obliged to comply with a number of statutory requrements. How many Railway passengers have you seen persued for civil debts and contrast that with those seen prosecuted for Criminal Offences.

 

[najaB]

Refusal by a TOC to accept an 'offer of payment' which may then lead to a criminal prosecution seems tantamount to blackmail.

In what way is this relevant to the OP's case? Did I miss something?

The railway industry will soon, at this rate, have the same reputation as clampers did to car parking, with a myriad of petty, often unpublished regulations designed to trap the unwary.

'Buy your ticket before you travel' is hardly petty, nor is it unpublished. I don't see how it can be called a trap for the unwary.

Passengers, apparently, are not part of the human race and are not allowed such luxuries.

The OP was apparently offered a penalty fare at the time. If she had accepted it then that would have been the end of the matter. She might even have been able to lodge an appeal to the TOC on the basis that she believes she was given bum advice at Stratford.