• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

legitimate settlement versus bribery

Status
Not open for further replies.

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,043
Location
Yorkshire
Hello,

I would like to discuss the ever-increasing number of cases where a legal settlement is made to a (private, non CSA) prosecutor in exchange for a criminal matter being dropped.

Lets suppose I saw someone driving in their car speeding. Do I have the right to say "I am intending to prosecute you, but will desist if you pay me £60 out of court settlement?

Ditto if I saw someone breaching a railway byelaw. Etc etc.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
The trouble with metaphors is in choosing one which is relevant and which helps us to add to our understanding.

Fare evasion (and similar ticketing irregularities) are all about money. Speeding while driving a motor vehicle is nothing to do with money, but is about exposing people to danger.

I don't have an issue with a Company prosecuting for a failure to pay for a service or product, and I don't have an issue with them agreeing not to prosecute when a suitable payment is offered by the person who had failed to pay when it was their duty to so. No one is put in a position of danger in the process.

Where does bribery come into anything?
 
Last edited:

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,043
Location
Yorkshire
Bribery would be a word that might be colloquially chosen to describe someone asking for a payment in return for dropping a pending private prosecution.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,528
Location
Liskeard
Definition of Bribery is

my dictionary said:
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

So breaking this down to the OPs question it almost certainly is:

"The giving of something of value for the purpose of discharge of his or her legal duties."

My other dictionary makes it very clear cut

Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient

Give money and the TOC will change their behaviour by no longer proceeding with court
 
Last edited:

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
5,436
Location
London
Lets suppose I saw someone driving in their car speeding. Do I have the right to say "I am intending to prosecute you, but will desist if you pay me £60 out of court settlement?

Subject to certain limits, speeding offences are generally dealt with in one of three ways:
  • A Fixed Penalty Notice (£100 + 3 points)
  • Court Summons - Maximum fine of £1000 (£2500 on Motorways), 3-6 points, costs and victim surcharge and when being considered for a ban
  • Driver Awareness Course - No points, can only be taken once in a three year period and sets you back around £80 to £100 depending on the area.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Definition of Bribery is . . . . .
Not quite. The missing word there is "improper"; without it your definition will capture almost all innocent transactions, transactions in which the person receiving payment does something in return or provides goods in return, an action which is directly 'influenced' by the payment. Bribery as defined in the Bribery Act makes it clear that the person(s) receiving the advantage must act "improperly" for the transaction to be considered Bribery:
(2) Case 1 is where—

(a) P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b) P intends the advantage—
(i) to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or
(ii) to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity.​
(3) Case 2 is where—

(a) P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and
(b) P knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper performance of a relevant function or activity.

I'm still not seeing anything resembling a bribe when a person travels by rail, does not pay their fare, incurs administrative time in the detection and investigation of their non-payment, and is either given the opportunity, or seeks the opportunity, to make a more substantial payment in compensation for that time, to avert the further administrative effort in bringing forward a prosecution in a Court to recover their costs and fare.
 
Last edited:

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,528
Location
Liskeard
Not quite, the missing word is "improper", otherwise your definition will capture almost all innocent transactions, transactions in which the person receiving payment does something in return. Bribery as defined in the Bribery Act makes it clear that the person(s) receiving the advantage must act "improperly" for the transaction to be considered Bribery:

I'm still not seeing anything resembling a bribe when a person travels by rail, does not pay their fare, incurs administrative time in the detection and investigation of their non-payment, and is either given the opportunity, or seeks the opportunity, to make a more substantial payment in compensation to avert the further administrative effort in bringing forward a prosecution in a Court to recover their costs and fare.

I took definitions out of my 2 dictionaries, by which it meets the definition, however doesn't meet the definition under the bribery act,
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,043
Location
Yorkshire
Okay let's forget the word bribe.

Let's say person x wanted to play a role in people doing wrong and also start a new business.

Could he propose to someone committing an offence (such as a breach of a byelaw) that he was considering a private prosecution, and invite an out of court settlement?
 

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,694
richw:1556813 said:
Definition of Bribery is

my dictionary said:
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.

So breaking this down to the OPs question it almost certainly is:

"The giving of something of value for the purpose of discharge of his or her legal duties."

My other dictionary makes it very clear cut

Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient

Give money and the TOC will change their behaviour by no longer proceeding ywith court

If I give money to a hairdresser, they will change their behavior by cutting my hair. That is not bribery!
 

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,217
Bribery would be a word that might be colloquially chosen to describe someone asking for a payment in return for dropping a pending private prosecution.
Or maybe someone offering payment in return for someone dropping a prosecution?! :lol:

Sounds more like the passenger bribing the TOC than the TOC bribing the passenger.

Of course, really, it's just a mutually acceptable arrangement. ;)
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,579
Or maybe someone offering payment in return for someone dropping a prosecution?! :lol:

Sounds more like the passenger bribing the TOC than the TOC bribing the passenger.

Of course, really, it's just a mutually acceptable arrangement. ;)

The passenger paying the TOC to drop the prosecution is not bribery. However, the passenger paying the individual who works at the TOC to drop the prosecution would be.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,043
Location
Yorkshire
Noone is really answering my question. No idea if its because they don't want to, or that noone knows.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Noone is really answering my question. No idea if its because they don't want to, or that noone knows.
Perhaps the question wasn't clear enough?
I was strugging to comprehend the issue at the core of your question, and from the responses, I don't think I was alone.

Its was this :
34D said:
"Do I have the right to say "I am intending to prosecute you, but will desist if you pay me £60 out of court settlement?"
That question has to be analysed into its relevant components before anyone can assist. e.g. The right to express any opinion to the person; the authority to bring a prosecution; the discretion to commute the prosecution for the payment a settlement; whether £60 is a proportionate settlement; whether the person saying this has the authority dispose of the matter [implied that they do, but not stated in the question]; whether the person saying this has a duty to detect and/or prosecute offences [implied that they do not, but not stated]. There's probably more . . .

If you could simplify the question into which elements are concerning you, then you might get an answer (and a few opinions), but I don't think its unanswered because "no one wants to".
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,451
Noone is really answering my question. No idea if its because they don't want to, or that noone knows.

Do you mean your question asked in Post 1, or Post 9?

If the former, then I believe that it has been answered comprehensively. If the latter, then I think maniacmartin has probably expressed in Post 10 an opinion quite a few people are thinking.

I for one don't really understand what you mean by your question in Post 9. Does the person have the authority to bring a private prosecution? Did the person actively encourage (or even tell) the other guy to break the Byelaws in the first place?
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Any citizen may exercise their right of access to law, and this includes the right to bring about a Private Prosecution. This right is honoured throughout the UK *

Obvious examples might include Statutory offences which led the citizen to suffer a loss (e.g. a Theft; a Fraud, the breach of a Copyright prohibition) and offences in Tort (e.g. a Nuisance; Defamation). Less obvious examples are offences which have not put the individual at a loss (e.g. a hazard which may put others at risk, to which the remedy may be an injunction) or, and I guess this illustrates whatever it is that is troubling you, a Byelaw which regulates the activities on private land. Some of these prosecutions might be matters which the state could have prosecuted. Some might involve a significant loss to the aggrieved party which might otherwise have been the basis of a Civil Claim but where the Criminal Prosecution provides a more appropriate remedy or a better established standard of evidence.

I have attended several Private Prosecutions, and while the Courts sometimes appear clumsy in managing these cases, they are generally very willing to hear them. There are some Judges who regularly hear Private Prosecutions for defamation or libel, notably Mr Justice Tugendhat (and I find nothing 'clumsy' in his Judgements!). It might interest you to look at the guidance published by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to clarify whether or not the organisation should intervene in a Private Prosecution, and how it should make that decision.

High-profile Private Prosecutions in recent times include the successfull prosecution by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), a trade body for the music industry, against the Cowan family and associates in Co.Durham for conspiracy to defraud, tax evasion and benefit fraud, following an extensive CD and DVD counterfeiting operation; and several prosecutions by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) for violent acts against animals; both resulting in custodial sentences.
Some high-profile Private Prosecutions were doomed to fail: you might recall that a Private Prosecution for neglect was attempted against the parents of missing child Madeleine McCann by an Andrew Bennett; and the parents of the late Stephen Lawrence began a Private Prosecution for the murder of their son.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Further notes:
1. Scottish Courts expect a high standard of evidence and a special interest on behalf of the Prosecutor, before listing a Private Prosecution (see Andrew Belch 1805). In contrast, the Courts of England Wales and Northern Ireland will not assess the merits of a case and will be very willing to hear the majority of claims, only refusing a limited range of matters (such as a claim of theft between husband and wife). There has been little appetite for Private Prosecutions in Northern Ireland.
2. A Private Prosecutor should be able to fund the full costs of the Defendant in the event of an aquittal. A Private Prosecutor pursuing a Criminal matter may apply to have their costs met from central funds.
 
Last edited:

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
In respect of travelling without a ticket, I think that an alleged offence against the relevant legislation at this level might not be prosecuted if there is a mutual agreement to dispose of the allegation by mitigated penalty.

Neither party is obliged to agree.

If an alleged offender puts forward an argument that persuades the company that a lesser penalty might achieve resolution through re-education, or if the alleged offender requests that the TOC dispose of the matter without Court action, there is nothing wrong with the TOC, or their authorised agents, agreeing to do so conditional upon receipt of the outstanding fare and a contribution toward the costs incurred.

However, for what my personal opinion is worth, this should never result in a situation where those that can afford it may always be permitted to 'buy-off' justice whilst those who cannot do so will always face a harsher penalty.

Serious issues such as forging or using forged tickets, deliberate & blatant fare evasion, theft and the like should result in serious responses in my view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top