-
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!
MG11 / Direct Prosecution
- Thread starter railticket
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I disagree; if you have to prove that somebody was being dishonest then I think that they words they used, and their intended meaning, are relevant.
He did say that he didn't completely understand what was said to him.
Being able to write and speak / understand a language well are two very different things.
It's still quite normal in this part of the world; many TOCs advertise that you can buy full-price tickets on-board. (and some make a big deal out of it, like Grand Central and Gatwick Express). and when they don't get to you, you don't really have much choice but to buy at the destination.
I thoroughly agree. I still don't see how this leads to his intent not to pay.
If I throw a box out of the window now, there's a chance it will kill someone walking back. This would not mean I intended to kill.
I think it's highly likely the OP thought he had two options:
1. Lie and either get away without paying or pay a penalty fare.
2. Tell the truth and end up with a criminal record.
Can any of you prove that OP knew that he had an opportunity to pay the correct fare and leave?
I certainly believe this, but there have been times in the past where I've lied, and sadly time were I still contemplate lying in life more generally. In any case, lying doesn't factor in to any of the two laws commonly used by the railways for prosecution.
Nick W, Are you arguing that if someone boards at a station with no issuing facilities, and then at their destination said "I bought a ticket, I lost it, but I am offering to buy a replacement" and this was determined to be a lie, they cannot be prosecuted because they were willing to pay their fare? Interesting concept! Any legal experts care to comment?
It all sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky to me, but maybe you have a point. But if someone only offered to pay the fare (or a fine!) after questioning, then I really think it's just going to be an excuse that doesn't wash, they'd have to make it clear pretty early on they were willing to pay again for this to have any credibility. And I'm still not convinced.
It all sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky to me, but maybe you have a point. But if someone only offered to pay the fare (or a fine!) after questioning, then I really think it's just going to be an excuse that doesn't wash, they'd have to make it clear pretty early on they were willing to pay again for this to have any credibility. And I'm still not convinced.
The OP stated that the barriers were normally open at the time they travelled. This suggests that they had no intention of paying the fare, and that they would not have paid anything if they had not been challenged.
Add to this that they have admitted that they made no attempt to purchase a ticket before boarding the train, because there was no time, and it seems like an open and shut case to me.
Add to this that they have admitted that they made no attempt to purchase a ticket before boarding the train, because there was no time, and it seems like an open and shut case to me.
Indeed it would....:roll:
Assuming you mean 'fence' in place of 'offence' and sarcasm was limited, if the OP had 'pole volted' over the fence then that proves his intent, therefore the 5.3(a) would quite frankly be easy to prove thus making the ticket issuing facilities irrelevant, as well as any Byelaw infringement irrelevant. Just because there's no working ticket issuing facilities doesn't mean you only have to pay if you get caught and chances are you'll find some form of revenue collector on your travels! :roll:Nick said:
Absolutely - 1. the lack of issuing facilities means that they can't be prosecuted for not having a ticket. 2. There is no clear intent to evade the fare. (I agree it's possible that they were hoping for the reply to be "don't worry about it",.)
What law would you expect them to be prosecuted under?
Can you prove that, if there was a sign up saying "we will not prosecute nor give penalty fares to anyone ticket-less today", the OP would not have paid the £2 fare on being asked for his ticket?
I totally agree with you, that if the OP had admitted having time to look around the station, or CCTV later showed this to be the case [then again is this admissible in court?], the OP probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But the OP claims to have almost missed the train!
Then that would be fraud by false representation?
I think that showing intent to evade the fare is a bit tricky, but certainly not impossible.
I think the answer 'I was happy to pay the fare, but lied because I didn't want to be found guilty of a byelaw offence' is interesting. As no byelaw offence was actually committed, that's not a problem, and it doesn't necessarily show an intent to avoid paying - just an intend to avoid an (incorrect) prosecution.
Very possibly.
True - I certainly think a poor defence will result in intent being shown by the prosecution!
That's what I'm getting at, though more a "I was happy to pay the fare, but lied because I wanted to pay a fine rather than being given a criminal record that will plague my career."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry - sleepiness kicks in!
I was talking about Railway Byelaw 18 - you are right that they would fall foul of 5.3(a)!
Last edited:
No, I'm not interested in proving or disproving hypothetical situations. The facts as outlined by the OP are sufficient to prosecute if the TOC so desires. The rest is up to the court, but in my eyes, it's a pretty clear case given the evidence provided by the OP.
Arriving at the station just before a train has never been considered a good reason for not buying a ticket. If there is an irregular service a court may take that into account when dealing with a prosecution, but there is no evidence that this is the case here.
And if this is going to go to court, there's the chance the OP came on here and made up/adjusted the story of the events accordingly and didn't state the full facts. I am not saying he did, but people are free to write anything on a forum.
That's true, Guide Bridge etc, but all we can do is to answer the question that is put based on the evidence supplied! On what the OP said, if it is correct, I think that the TOC will be able to prosecute, and with a very good chance of winning the case.
I concur with the other advice that has been given. Write to the TOC and offer a settlement.
I concur with the other advice that has been given. Write to the TOC and offer a settlement.
If you're not able to prove intend based on the OP's facts, then it isn't a clear case but once based on whichever side produces the most convincing case.
I totally agree, but we have already ruled out prosecution for the strict liability offence. Arriving at that station just before the train is due suggests reduced likelihood of intent to dodge than if the OP spent 30 minutes wandering up and down the platform aimlessly.
True, but we can only make meaningful discussion in light of what has been said by the OP. I can't see a clear motive to lie either, given that the closer the OP posts to what happened, the better advice we, or a minority of us with more to say than "you lied, you lose", can give.
I would almost certainly encourage the OP to wait until the TOC makes contact with him before proceeding. A sensible person, valuing money alone, would not prosecute but would simply request the fare and justifiable admin feel (~£20 I would have thought would pay for the stationary and an hours work to deal with the case) with the threat of a tort for the expenses incurred as a result of the lie, if not simply chuck it away and reprimand the the RPI for not simply selling him a ticket.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
No - the prosecution have to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
Fair point - you got me there!
In fact now that I think of it, if it does go to court both the MG11 and the OP will agree that the OP didn't know that he couldn't have purchased a ticket at the station, so it'll become absolute truth for the case. The OP just has to say "as agreed by both sides, I didn't know I could just pay £2 on arrival so I lied". This alone has to be reasonable doubt against the case, surely?
Hence the ToC would do better to ask for a fee with the threat of a tort. In which case, the OP is safe from a criminal offence and would be wise to pay.
I agree that the OP should wait until the TOC contacts him, not least because if he choses to contact them first they'll probably not even know who he is yet! Until the MG11 is submitted by the RPI, the Prosecutions team will know nothing about it. It could take a few weeks for the MG11 to reach the Prosecutions team alone.
I think £20 for reasonable admin isn't going to cut it. Try £100
RPI
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 3,327
Intent is already proven in this case though based on the facts that we already have, 5.3(a) is virtually a strict liability offence, as long as there was intent to avoid (as proved by the lie) then the offence is committed, the OP did not "deliver up" a valid ticket when requested neither did he "pay his fare" when requested, therefore he has failed to comply with section 5.1. that is enough to find the OP guilty.
It is very different to offences such as theft where many elements have to proved in order to have "committed" the offence.
It is very different to offences such as theft where many elements have to proved in order to have "committed" the offence.
The OP lied at the time, so why do we naturally assume we're getting a totally honest confession now? Maybe we are, maybe we're not.
We can of course give advice based on what we're told, but it may be fruitless. I wonder if we'll get the usual drip feeding of additional information as time goes on? Mind you, in this case we got a lot of seemingly unnecessary information from the outset. I'm still unclear why mentioning 'I am an immigrant' was relevant, for example.
We can of course give advice based on what we're told, but it may be fruitless. I wonder if we'll get the usual drip feeding of additional information as time goes on? Mind you, in this case we got a lot of seemingly unnecessary information from the outset. I'm still unclear why mentioning 'I am an immigrant' was relevant, for example.
we don't agree that intent to avoid the fare has already been proven.
The lie may have been intended to avoid being prosecuted, and not to avoid paying the fare.
He said that he went to pay - and he even said 'I will pay the fine if you want.'
But, it does seem pointless trying to debate the details - we don't know what was said, or what was written down.
because it shows that he was likely to be unclear with the rules and procedures of the british railway system?
There isn't any drip feeding now though. The thread was really done at post #14. The stuff after that is speculation or further interpretation.
I think £20 for reasonable admin isn't going to cut it. Try £100
So allowing a generous £20 for stationary costs and postage, it basically it takes a person paid around £40k a year, 4 hours to send a standard letter which the TOC must sent to everyone in the same situation asking for his statement of the account? I simply can't believe the railway could pay so much employ someone so unproductive.
I've already shown why lying doesn't prove intent. What you've said is also incorrect - the OP says he was willing to pay a fine, and complied with an instruction to go to another RPI and purchase a ticket (an option he was later denied). 5.3(a) does not imply a strict liability - the clue is in the word "intent".
There aren't two categories of people, those who lie and those who don't! People don't lie unless they have a motive as lying takes effort. He has revealed at the time what his motive was, but there's no clear motive why he'd lie on this forum given he wants all the help possible.
We can, but if you think he's lying and guilty, and don't wish to respond to new discussion in the topic, please just make that clear. So far we haven't seen such drip-feeding, and it's a shame he hasn't clarified some of the things we've asked.
It means he's had less exposure to the complicated workings of the railway, and its associated fare protection policies, and was therefore unable to determine whether he'd fare better telling the truth or lying. It almost means he's much less likely to be honest if he genuinely believe honesty would lead to a criminal conviction, as the slightly evidence of wrongdoing counts much more against immigrants than natives, because it's harder for companies to find out if the recorded offence was a one-off or whether they had a history a crime back at "home".
Yeah, after he had claimed to have already paid and it then became clear he wasn't going to get away with that lie.
Let's face it, if someone can get out of that, someone can get out of anything.
Indeed, offering to pay a fine an admission of guilt?
Assuming he said fine and not fare.
Indeed. Although based on the available evidence, it does not sound good for the OP.
They may choose not to bother though.
Someone who was told they'd be prosecuted over sitting in First Class was not pursued, for example. That was FirstGroup too.
I've lived here all my life and I am unclear about the rules and procedures of the British railway system!!
As Tony_mac said "The lie may have been intended to avoid being prosecuted, and not to avoid paying the fare."
The railway has indeed made it a lot harder to prove intent with their system. The lie may have been intended to avoid being prosecuted, and not to avoid paying the fare. In fact this is probably why they nearly always use that. I do agree that if they can prove the OP actually arrived early at the station, they'd win the case.
Good job they have a strict liability law, suitable for most occasions in which intent isn't clear.
Guilt of intending not to travel without a ticket, or guilt that he had no ticket?
Last edited:
£40,000 a year? Very unlikely!
You obviously have no idea what's involved here. It's not just a case of sticking a stamp on an envelope. The MG11 has to be coded in order to place it in the right 'pile' depending on the offence committed. The address has to be further verified as well as the defendent's name etc. A letter then has to be written and sent. I'm sure they must also take in to account the initial time spent writting the report etc.
So assuming they write a new letter, rather than modifying a template, two hours of work, for someone not even earning £20 an hour, plus the RPI's 15 minutes? =~£45
Nick, Of course it won't really cost the TOC £100, but I came up with that figure because it has to be a sensible figure otherwise the TOC may feel that the OP has not learnt his lesson. The OP is asking for goodwill. Offering a sum of around £20 is hardly going to achieve that. According to the TOCs, a reasonable cost for an honest person changing the time of an AP ticket is £10, even £20 for a return journey (and that would take very little time, in relative terms, for a ticket clerk to process). So, in their language, whether we like it or not, anything less than £100 is unlikely to be considered, in my opinion.
No point calculating whether someone on a £40k wage is spending 4 hours, or someone on a £20k wage is spending 8 hours. It's irrelevant I think.
As for whether there is a valid defence of lying to avoid being prosecuted, I don't know. It's an interesting concept and I'll leave it to legal experts to debate.
No point calculating whether someone on a £40k wage is spending 4 hours, or someone on a £20k wage is spending 8 hours. It's irrelevant I think.
As for whether there is a valid defence of lying to avoid being prosecuted, I don't know. It's an interesting concept and I'll leave it to legal experts to debate.
Ah, so the ToC intends to use blackmail to obtain an unreasonable and unjust sum of money out of a vulnerable person to teach them a lesson that isn't there job to teach and claiming that that is "goodwill". And this through deceit under the term "admin fee" over an apparent attempt to deceive the railway out of £2.
This isn't the defence, the issue is whether the defendant's lie implies intent or not.
This isn't the defence, the issue is whether the defendant's lie implies intent or not.
- Status