No ticket

[BestWestern]

That cannot possibly be a valid line of defence, otherwise all fare dodgers can simply claim that they were engrossed in a personal matter.

If one boarded a service without a ticket, it is imperative that one keeps an eye out for the opportunity to pay. The responsibility remains the passenger's, with the only defence being that no such opportunity existed.

That's rather shaky ground, isn't it?

I was under the distinct impression that the implied obligation of the passenger to seek out onboard staff and purchase had been comprehensively put to bed? It is surely a case of either there was an opportunity to buy before boarding, or there wasn't? There are 101 potential sequences of events once on the train, many not involving the opportunity to purchase a ticket, which surely is why any proceedings are based on the situation before boarding the train, not whilst travelling on it. Train busy/Guard lazy/ticket machine failure/passenger in the toilet... The defence you mention could be stated every time; other than by scouring endless CCTV (very time consuming and lots of paperwork, and of course non-existant on much of Northern's stock), how is any TOC to argue successfully to the contrary? How many TOCs have successfully prosecuted a passenger for specifically not buying a ticket during their journey?

Off topic I know, but worth picking up on!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I was under the distinct impression that the implied obligation of the passenger to seek out onboard staff and purchase had been comprehensively put to bed?

I don't recall any definitive ruling on that question. And it's possible that none will be forthcoming, because it not a question which it is necessary to answer when a legal decision is sought on either of the usual fare evasion offences that might be being prosecuted.

It is surely a case of either there was an opportunity to buy before boarding, or there wasn't? There are 101 potential sequences of events once on the train, many not involving the opportunity to purchase a ticket, which surely is why any proceedings are based on the situation before boarding the train, not whilst travelling on it . . .

I think you are correct, but your wording is a little unclear. For clarity, the crucial issues for all rail passengers is this :
Have they committed to a contract with a Railway Company to be conveyed from one place to another? Or not?
If 'not', there have to be some compelling grounds for presuming the benefit of being conveyed without payment.

How many TOCs have successfully prosecuted a passenger for specifically not buying a ticket during their journey?

I'll guess none. As that is not an offence, either under the railway-specific legislation or Byelaws, more general statutes which capture crimes of dishonesty and fraud, or the Common Law.
A few TOC's have brought thousands of successful prosecutions against ticketless passengers - whether the point in time at which the passenger became 'ticketless' was before, during, or after travel is not something that would be available for analysis from any data capture in he Magistrates Courts.

But my guess remains - none.

 

[bb21]

That's rather shaky ground, isn't it?

I was under the distinct impression that the implied obligation of the passenger to seek out onboard staff and purchase had been comprehensively put to bed? It is surely a case of either there was an opportunity to buy before boarding, or there wasn't? There are 101 potential sequences of events once on the train, many not involving the opportunity to purchase a ticket, which surely is why any proceedings are based on the situation before boarding the train, not whilst travelling on it. Train busy/Guard lazy/ticket machine failure/passenger in the toilet... The defence you mention could be stated every time; other than by scouring endless CCTV (very time consuming and lots of paperwork, and of course non-existant on much of Northern's stock), how is any TOC to argue successfully to the contrary? How many TOCs have successfully prosecuted a passenger for specifically not buying a ticket during their journey?

Off topic I know, but worth picking up on!

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. What is shaky ground?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was under the distinct impression that the implied obligation of the passenger to seek out onboard staff and purchase had been comprehensively put to bed?

I believe it has been put to bed that you need to walk up and down the train and bang on the cab door - but it is certainly your responsibility to, from your seat or standing place, attract the guard's attention and ask to buy a ticket when he comes through selling tickets rather than just ignore him either deliberately or accidentally.

 

[BestWestern]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. What is shaky ground?

Apologies, I may have been unclear. I was referring to your statement that pax, hàving boarded a train still in need of a ticket, must keep an eye out for the chance to buy on board. My understanding of the situation is that what happens once on board is largely irrelevant to any offence; the passenger was either entitled to board without a ticket - and therefore is entitled to arrive at the end of that journey still without one - or they are obliged to have purchased one before boarding, in which case they have rendered themselves open to punitive measures regardless of whether on board staff are available to sell them one.

In neither case, as far as I am aware, is the passenger directly obliged to seek out their ticket during their journey. Of course, it may very well be wise to do so, but that is not the same as 'must' do so.

It may sound pedantic, but it's an interesting and potentially rather important detail.

 

[bb21]

Hmm I see.

I suppose it centres on what constitutes an opportunity onboard. How long is a piece of string?

It's an interesting take. I don't think the passenger can absolve himself of responsibility to obtain a ticket at the first available opportunity in those circumstances, but then "first opportunity" can potentially be open to interpretation I guess. I think we can all think of some cases where the opportunity definitely existed, and some where the opportunity definitely did not, plus various shades of grey in between.

I agree though that we should probably take it to a separate thread if anyone has the appetite to dig a bit deeper.

 

[najaB]

In neither case, as far as I am aware, is the passenger directly obliged to seek out their ticket during their journey. Of course, it may very well be wise to do so, but that is not the same as 'must do so.

I don't believe the passenger is obliged to seek out the guard, but if the guard offers to sell tickets then the passenger hasn't availed themselves of an opportunity to purchase.

 

[miami]

in this case the OP did have opportunity to purchase a ticket, he admitted it. There was then the problem of leaving via an emergency exit only (I believe), which could indicate evidence of deliberate fare evasion. In that case it's a see what northern say, but it seems clear it's a bylaw offence - unless a member of rail staff had collected the ticket from him between the train and exit, which doesn't seem likely

As such sit and wait for the letter which will likely be a "don't do it again" or "please pay £80 to make it go away" letter.

 

[Southwest]

and had not previously bought a ticket as the station I left from is unmanned/no ticket machine.

.....and has subsequently been shown to be false. So, is ignorance a form of defence in cases like this? No, didn't think so.

Might it be worth me re-purchasing the ticket later on with a debit/credit card...? Guess it might put me in good stead if there are no time stamps and if it comes down to arguing the toss with them...

What is the OP on? This story has more holes than Swiss cheese!

 

[island]

I don't believe the passenger is obliged to seek out the guard, but if the guard offers to sell tickets then the passenger hasn't availed themselves of an opportunity to purchase.

On this, there have certainly been occasions (some may say "stings") in GWRland where the guard comes slowly through the carriage saying "any more tickets"/"anyone need a ticket" or words to a similar effect, and a few minutes later RPIs come through for a full ticket check. A range of passengers not possessed of tickets who chose not to take up the guard's offer to sell them one subsequently found themselves with criminal records.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

On this, there have certainly been occasions (some may say "stings") in GWRland where the guard comes slowly through the carriage saying "any more tickets"/"anyone need a ticket" or words to a similar effect, and a few minutes later RPIs come through for a full ticket check. A range of passengers not possessed of tickets who chose not to take up the guard's offer to sell them one subsequently found themselves with criminal records.

How is that scenario a 'sting' ?

Passengers without tickets. Opportunity to buy one presents itself. Passenger passes-up the opportunity. Ticket inspection takes place. No ticket, you've committed an offence, under strict liability.

 

[BestWestern]

How is that scenario a 'sting' ?

Passengers without tickets. Opportunity to buy one presents itself. Passenger passes-up the opportunity. Ticket inspection takes place. No ticket, you've committed an offence, under strict liability.

A 'sting' being a situation set up with the intention of catching somebody red handed, I presume?

 

[Fare-Cop]

How is that scenario a 'sting' ?

Passengers without tickets. Opportunity to buy one presents itself. Passenger passes-up the opportunity. Ticket inspection takes place. No ticket, you've committed an offence, under strict liability.

If there was a facility to purchase before boarding, the Appeal Court judgement in Corbyn (1978) may be frequently used by the prosecution to prove intent rather than strict liability in such a case.

[ What is it with that name and railways ]