Penalty fares vs prosecution

[some bloke]

Here's a case about Byelaw 18(2):

"In effect, as Mr Fuller has submitted today, the very wording of the question reveals that no offence was, on those facts, capable of being committed under Byelaw 18(2). The appellant had indeed handed over his Oyster card, albeit there were insufficient funds on it. Accordingly, the two questions posed, to which I have already drawn attention, must be answered: in respect of question A: no; and question B: yes. Whatever may have been the appellant's fate, had he been prosecuted under Byelaws 17(1) or 18(1), which focus on valid tickets, those were not the Byelaws under which he was prosecuted."

Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) (01 May 2012)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1305.html

 

[AdamWW]

Here's a case about Byelaw 18(2):

Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) (01 May 2012)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1305.html

Fascinating.

This seems a reasonable interpretation of 18(2) though given the existence of 18(3) it hardly seems as if it's what the authors intended.

It does also illustrate the point I made earlier - the courts aren't there to find out if you've done something wrong - they are there to establish guilt for the specific offense charged.

 

[ainsworth74]

Here's a case about Byelaw 18(2):



Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) (01 May 2012)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1305.html

The exchange at the end of that case is quite amusing:

LORD JUSTICE GROSS: We will quash the conviction. Should the appellant be entitled to costs? You say he is entitled to a costs order.

MR FULLER: My Lord, yes.

LORD JUSTICE GROSS: Because he has won.

MR FULLER: Indeed.

LORD JUSTICE GROSS: It could be said, Mr Fuller, that he rather brought this on himself. What do you say to that? It is quite clear he shouldn't pay anyone's costs. It's quite clear the conviction must be quashed. Do you think he should get his costs?

MR FULLER: My Lord, that wasn't the offence for which he was prosecuted and that wasn't properly investigated in the Magistrates' Court. I would submit that, on that basis, he is entitled to his costs.

LORD JUSTICE GROSS: Just, with a measure of reluctance.

MR FULLER: So, a defendant's costs order.

LORD JUSTICE GROSS: Yes. The moral of the story for Mr Burns is to top up his Oyster card. It is a much cheaper way of doing it.

 

[Titfield]

Is there evidence that it would be common for insurers to refuse to cover an employee convicted of a byelaw ticketing offence?

I do not have evidence it would be common but am aware of one case where the insurers refused cover for that part of the policy.

 

[AlterEgo]

The penalty fare signs are awful. " Warning. Have you paid?" Is not a hard hutting caution, is it? Could the signs have been made much more misleading, encouraging victims to sins, and still been allowed?

It's really fanciful to suggest the posters are there to entrap people.

"Warning - Have you Paid?" is the same sort of warning you see at most places where penalties are enforced, like car parks.

 

[spag23]

"Warning - Have you Paid?" is the same sort of warning you see at most places where penalties are enforced, like car parks.

But a transgression at a car park does not involve the later threat - or even imposition - of criminal proceedings. An ongoing theme on this forum is people not realising that ticketless travel is a criminal offence. Current Penalty Fare signage seems to perpetuate this misunderstanding.

 

[AdamWW]

But a transgression at a car park does not involve the later threat - or even imposition - of criminal proceedings. An ongoing theme on this forum is people not realising that ticketless travel is a criminal offence. Current Penalty Fare signage seems to perpetuate this misunderstanding.

I'd be concerned less about posters (most people probably ignore them) than railway companies happily selling tickets on board trains without any warning that the passenger broke the law by getting on the train without one.

It's hardly surprising that they don't expect that one day they'll end up being threatened with criminal proceedings for doing something that the railway condoned.

 

[AlterEgo]

But a transgression at a car park does not involve the later threat - or even imposition - of criminal proceedings. An ongoing theme on this forum is people not realising that ticketless travel is a criminal offence. Current Penalty Fare signage seems to perpetuate this misunderstanding.

But the signs don't "encourage people to sin", as that poster has said - they tell you that you have to buy a ticket before you board.

 

[spag23]

It's hardly surprising that they don't expect that one day they'll end up being threatened with criminal proceedings for doing something that the railway condoned.

If the passenger - by being ticketless - is committing an offence, then doesn't selling them a ticket on the train to enable them to get through the destination barriers constitute aiding and abetting an offender?

 

[MCSHF007]

I'm guessing this post wll be deleted (in which case fair enough), but given the number of "fare-dodging" posts from people stating that this could affect their visa/immigration status is there perhaps an argument that cultural differences may mislead people into thinking that it's OK to steal from "the railway" (and that the appropriate advisors should prioritise advice to this effect to their customers/clients) .

 

[ashkeba]

But the signs don't "encourage people to sin", as that poster has said - they tell you that you have to buy a ticket before you board.

They do not. They ask you to "please buy your ticket before you travel" which is very Sgt Wilson and completely underrates the severe action that many train companies will take if you try to buy a penalty fare on the train, especially if you fail the "attitude" test by not having English as a first language. In parts of Italy, you are asked to buy your bus ticket from a nearby shop, else you have to pay a higher penalty fare on the bus, but you will not ever get threatened with a career ending conviction for doing so. I doubt this is the only place. I think London now has higher fares to penalize paper tickets.

The sign should be made simpler and clearer, but that would hurt income.

 

[some bloke]

I do not have evidence it would be common but am aware of one case where the insurers refused cover for that part of the policy.

Thank you.

Could it be that employment problems from byelaw convictions are largely restricted to where, on questioning, the person seems not to have made an honest mistake or has not been transparent in disclosure?

If a passenger's worry about transgressing a Byelaw is that the company may prosecute and then an employer may not accept their explanation, perhaps it shouldn't generally be of more concern than another unlikely event such as "what if I go to step on the train and misstep, breaking my ankle?".

We can't rule out employers or insurance companies being prejudiced against people with very minor convictions, and it may be difficult to know what influenced decisions because they may not want to admit the real reason or may be influenced subconsciously, but in general it doesn't seem good management or good business practice to stop people working for very minor mistakes, so we could hope that a reasonable explanation from the employee would result in no significant consequences.

@island wrote:

"I've worked in banking for many years and whilst we have never refused or sacked someone for a minor conviction such as common assault, rail fare evasion, or the like, we have done for people who didn't tell us they had such convictions and we later found out."

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/disruptive-behaviour.228553/#post-5549768

 

[Tetchytyke]

Many professions have a "fit and proper person" test which those seeking to enter the profession or those within the profession must pass. Test is perhaps a misleading word as it means a standard. Convictions may mean that a person no longer meets the standard and thus they may lose their professional status or be barred from entering the profession.

I conduct such integrity checks for a living. A byelaws conviction wouldn't really have an impact on our assessment of a person's integrity, and whilst not disclosing it would certainly raise a few eyebrows there are many plausible reasons why someone may forget. But our risk appetite can best be described as pragmatic.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm guessing this post wll be deleted (in which case fair enough), but given the number of "fare-dodging" pots from people stating that this could affect their visa/immigration status is there perhaps an argument that cultural differences may mislead people into thinking that it's OK to steal from "the railway" (and that the appropriate advisors should prioritise advice to this effect to their customers/clients) .

There are definitely some Facebook and WhatsApp groups which

They do not. They ask you to "please buy your ticket before you travel"

The new ones don’t say that. The old ones do though.

The sign should be made simpler and clearer, but that would hurt income.

No it wouldn’t, it would hurt corporate image. Companies want people to purchase the correct tickets before they board. TOCs make a significant loss on passengers who simply treat penalty fares as an occupational hazard, happy to occasionally get dinged for £20 (or £50 now) if they save £30, 50, 200 or more by repeated evasion. Penalty fares increased to plug the revenue gap caused by this sort of fare evasion.

 

[RPI]

So its been nearly two weeks now and I personally think that the higher PF is making a difference, its surprised me that even in the more challenging areas people seem to be buying tickets!

I've not had reason to issue many either, let's hope it does act as an incentive.

 

[Titfield]

I conduct such integrity checks for a living. A byelaws conviction wouldn't really have an impact on our assessment of a person's integrity, and whilst not disclosing it would certainly raise a few eyebrows there are many plausible reasons why someone may forget. But our risk appetite can best be described as pragmatic.

In a profession I am involved with, those required to be "fit and proper" have to sign a declaration relating to offences, convictions and other matters relating to integrity.

Given the nature of the form (and the warnings contained thereon), it is "challenging" for the regulator to accept an assertion of "forgetfulness" should any undeclared matter come to light subsequently.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Given the nature of the form (and the warnings contained thereon), it is "challenging" for the regulator to accept an assertion of "forgetfulness" should any undeclared matter come to light subsequently.

Byelaws offences aren't usually recordable, so if it happened a while ago an omission would raise questions but can plausibly be an oversight.

And for the offence itself, it is strict liability and so a Byelaws offence wouldn't even necessarily demonstrate integrity issues.