Preserved railways prosecutions

[arabianights]

Are there any examples of preserved railways prosecuting for fare evasion?

I see no reason why RORA or the railway bylaw section 18s wouldn't apply to them, after all the legislation well predates British Rail.

 

[168lover]

The heritage line where I volunteer we tend to have no issues with people without tickets. The general rule of thumb with people without tickets is ask them to buy one or go into great detail about how the railway doesn't survive without ticket money so if they don't buy a ticket the railway won't be there for them to ride it. Normally after that they buy a ticket

 

[Jonfun]

Are there any examples of preserved railways prosecuting for fare evasion? I see no reason why RORA or the railway bylaw section 18s wouldn't apply to them, after all the legislation well predates British Rail, and it could be quite a jolly jape if say the prosecution happened in the court house at Beamish!

Unlikely that it has been considered for fare evasion, as it's too small a problem to be worthwhile putting resources into dealing with - although theoretically it would be possible in certain circumstances. I know that trespass has been prosecuted, but that was by the police working alongside a railway, not the railway prosecuting directly.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I would expect most heritage railways are operating as a Registered Charity (or other form of incorporation with charitable objectives approved by the Charity Commission). If so, then they can include a power to create and enforce Byelaws for he regulation of persons and activities on their property. There is no reason why 'fare evasion' could not be one of them.

But if you are asking if the 2002 Railway Byelaws, which regulate activity on the UK mainlines, has been applied to heritage railways, then no. That would not be possible. (Although I can't determine whether or not anyone has attempted to prosecute a breach on a heritage railway).

. . . . . I know that trespass has been prosecuted, but that was by the police working alongside a railway, not the railway prosecuting directly.

Yes, and many other offences, such as theft, vandalism and safety, but these are not Railway Byelaw offences.

 

[ainsworth74]

What about RoRA S5?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What about RoRA S5?

The Act in itself doesn't make the distinction you are looking for, though I must emphasise that exile's question referred to 'inadvertent' breaches, and S.5 of the RoRA does not include 'inadvertent' breaches, so we are now entering quite different territory.

I'm not aware of any past attempt to apply S.5 of the RoRA to a heritage railway and would not advise it - if there was a substantial loss through fraud or theft, then those Acts would remain in force and would be effective (most intentional S.5 offences could be prosecuted under other legistlation, it's a convenience that the RoRA simplifies the management of offences when committed on the mainline railways).

 

[cornishjohn]

Yes, and many other offences, such as theft, vandalism and safety, but these are not Railway Byelaw offences.

I thought, generally speaking, trespass was a civil offence? While trespass on the railway is a different matter, being a bylaw offence?

So, unless folks prosecuted for trespass on a heritage railway were committing some form of aggravated trespass, then those powers have apparently been sought; if so fare evasion bylaws would be just as feasible?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I thought, generally speaking, trespass was a civil offence? While trespass on the railway is a different matter, being a bylaw offence?

Trespass can be prosecuted as a Tort (a Civil matter) or as a Public Order offence (a Criminal matter). But we're only considering Heritage railways here, who may not have drafted and adopted any Byelaws, so trespass would only be dealt with as a Tort (civil), unless it could be prosecuted as a Public Order Offence. But that seems to be the appropriate channel to me.

So, unless folks prosecuted for trespass on a heritage railway were committing some form of aggravated trespass, then those powers have apparently been sought; if so fare evasion bylaws would be just as feasible?

I don't think I understand the question in the way you set it up with trespass, but I'll repeat, the mainline Railway Byelaws do not apply on Heritage Railways, but they would be entitled to create their own Byelaws, and to enforce them.

 

[dcsprior]

the mainline Railway Byelaws do not apply on Heritage Railways, but they would be entitled to create their own Byelaws, and to enforce them.

Apologies for wandering away from the topic slightly, but is this also true of Heathrow Express (and any other bits of railway which aren't part of the national network, but aren't preserved either)?

 

[Jonfun]

I thought, generally speaking, trespass was a civil offence? While trespass on the railway is a different matter, being a bylaw offence?

So, unless folks prosecuted for trespass on a heritage railway were committing some form of aggravated trespass, then those powers have apparently been sought; if so fare evasion bylaws would be just as feasible?

Trespass on railway lines is covered by other laws than the mainline railway byelaws. I can't off the top of my head tell you what they are, but it's not simply a byelaw offence.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Apologies for wandering away from the topic slightly, but is this also true of Heathrow Express (and any other bits of railway which aren't part of the national network, but aren't preserved either)?

There are two separate enabling regimes spanning this question.

In post #5 I specifically confined myself to Charities (I guess most heritage railways will have been registered by the Charity Commission). By virtue of the Charities Act, they can create Byelaws to regulate activities.

The mainline railways and the franchise system under which they are licensed was set out in the Transport Act on privitisation were empowered to create Byelaws to regulate activities by the Transport Act (through OPRAF and then the SRA).

Heathrow Express doesn't look like a Charity to me! Was it created under privitisation ? I'm not sure that it was.

 

[cool110]

Heathrow Express doesn't look like a Charity to me! Was it created under privitisation ? I'm not sure that it was.

It was actually started in the last days of BR but wasn't completed until 1998. So it is covered by the Railways Act 1993 and the national railway byelaws do apply.

 

[fandroid]

Trespass on railway lines is covered by other laws than the mainline railway byelaws. I can't off the top of my head tell you what they are, but it's not simply a byelaw offence.

A quick look at the cps website tells us that trespass on a railway is an offence under three acts: 1840, 1868 & 1949. The first two require the act to be 'wilful' and ignoring an instruction to leave is proof of that. The last one requires notices to point out the illegality of trespass. As private railways are set up under appropriate legislation ( light railways act?) I guess that they are covered too.