RoRA technicality re: 'fare is paid'

[EM2]

As I read it, the OP is asking whether this becomes a RoRA offence, not what are the chances of any possible prosecution succeeding or even whether it should be brought (which I believe it should not).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As I read it, the OP is asking whether this becomes a RoRA offence, not what are the chances of any possible prosecution succeeding or even whether it should be brought (which I believe it should not).

Well, all of those really. Even if it's an offence, if no prosecution can be brought or expected to succeed, it's a rather moot point.

 

[infobleep]

That depends on the definition of fare.

Personally I see the concept is you have a ticket for a journey which costs a sum of money; that sum of money is the fare.

Therefore, if Wolves is the same price, the fare has been paid, but a valid ticket is not held.

But I would be interested in whether there is binding legal precedent on this.

In my 1883 edition of Dickens Dictionary of London, it points out that tickets on the underground to some stations are the same as others but if you over travel, even if it's the same fare, you will get charged.

It sounded ridiculous then as it does now but that doesn't change the legality and I don't know what that is.

 

[najaB]

Even if it's an offence, if no prosecution can be brought or expected to succeed, it's a rather moot point.

There's no doubt that a prosecution can be brought since private prosecutions don't have to pass a 'public interest' test. As @Bletchleyite correctly surmises, I'm not aware of any such case that reached a precedent-setting court, so there's no way to be sure if it would be successful.

 

[Haywain]

There's no doubt that a prosecution can be brought since private prosecutions don't have to pass a 'public interest' test. As @Bletchleyite correctly surmises, I'm not aware of any such case that reached a precedent-setting court, so there's no way to be sure if it would be successful.

If anyone thinks of allowing a similar case to go to court, I think it is equally (if not more) important to stress that there is no way to be sure that a prosecution would fail.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There's no doubt that a prosecution can be brought since private prosecutions don't have to pass a 'public interest' test. As @Bletchleyite correctly surmises, I'm not aware of any such case that reached a precedent-setting court, so there's no way to be sure if it would be successful.

Hence the qualifier 'if'. Given that, it seems, private prosecutions can be brought without a public interest (something that, personally, I think is in urgent need of 'correction'), then clearly this does not apply.

Perhaps we need someone who is able to prove this point, who has nothing to lose... Any volunteers

 

[najaB]

Given that, it seems, private prosecutions can be brought without a public interest (something that, personally, I think is in urgent need of 'correction')

It is not. A basic and very important part of British civil liberties is the ability for aggrieved parties to seek redress through the Court without having to depend on the state to do so on their behalf.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Aggrieved parties - such as train companies that have lost nothing (or even financially gained) from a "wrong" ticket being bought? I concur as others have written, that if the ticket doesn't match the route, there is a clear argument as to why it's not valid - but if it's valid for almost all the route, and the difference (as in the linked post) is nothing or even negative (as in other cases), I see no reason why the TOC is aggrieved in the first place.

I am not advocating for making every offence subject to the "must be approved by Attorney General" requirement for prosecution, or even a "must be approved by CPS" requirement, but I think that the rules of evidence, investigation and public interest ought to be made level across the board. What applies to the CPS in terms of strict legal rules (NOT their internal policies), should equally apply to other criminal prosecutors.

If they want to exercise a legal claim with relative impunity, they should do so in County Court. No risk to peoples' liberty or employment prospects (well, short of an unpaid CCJ) there.

 

[najaB]

Aggrieved parties - such as train companies that have lost nothing (or even financially gained) from a "wrong" ticket being bought? I concur as others have written, that if the ticket doesn't match the route, there is a clear argument as to why it's not valid - but if it's valid for almost all the route, and the difference (as in the linked post) is nothing or even negative (as in other cases), I see no reason why the TOC is aggrieved in the first place.

As mentioned previously, it likely comes down to the fact that the OP of the linked thread intended to cheat the system (and did make a small 'saving' on their fare). While I'm not aware of any cases of prosecutions being brought for no-fare fare evasion the fact that a passenger didn't actually deprive the TOC of money doesn't change the fact that they tried to.

[Analogy alert] If I shoot at someone and miss I'm still likely to end up in court, despite the fact that I've got bad aim.

If they want to exercise a legal claim with relative impunity, they should do so in County Court. No risk to peoples' liberty or employment prospects (well, short of an unpaid CCJ) there.

No risk to liberty in the magistrate's court (seeing as custodial sentences are virtually unheard of) and there's only a risk to employment if the accused works in an industry where a high degree of trust is required (and the fact that they attempted to cheat a fare brings into question if they deserve that trust).

 

[Haywain]

if the ticket doesn't match the route, there is a clear argument as to why it's not valid - but if it's valid for almost all the route, and the difference (as in the linked post) is nothing or even negative (as in other cases), I see no reason why the TOC is aggrieved in the first place.

Where would you like to draw this line? Let's start with someone travelling from Liverpool to Cardiff with a Manchester to Bristol ticket (I haven't even looked at prices, I don't think they are that relevant to your argument).

despite the fact that I've got bad aim.

Are you sure it's your aim, and not just being rubbish at shooting?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Where would you like to draw this line? Let's start with someone travelling from Liverpool to Cardiff with a Manchester to Bristol ticket (I haven't even looked at prices, I don't think they are that relevant to your argument).

I agree there is a limit. My point is - if you would be able to excess it for free (and I very much doubt you'd be allowed to get a free excess on that ticket to the route you suggested) - prosecution shouldn't be an option. PF perhaps, but I still think that's extreme for what, in essence, is just a question of a minor variation in the distribution of revenue, rather than the total revenue.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As mentioned previously, it likely comes down to the fact that the OP of the linked thread intended to cheat the system (and did make a small 'saving' on their fare). While I'm not aware of any cases of prosecutions being brought for no-fare fare evasion the fact that a passenger didn't actually deprive the TOC of money doesn't change the fact that they tried to.

[Analogy alert] If I shoot at someone and miss I'm still likely to end up in court, despite the fact that I've got bad aim.

No risk to liberty in the magistrate's court (seeing as custodial sentences are virtually unheard of) and there's only a risk to employment if the accused works in an industry where a high degree of trust is required (and the fact that they attempted to cheat a fare brings into question if they deserve that trust).

That's something I can agree with. Intending to deprive them of money should be an offence if depriving them of money is an offence. But if there was no intent - merely the thought that, "it's the same/less and I could get a free excess, no reason why I can't travel", I don't think that warrants prosecution.

The fact that custodial sentences are possible (and PNC records) I think is the point at which an offence should require a public interest. Imprisonment or PNC = public interest required.

I also agree that, if someone attempts to cheat, they shouldn't be trusted, but the problem with PNC records and RoRA convictions etc. is that they automatically make it difficult or impossible to get certain jobs or visas/waivers, even years or decades after the fact. That, I don't agree with, even though I've never evaded a fare, never thought of doing so and hate fare evaders.

 

[najaB]

[T]he problem with PNC records and RoRA convictions etc. is that they automatically make it difficult or impossible to get certain jobs or visas/waivers, even years or decades after the fact.

This is commonly trotted out as an argument, but I'm yet to hear of an actual example of this being a problem. Visas and visa waivers are affected by convictions for serious crimes (typically ones which attract a custodial sentence of over three months), the RoRA doesn't fall into that category. And after 12 months a RoRA conviction would only be visible on enhanced DBS checks, which are only allowed to be conducted for jobs that involve unsupervised contact with vulnerable people. The manager of a care home wants to know if a prospective employee has a history of committing physical abuse or of sexual misconduct, they are hardly going to concern themselves with if there was once an unpaid rail fare.

 

[robbeech]

The important thing to note here as others have briefly mentioned is where the money goes. I believe my research over the years is correct but do correct me if I’m wrong.
2 tickets may be priced the same but the extension of one ticket might incorporate another TOC which withoitbthe correct ticket may not get a share or at least the correct share of the ticket price paid. Also the other ticket might disallow a permitted route altering the division of the fare further.
For example
A Retford to York ticket would likely have the majority of the fare given to VTEC. But as it is valid via Leeds , Northern (between Doncaster and Leeds and Leeds and York) and Cross country (Doncaster to York and Leeds to York) will get a look in too. Hull trains operate Retford to Doncaster. But as the ticket is valid via Selby too.......
EMT won’t see a huge portion of this fare, there were/are a couple of EMT services in and out of york but not every day so that only leaves Gainsborough Lea road to Doncaster.

However, a Shirebrook to York is priced the same but for the first part of the journey to Worksop you have no option other than EMT. Tickets for this therefore distribute the funds in a different way.

The TSA goes into detail about redistribution of funds with excesses and of course this includes ones where there is zero to pay.

Now of course, there might actually be a financial benefit to not doing the excess depending on allocation and distribution of the original vs new fare. A post earlier in the thread hints at this too.
I think prosecution in this case if there is no attempt or intent to evade a fare would be somewhat harsh. Though I do think for completeness an excess fare should be processed. If there was clear intent to evade a fare this should be dealt with in the same way as if there was an evasion of a fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But for said excesses to be processed the railway needs to get over its allergy to zero fare excesses. Enough staff still seem to say "don't worry about it, the fare is the same".

Inconsistency of one member of staff saying something is OK and another writing you up for prosecution or PFing you is NOT acceptable. A given action should ALWAYS attract the same response from staff if you encounter them having done it. It's either OK or it is not.

 

[Llanigraham]

Aggrieved parties - such as train companies that have lost nothing (or even financially gained) from a "wrong" ticket being bought? I concur as others have written, that if the ticket doesn't match the route, there is a clear argument as to why it's not valid - but if it's valid for almost all the route, and the difference (as in the linked post) is nothing or even negative (as in other cases), I see no reason why the TOC is aggrieved in the first place.

I am not advocating for making every offence subject to the "must be approved by Attorney General" requirement for prosecution, or even a "must be approved by CPS" requirement, but I think that the rules of evidence, investigation and public interest ought to be made level across the board. What applies to the CPS in terms of strict legal rules (NOT their internal policies), should equally apply to other criminal prosecutors.

If they want to exercise a legal claim with relative impunity, they should do so in County Court. No risk to peoples' liberty or employment prospects (well, short of an unpaid CCJ) there.

The rules of evidence, investigation and public interest (what ever that is) are equal, for any prosecution. There are strict legal rules for any person or body instigating a prosecution.

And your last paragraph/sentence is completely wrong. Any Court, from Magstrates upwards can withdraw a person's liberty; it is quite common for people to be imprisoned at ALL levels.
I suggest that you do some research into the British legal system.

 

[robbeech]

But for said excesses to be processed the railway needs to get over its allergy to zero fare excesses. Enough staff still seem to say "don't worry about it, the fare is the same".

Inconsistency of one member of staff saying something is OK and another writing you up for prosecution or PFing you is NOT acceptable. A given action should ALWAYS attract the same response from staff if you encounter them having done it. It's either OK or it is not.

Fully agree. The same concept as buying on board where it is not allowed but most guards don’t care and sell a ticket anyway with no penalty.
I see the problems.
I have had a London Terminals to Whitwell ticket before and needed to get to Langwith (having travelled via Worksop). It’s the same price and 2 stops on the same line. I was unable to sort an excess prior to that train and the guard wasn’t interested as they were going to make much more revenue by walking on and selling tickets.

 

[AlterEgo]

Aggrieved parties - such as train companies that have lost nothing (or even financially gained) from a "wrong" ticket being bought? I concur as others have written, that if the ticket doesn't match the route, there is a clear argument as to why it's not valid - but if it's valid for almost all the route, and the difference (as in the linked post) is nothing or even negative (as in other cases), I see no reason why the TOC is aggrieved in the first place.

Their ORCATS share might vary (in some cases considerably).

We are getting very technical now and I have no firm opinion on whether an offence would even be committed.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

since private prosecutions don't have to pass a 'public interest' test

The rules of evidence, investigation and public interest (what ever that is) are equal, for any prosecution

These two statements clearly can't both be true at the same time. I've read and seen enough about TV Licensing and other non-CPS prosecutions to know that the same rules don't apply to all prosecutors, at least not in practice.

your last paragraph/sentence is completely wrong

I'm not sure what you mean. I have suggested that, if TOCs want to conduct legal proceedings against a passenger without having to abide by strict rules, they should go to County Court. It's civil - so no liberty at stake - and the judges there seem to have a strong dislike to awarding costs for unreasonable behaviour, even when this is clearly demonstrated. The TOCs could get away with pretty much anything there, just like plenty of other claimants do. I wouldn't condone it at all, but at least peoples' liberty, employment (excepting unpaid CCJs) and travel prospects aren't at stake.

I suggest that you do some research into the British legal system.

Funny you should say that, I was just reading this House of Lords judgement this morning. I find it's rather illuminating in regards to the requirements, or lack thereof, of abiding by procedure in railway legal matters.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Their ORCATS share might vary (in some cases considerably).

We are getting very technical now and I have no firm opinion on whether an offence would even be committed.

In the linked thread, XC (or TIL on its behalf) was threatening prosecution. I don't know the internal workings of ORCATS, and I don't think many people do, but simple logic should dictate that XC would get a higher share of a Birmingham-Portsmouth ticket than a Wolverhampton-Portsmouth ticket. After all, Wolverhampton-Birmingham can be done with 4 different TOCs (LM/LNR/WMR, ATW, VTWC or XC), whereas the rest of the route (Birmingham-Portsmouth) can be done with fewer - with some stretches being XC-only. So if there is less of the route where other operators' trains could be taken, it would follow that XC would be given more revenue.

In this particular case, because there is actually a small difference between the Birmingham and Wolverhampton, this doesn't apply quite so much, but on other routes where the price is the same but the ORCATS share differs, I think this applies.

 

[Llanigraham]

These two statements clearly can't both be true at the same time. I've read and seen enough about TV Licensing and other non-CPS prosecutions to know that the same rules don't apply to all prosecutors, at least not in practice.

I see you only chose to highlight certain words.
I wonder why?

I'm not sure what you mean. I have suggested that, if TOCs want to conduct legal proceedings against a passenger without having to abide by strict rules, they should go to County Court. It's civil - so no liberty at stake - and the judges there seem to have a strong dislike to awarding costs for unreasonable behaviour, even when this is clearly demonstrated. The TOCs could get away with pretty much anything there, just like plenty of other claimants do. I wouldn't condone it at all, but at least peoples' liberty, employment (excepting unpaid CCJs) and travel prospects aren't at stake.

Your lack of understanding of legal process does you no good.

Funny you should say that, I was just reading this House of Lords judgement this morning. I find it's rather illuminating in regards to the requirements, or lack thereof, of abiding by procedure in railway legal matters.

Of no relevance, since it was not a ticketing matter.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Ok, so we've come round in circles on this thread, but it doesn't seem like there's a proper answer as it doesn't seem there's any precedent. That being the case, I think my question has been answered - in the sense that the answer is 'no-one is 100% sure'. I'm happy for the mods to lock the thread if they want therefore.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The most fitting judgement in case law to illustrate that "paid his fare" means the fare for the journey being taken and not the same amount of money as the fare for the journey being taken can be found in Browning v Floyd (1946) KB 597.
Arthur Floyd presented a ticket of the correct value, keeping a valid ticket for the journey in his pocket which he intended to use on a subsequent occasion.
The Magistrates dismissed the claim and Southern Railway Appealled. On Appeal, the Court ruled that "The rail company may not have lost any money, but the defendant had not paid HIS fare". His Offence was found to have been captured by three Acts of Parliament and one Railway Byelaw and was remitted to the Magistrates to sentence him.
Judgement was given by Lord Goddard LCJ, Humphries J, Singleton J.

Similar rulings have been given in other circumstances, e.g. transferring a ticket after the Company has been paid: Reynolds v Beasley [1919] 1 KB 215. 'Held that the statute means “paid his fare to the Railway Company” and so “had travelled without having previously paid and with intent to avoid . . .” payment.' and Gillingham v Walker (1881) 45 JP 470 ; 29 WR 896 where the Court held that the passenger 'had not paid "his fare", though he had paid "a fare". '

 

[falcon]

The most fitting judgement in case law to illustrate that "paid his fare" means the fare for the journey being taken and not the same amount of money as the fare for the journey being taken can be found in Browning v Floyd (1946) KB 597.
Arthur Floyd presented a ticket of the correct value, keeping a valid ticket for the journey in his pocket which he intended to use on a subsequent occasion.
The Magistrates dismissed the claim and Southern Railway Appealled. On Appeal, the Court ruled that "The rail company may not have lost any money, but the defendant had not paid HIS fare". His Offence was found to have been captured by three Acts of Parliament and one Railway Byelaw and was remitted to the Magistrates to sentence him.
Judgement was given by Lord Goddard LCJ, Humphries J, Singleton J.

Similar rulings have been given in other circumstances, e.g. transferring a ticket after the Company has been paid: Reynolds v Beasley [1919] 1 KB 215. 'Held that the statute means “paid his fare to the Railway Company” and so “had travelled without having previously paid and with intent to avoid . . .” payment.' and Gillingham v Walker (1881) 45 JP 470 ; 29 WR 896 where the Court held that the passenger 'had not paid "his fare", though he had paid "a fare". '

Where are copies of these cases ?

 

[island]

This is commonly trotted out as an argument, but I'm yet to hear of an actual example of this being a problem. Visas and visa waivers are affected by convictions for serious crimes (typically ones which attract a custodial sentence of over three months), the RoRA doesn't fall into that category. And after 12 months a RoRA conviction would only be visible on enhanced DBS checks, which are only allowed to be conducted for jobs that involve unsupervised contact with vulnerable people. The manager of a care home wants to know if a prospective employee has a history of committing physical abuse or of sexual misconduct, they are hardly going to concern themselves with if there was once an unpaid rail fare.

A standard DBS check shows spent convictions.

However, far more people come a cropper by failing to disclose convictions that then show up on checks than because of the conviction in the first place – failing to be open and honest is a larger issue.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Where are copies of these cases ?

Browning v Floyd and Reynolds v Beasley should be found in any law database such as Westlaw. Gillingham v Walker isn't easy to find on-line but will be in the Law Reports of any good law library and is referred to in text books - I gave the neutral citation numbers above, which should help.