Southwest trains £80 fine.

[najaB]

I was merely quoting a reply that was given to me by stating this is not a crime in the broadest sense.

A law was broken, hence a crime was committed. It is as simple as that.

Just pointing out to Llanigraham how ridiculous his post sounded, because by that reckoning we`re all criminals.

There is nothing ridiculous about the post you responded to, Llanigraham's post was factual and correct, unlike your response.

Bringing this thread back to topic: to the OP, have you managed to get into contact with SWT's prosecution team?

 

[Llanigraham]

I was merely quoting a reply that was given to me by stating this is not a crime in the broadest sense. If I had murdered someone I couldn`t offer an out of court settlement. An extreme example I know but both are considered criminal offences in the language of the post that replied to me. A different level of offence granted. I do admit that my wording may have been poor. I wasn`t offering advice to the OP. Just pointing out to Llanigraham how ridiculous his post sounded, because by that reckoning we`re all criminals.

If you break a Law, any Law, then technically you are a criminal.
My comment was not ridiculous but accurate.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If I had murdered someone I couldn't offer an out of court settlement. An extreme example I know but . . .

I think you may have missed something in your education in law; perhaps not in school or university studies, I know but . . .

Just pointing out to Llanigraham how ridiculous his post sounded, because by that reckoning we're all criminals.

I share the view of others that Llanigraham's post does not appear ridiculous, and does appear to be succinct and accurate.

Atotheb, sadly for you, Llanigraham and others are correct that a 'strict liability' offence was commited when you 'failed to hand over a ticket for inspection when requested'. That is captured by Railway Byelaw 18. The only defences against this are matters of fact: that you were not the person travelling at the time and place, that you did hand over a ticket for inspection when requested, etc. and the grounds for a discharge are that the prosecution evidence is inadequate, or is wrongly presented, or is not presented at all, or your mitigating circumstances are exceptionally persuasive.

If you break a Law, any Law, then technically you are a criminal.

I wonder if the distinction which Master29 was attempting to make was between a criminal and a convicted criminal?

Or if it was that Atotheb's offence was not under Primary Legislation nor under the Common Law, but was in fact under Secondary Legislation?

But whatever the point, or the distinction, it is of no assistance to you, Atotheb.

 

[Master29]

Originally Posted by Llanigraham View Post
If you break a Law, any Law, then technically you are a criminal.

Then by that we are all criminals.

 

[najaB]

Then by that we are all criminals.

If we've broken laws, then yes. As DaveNewcastle surmised, you seem to be confusing 'criminal' with 'convicted criminal'.

 

[Llanigraham]

Originally Posted by Llanigraham View Post
If you break a Law, any Law, then technically you are a criminal.

Then by that we are all criminals.

Correct!
And I have no doubt that everyone of us does exactly that every day, in some small manner.

 

[Master29]

That`s really what I meant. I admit my wording was incorrect on my original reply. I was not trying to mislead the OP in any way and I apologise for any offence caused.