Strict liability offences

[ralphchadkirk]

Moderator note:
There have been occasions when people have requested help here, and people have pointed out that a strict liability offence has (or may have) occured (or be alleged). This topic contains posts that were on the Debt Collection Letter and Threat of Court Action topic. If anyone refers to the original post / poster ('OP') or 'the person' or 'the story' etc, please see that topic for background info.

if as Ferret reckons the conviction has been made then I would guess appeal to the court on the grounds that you knew nothing about it!

It's a strict liability offence. Whether you knew that you were committing the offence or not is immaterial. The only thing that matters is that you did it.

 

[tony_mac]

The proceedings would still be invalid if you were unaware of them. (section 14, magistrates court act 1980)

Amongst other possibilities, maybe you could still be found guilty at a retrial but given an absolute discharge. You still have the right to a trial, even for a strict liability offence.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The proceedings would still be invalid if you were unaware of them. (section 14, magistrates court act 1980)

Amongst other possibilities, maybe you could still be found guilty at a retrial but given an absolute discharge. You still have the right to a trial, even for a strict liability offence.

Ah I see, I thought he was referring to whether the person knew she was committing an offence or not, not about the presence in court.

 

[tony_mac]

that's cleared it up - I thought it seemed a bit odd!

 

[Viscount]

Looks like only half the story here then. Too many holes for my liking.

The old comparison with "lost" tickets was that they are cash. Try going through a checkout at Tescos and keeping your basket of shopping against a promise to bring in that £10 you thought you had in your pocket, but must have left in the drawer at home.......

 

[b0b]

Try going through a checkout at Tescos and keeping your basket of shopping against a promise to bring in that £10 you thought you had in your pocket, but must have left in the drawer at home.......

Have you committed a criminal offence by attempting to check out at Tescos and finding you forgot your £10?

 

[mrcheek]

Have you committed a criminal offence by attempting to check out at Tescos and finding you forgot your £10?

Yes, if you start having a go at the checkout assistant, then refuse to pay, then take all the stuff home, and then ignore a load of letters asking for payment....

 

[b0b]

Yes, if you start having a go at the checkout assistant, then refuse to pay, then take all the stuff home, and then ignore a load of letters asking for payment....

but the mere act of forgetting your method of payment isn't a criminal offence to start with, unlike the act of forgetting your rail ticket.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

but the mere act of forgetting your method of payment isn't a criminal offence to start with, unlike the act of forgetting your rail ticket.

It is if you then get on the train and travel. Like walking out a supermarket with the goods, because you forgot your wallet.

 

[yorkie]

It is if you then get on the train and travel. Like walking out a supermarket with the goods, because you forgot your wallet.

I don't like the supermarket example, but it falls down when you consider it is perfectly possible that someone may board a train and then realise that they have lost their wallet BUT until they attempt to exit from the station, they have not committed an act that is equivalent to your example of "walking out a supermarket with the goods"!

If you were using the comparison with someone exiting a station and making no attempt to declare the journey at the barrier, and hopping over a barrier or something, then I'd say yes your point is entirely valid and comparable.

But as it is, it's not a like-for-like comparison. Or, in other words, the analogy just doesn't work.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It doesn't natter whether you exit the station or not, the minute you step in a train without a valid ticket, then you are gaining services without paying for them. The same as walking out a supermarket.

 

[moonrakerz]

But as it is, it's not a like-for-like comparison. Or, in other words, the analogy just doesn't work.

True to some extent, a better comparison would be if you ate your purchases before you got to the checkout !!

 

[yorkie]

It doesn't natter whether you exit the station or not, the minute you step in a train without a valid ticket, then you are gaining services without paying for them. The same as walking out a supermarket.

But didn't you read what I said earlier?

Also the idea that someone is guilty the instant they board a train at Rotherham is ludicrous given that Northern have a policy of officially selling full-fare tickets on board, and unofficially selling discounted tickets on board!

It's getting silly now.

There is nothing of value to add to my first post on this subject, do you disagree with it? If so, you are also disagreeing with a guard, and that'd be most unlike you

True to some extent, a better comparison would be if you ate your purchases before you got to the checkout !!

Indeed.

For once, I agree with you :grin:

Can we stop all of this now, altough this isn't my expertees, without further information/clarification from the OP, this is going nowhere, all we can do is speculate...

Matt

I agree. If the OP doesn't get back to us with more info, then we can only speculate how the conversation went on board that train. I can imagine how it may have gone (which I won't post!), but I maintain that it won't have gone along the lines of someone being reported for prosecution merely for the act of leaving their ticket on their desk. (Anyone who suggests otherwise is not in the real world; the two people to do so may work on preserved lines but that that doesn't count!) There is more to it than that, but what that is, we may never know!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Also the idea that someone is guilty the instant they board a train at Rotherham is ludicrous given that Northern have a policy of officially selling full-fare tickets on board, and unofficially selling discounted tickets on board!

Whatever the TOC's policy, it is the law. If you get on a train without a valid ticket then you are breaking the law. Whatever policy a TOC has, they cannot change the law. They may choose not to enforce it, but you are still breaking the law. Hence my statement was entirely correct.

And, I agree with you on the other point. You wouldn't have been reported for prosecution for forgetting your ticket (even though you have broken the law).

 

[moonrakerz]

Whatever the TOC's policy, it is the law. If you get on a train without a valid ticket then you are breaking the law.

I would be interested to see exactly where this is stated. I have previously spent some time looking for this, with no success.
It may be a offence to board a train with the intention of avoiding payment - but that is not what we are talking about - or is it ?

On numerous occasions my local station has had a closed booking office and both machines U/S; some local services deliberately operate though unmannned/"unmachined" stations and fares are collected on the train. What do I do then - catch a bus - or knowingly break the Law ?

I get the impression that much of the general confusion on this subject is caused by each TOC doing it's "own thing" with regard to this. Apart from which, if boarding a train without a ticket is a criminal offence, why muck about with PF schemes ? A £20 PF here and there isn't much of a deterrent - transportation for life might have a better effect

(Or perhaps, cynical hat firmly in place, PFs raise revenue for the TOC and Court fines don't !!! - what are PFs for; to reduce evasion ? or raise revenue ?
The TOCs publicly tell us the former, whereas the manner in which they are operated strongly suggests the latter)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I would be interested to see exactly where this is stated. I have previously spent some time looking for this, with no success.
It may be a offence to board a train with the intention of avoiding payment - but that is not what we are talking about - or is it ?

Byelaws 17 and 18 cover this:
17. Compulsory Ticket Areas
(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.


18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

So if you get on a train, without a valid ticket then you are breaking the law. I think it would be very hard to prove whether or not you had the intent of travelling or not.
Of course, as you said there are exceptions.

 

[bluenoxid]

Byelaws 17 and 18 cover this:
17. Compulsory Ticket Areas
(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.
18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

So if you get on a train, without a valid ticket then you are breaking the law. I think it would be very hard to prove whether or not you had the intent of travelling or not.
Of course, as you said there are exceptions.

Like the ones you have highlighted there and there is also the interesting one of the failure of the TOC to meet the guidelines set for serving customers (queue length) but I don't believe that it has yet formed part of a challenge in case law.

 

[yorkie]

Byelaws 17 and 18 cover this:
17. Compulsory Ticket Areas

Ralph - this is getting extremely irritating now. There are no penalty fares on this route. There are no compulsory ticket areas. You may buy on board Northern trains. Your claims would indicate that thousands of people are committing criminal acts every day, yet Northern guards do not treat these people like criminals (because they aren't) and simply offer to sell them a ticket. Suggesting otherwise is not productive. Your entire quote is totally irrelevant in non-CTAs. Have you actually been to places like Rotherham?

I would be interested to see exactly where this is stated. I have previously spent some time looking for this, with no success.

He is quoting the rules on Compulsory Ticket Areas. These are not applicable.

Compulsory ticket areas

4.6 The Penalty Fares Rules allow an operator to create compulsory ticket areas (CTAs) at stations. A CTA is an area at a station, usually the platforms and any footbridge, subway or circulating area linking the platforms, in which everyone must have a valid ticket or platform ticket, even if they have not travelled yet or are not going to travel.
4.7 CTAs increase the risk to honest passengers because people who have not travelled, or who do not intend to travel, may also be charged a penalty fare if they do not have a platform ticket or other authority allowing them to enter the CTA. This could include people who are meeting passengers or seeing passengers off, or people who are simply using the station facilities. Operators do not need to create a CTA to charge penalty fares to passengers who have got off a train. Penalty fares may be charged to someone leaving a train, and the rules make it clear that 'a person leaving a train' includes someone who is present at or leaving a station having left a train arriving at that station. CTAs are only necessary at larger and busier stations, where revenue protection can only be carried out effectively if it is no longer necessary for authorised collectors to prove who has and has not got off a train.
4.8 A CTA should normally only be created if all the train operators using that station (or the particular part of the station covered by the CTA) have a penalty fares scheme. CTAs should not normally be created at stations (or parts of stations) that are served by trains which are not part of any operator's penalty fares scheme.
4.9 Warning notices must be placed at each entrance to the CTA, in line with rule 4. CTAs can cause confusion if there are no barriers at the entrance to the platforms because people think that they are free to walk onto the platforms without a ticket. So it is very important that a CTA is clearly marked so that people know they must have a ticket or platform ticket before they enter that area.
4.10 At stations with a CTA, operators must make arrangements for people who are not travelling to be allowed into the part of the station covered by the CTA, if they have a good reason. This includes people who are meeting passengers, seeing passengers off or helping them with luggage, people helping passengers with disabilities, and people such as railway enthusiasts. The arrangements might include making platform tickets available at the ticket office or from a machine. People who are helping passengers with disabilities should not be charged to enter a CTA.

This doesn't apply at Rotherham.

Boarding a train at Rotherham is not a crime in itself. There is more to this case, and I think we will never know the detail.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Did you actually read it?! I then covered non-Compulsory ticket areas, where it states:
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

Whatever the policy of the TOC, they are still breaking the law by boarding the train without a valid ticket. It's up to the TOC whether they choose to enforce it. Understand?

I see you have edited your post Yorkie, which further highlights that you did not read mine, because I covered both compulsory and non-compulsory ticket areas. Sadly - unless someone can prove me wrong - I shall consider that I am right because as far as I can see, the bylaws back me up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ralph - this is getting extremely irritating now.

You're finding it irritating that someone is challenging your points? That's a bit arrogant.

 

[nedchester]

Ralph - this is getting extremely irritating now. There are no penalty fares on this route. There are no compulsory ticket areas. You may buy on board Northern trains. Your claims would indicate that thousands of people are committing criminal acts every day, yet Northern guards do not treat these people like criminals (because they aren't) and simply offer to sell them a ticket. Suggesting otherwise is not productive. Your entire quote is totally irrelevant in non-CTAs. Have you actually been to places like Rotherham?

I really cannot see why TOCs cannot offer the full range of tickets on the train as long as the person gets on the train and offers to pay as soon as they are gripped and/or they go to the guard. What's so hard in that? Grand Central/WSMR do it so why not the other TOCs. It does seem that generally Northern have this more enlightened attitude in most cases.

I am aghast at some of the views of some on this board that seem to think many quite innocent people are criminals.

 

[Wolfie]

Whatever the TOC's policy, it is the law. If you get on a train without a valid ticket then you are breaking the law. Whatever policy a TOC has, they cannot change the law. They may choose not to enforce it, but you are still breaking the law. Hence my statement was entirely correct.

Really?

Is it that categoric then? Even at a station where there are no facilities to buy a ticket!

Sooner or later someone is going to take the railway byelaws all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. Absolute offences are absolutely non-compatible with the right to a trial before conviction which is at the heart of the European Convention on Human Rights (and before the Euro-bashers pipe up UK was one of the leaders in drafting this convention under Prime Minister Winston Churchill!).

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Really?

Is it that categoric then? Even at a station where there are no facilities to buy a ticket!

Does nobody read? You are allowed to, if there are no facilities to buy a ticket. However, if there are means to do so, and you step on a train without a valid ticket, then you are breaking the law - a point yorkie fails to comprehend.

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

 

[yorkie]

It clearly doesn't apply as it is not enforced, guards are not instructed to approach people who board trains and, if they can't produce a ticket, submit a report for prosecution.

You know Ralph that if TOCs enforced this, there would be outrage and people would lobby their MPs to get this law repealed. Therefore, they can't practicably enforce it.

(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

As it is Northern's policy not to enforce that rule, I would imagine that Northern's instructions over-rule it, or simply 'count' as exceptions.

Instructions given to East Coast guards (Northern will be similar I am sure):

Passengers boarding without a ticket will still be able to purchase a ticket on board.
However, they will be required to pay the Full First or Full Standard Anytime Single or
Return. No Railcard discounts will be given onboard apart from the discount available
with Disabled Persons Railcards.

 

[moonrakerz]

Byelaws 17 and 18 cover this:
So if you get on a train, without a valid ticket then you are breaking the law. I think it would be very hard to prove whether or not you had the intent of travelling or not.
Of course, as you said there are exceptions.

Thank you for that

I think you have shown the lunacy of the whole system - and to some extent shot your own fox.

The Law is the Law - FULL STOP !

The TOCs are no more entitled to pick and choose what they wish to obey/enforce than the customer is.
There is an almost complete disregard for the official rules of PFs and CTA by the TOCs - so why should they decide which ticketless person they will "fine" ? The rules also state that if the DfT/SRA rules are not followed by the TOC then that PF/CTA can be removed - yeah, dream on !

However, I do often wonder about how many of the reports of the nasty/rapacious TOCs "fining" innocent travellers actually hold water on closer examination. This thread is now on page 5, the OP has put up a story (his only post on this site) and has now vanished into thin air, attempts to clarify the story have been ignored.
I think perhaps the major problem is not PFs/CTAs/RPIs/etc/etc but just a lack of CDF !!!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It clearly doesn't apply as it is not enforced, guards are not instructed to approach people who board trains and, if they can't produce a ticket, submit a report for prosecution.

It applies whether or not it is enforced. If I battered someone over the head with a cricket bat, and the CPS decided not to prosecute, I would still have committed ABH, just that nothing was proved or charged.

You know Ralph that if TOCs enforced this, there would be outrage and people would lobby their MPs to get this law repealed. Therefore, they can't practicably enforce it.

Yes, which is why I said that it isn't enforced!! The fact is though, it is still breaking the law at the moment, right up until the time it is repealed.

As it is Northern's policy not to enforce that rule, I would imagine that Northern's instructions over-rule it, or simply 'count' as exceptions.

Northern could not overrule the law. They just choose not to enforce it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thank you for that

I think you have shown the lunacy of the whole system - and to some extent shot your own fox.

The Law is the Law - FULL STOP !

The TOCs are no more entitled to pick and choose what they wish to obey/enforce than the customer is.
There is an almost complete disregard for the official rules of PFs and CTA by the TOCs - so why should they decide which ticketless person they will "fine" ? The rules also state that if the DfT/SRA rules are not followed by the TOC then that PF/CTA can be removed - yeah, dream on !

However, I do often wonder about how many of the reports of the nasty/rapacious TOCs "fining" innocent travellers actually hold water on closer examination. This thread is now on page 5, the OP has put up a story (his only post on this site) and has now vanished into thin air, attempts to clarify the story have been ignored.
I think perhaps the major problem is not PFs/CTAs/RPIs/etc/etc but just a lack of CDF !!!

Yes, I too think the system is not fit for purpose, and it could well do with overhaul. The TOCs need to realise that they are not above the law, and so do some passengers to a certain extent.
However, this is the system that we have to work with at the moment.

 

[Ferret]

Ralph, you're absolutely right on this. The simple fact is that it's not practical to treat everyone who boards a train without a ticket as a criminal. Certainly the angle my employers take is to look for intent to avoid the fare. Getting on a train with no means to pay and no ticket for instance! Getting on a train and wanting to pay is something that many customers do, in the knowledge that they can pay on the train - why would we therefore want to prosecute those people?

 

[yorkie]

Yes, I too think the system is not fit for purpose, and it could well do with overhaul. The TOCs need to realise that they are not above the law, and so do some passengers to a certain extent.

Yes, I agree totally.

However I disagree with

"Northern could not overrule the law. They just choose not to enforce it."

If they choose not to enforce it, then effectively there is no offence. The offence is not an offence if an 'authorised person' allows people to buy on board, right? They are doing that. The 'authorised person' is all Northern staff, effectively. By allowing people to buy on board, they are making it cease to be an offence.

I think that this thread has been somewhat ruined though with the insistence by you, and one or two others, that the OP's daughter became a criminal the instant she stepped on the train. I do not believe for one moment that is true, and I do not believe that the guard would have treated her as such. Therefore, this discussion about the details of archaic unenforced laws is not helpful to the situation.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If they choose not to enforce it, then effectively there is no offence. .

I disagree. For example, the Queen has the power to refuse to sign some legislation into court - yet she wouldn't as it would cause anarchy. The power still exists, even if she doesn't use it.

The byelaw states:
an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

I would take that to mean somebody, in person, giving the passenger entitlement to carry out their journey without a valid ticket. Not a company allowing people to buy on board.

I think that this thread has been somewhat ruined though with the insistence by you, and one or two others, that the OP's daughter became a criminal the instant she stepped on the train. I do not believe for one moment that is true, and I do not believe that the guard would have treated her as such. Therefore, this discussion about the details of archaic unenforced laws is not helpful to the situation.

I disagree - if you had read my original post to see I had written about non-Compulsory TA's and said then, yes it's the law, but Northern don't enforce it - like you are now, then we would be two pages back and discussing something more constructive here.

 

[Viscount]

The old ruling used to be "intent to defraud". In other words, everything else was academic unless this was proven to apply. Attempts to mislead or to refuse payment or provision of name and address would all provide evidence of intent I suspect.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The old ruling used to be "intent to defraud". In other words, everything else was academic unless this was proven to apply. Attempts to mislead or to refuse payment or provision of name and address would all provide evidence of intent I suspect.

These are strict liability, no need for any intent.