Strict liability offences

[Mojo]

That is for the most recent Byelaws though, they did exist before then and contain clauses about tickets.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A TOC could charge someone with a byelaw offence, and the byelaw offence (17 & 18) are strict liability. Yes, I don't like SL offences in situations like these, but this is what could happens. What act a Prosecutor chooses to use in the case is up to them, as Ferret said.

That's precisely my understanding too.
Each instance of Fare Evasion may be prosecuted under the Bye-Laws or Section 5 of the ROR Act.

Its true that the advice to the CPS is to use S.5 of the ROR Act (and which, if successful, will lead to a recordable Conviction) but this advice is more likely to be taken where the conviction is being prosecuted by the Police (inc. BTP). Each TOC's legal department is at perfect liberty to make their own choice (which is why, Mojo, I thought it might help to read the training notes from one firm, choosing the route of using S.5 of the ROR Act).

 

[Old Timer]

That is for the most recent Byelaws though, they did exist before then and contain clauses about tickets.

The Railway Byelaws were first authorised under the Regulation of Railways Act 1840.

This allowed Railway companies to set out rules governing the behaviour and conduct of people on or about their property, and gave them the right to levy specific penalties for a breach. Each Railway Company's Byelaws were authorised by the Board of Trade.

The 1889 Regulation of Railways Act introduced a Criminal sanction for persons who deliberately travelled or who set out to travel without paying the fare for their journey. Previously this could only be dealt with as a Civil debt.

The Penalty Fares Act 1989 does NOT confer any Criminal sanction and thus nobody can be Prosecuted under Railway Byelaws for this. That is why there is NO fine shown for Byelaw 17. The remedy is either a penalty fare and the fare due, OR an 1889 S5 Prosecution.

A Penalty Fare becomes a Civil debt, alongside the fare due and must be recovered under CIVIL debt recovery proceedings. Legally a Penalty Fare may only be recovered through the issue of a Court Order, and I do not believe that this has yet been tested in Court.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But, byelaw 18 - the entering of a train without a valid ticket in a non compulsory ticket area could be prosecuted, and fine for 18 - an SL offence?

 

[Old Timer]

But, byelaw 18 - the entering of a train without a valid ticket in a non compulsory ticket area could be prosecuted, and fine for 18 - an SL offence?

As I read it, YES.

But that is for the breach of a Railway Byelaw NOT associated with payment for travel.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As I read it, YES.

But that is for the breach of a Railway Byelaw NOT associated with payment for travel.

I see, thank you.

 

[Old Timer]

I see, thank you.

The Byelaw 17 is there to support an 1889 S5 prosecution or a civil recovery, because to prove both, you have to prove that the person had been given due notice of the offence.

Using the Railway binds one to the Byelaws, and the Law gives direction that ignorance of the Law does not provide a defence against a breach of any Law (this will include a Byelaw, which of course is authorised under an Act of Parliament).

Thus someone could NOT argue that they did not know it was an offence to pass through a ticket barrier or travel without a valid ticket, because this fact is clearly stated in Byelaw 17.

This then provides sufficient support for the TOC to succeed in their civil claim for recovery of the fare.

 

[yorkie]

Are you saying that if someone gets on a train at Rotherham and asks for a ticket they can be told "No, you are being prosecuted for byelaw offence of boarding without a ticket" yet if someone does the same thing at, say, Hadley Wood, they can be told "You are not being prosecuted but you must pay a penalty fare"?

As that's what seems to be suggested, which can't possibly right, can it?!

 

[Old Timer]

Are you saying that if someone gets on a train at Rotherham and asks for a ticket they can be told "No, you are being prosecuted for byelaw offence of boarding without a ticket" yet if someone does the same thing at, say, Hadley Wood, they can be told "You are not being prosecuted but you must pay a penalty fare"?

As that's what seems to be suggested, which can't possibly right, can it?!

I didn't realise that this particular construct could be interpreted.

My reading of the Byelaws is that in any situation they create an offence if you pass a barrier at a Compulsory Ticket Area when it is possible to buy a ticket, or enter onto a train in a non Compulsory Ticket Area when it is possible to buy a ticket.

What possible defence can there be, to be in either situation without a valid ticket if one of the three exceptions do not apply ?

Personally it would actually constitute sufficient evidence for a S5 Prosecution as far as I am concerned, because it would demonstrate clear intent to avoid payment given that the facilities to purchase a ticket were there and were not used. Please note that there is NO legal duty upon the Railway to allow travel to someone without funds. There never has been and a person can be removed from the train in such circumstances. Whilst old BR custom and practice has generally been to allow travel and recover the costs through civil means, there are many occasions when it is clear the person will not be able to pay the fare and thus would be removed from the train.

The Penalty Fares Act 1989 was introduced simply to provide an alternative remedy to a S5 Prosecution in that it penalises the person, requires the payment of the fare due, as well as providing a form of compensation to the TOC, these all being things which occur under S5 anyway. I do not think that there is any requirement to issue a Penalty Fare if a TTI considers that the matter should be dealt with under S5.

 

[Stigy]

I have skimmed through some of this thread, so apologies if I just echo others' views etc, lol.

As far as Strict Liablility offences go, then yes, boarding a train without a ticket is a strict liability matter. It's perfectly okay for a person to board a train without a valid ticket when there's no facilities at the station to buy one. Proving a strict liability offence isn't necessary, although if you've got some it'll do, lol. It all boils down to what questions that were asked at the time of the offence, and as long as you can place an offender there and ascertain their personal details as well as journey details, you're halfway there!

Regarding questioning, for example if the RPI asks an offenderr the 'intent' question, and he/she stated that it was his/her intention to avoid payment, then byelaw matters and no ticket issuing facilities become errelavent, and Regulation of Railways Act 1889 comes in to it instead. But that's another topic. Also, if he/she boarded the train and sat down, then was approached by the RPI and when questioned stated that if he/she had not spoken to her how would he/she have paid for his/her ticket, knowing that he/she didn't have his/her ticket with him/her? And he/she admits knowing he/she didn't have it with her when she boarded the train, and also states that he/she would have alighted at an unbarriered station and not have paid, that is also another matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Penalty Fares Act 1989 does NOT confer any Criminal sanction and thus nobody can be Prosecuted under Railway Byelaws for this. That is why there is NO fine shown for Byelaw 17. The remedy is either a penalty fare and the fare due, OR an 1889 S5 Prosecution.

A Penalty Fare becomes a Civil debt, alongside the fare due and must be recovered under CIVIL debt recovery proceedings. Legally a Penalty Fare may only be recovered through the issue of a Court Order, and I do not believe that this has yet been tested in Court.

Apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, and misunderstood what you have said.

A Penalty Fare is a civil remedy for a criminal offence (byelaw). However, if a Penalty Fare goes unpaid, then said Penalty Fare is cancelled, and the offender is prosecuted under the byelaws (usually 18.1), not heard of them being prosecuted under RRA as the burden of proof is obviously far greater than that of a Strict Liability matter, thus making the byelaws much easier. I've never known an unpaid PF being prosecuted as an unpaid civil debt, and always known them being dealt with by the relevant byelaw.

 

[Old Timer]

...Apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick here, and misunderstood what you have said.

A Penalty Fare is a civil remedy for a criminal offence (byelaw). However, if a Penalty Fare goes unpaid, then said Penalty Fare is cancelled, and the offender is prosecuted under the byelaws (usually 18.1), not heard of them being prosecuted under RRA as the burden of proof is obviously far greater than that of a Strict Liability matter, thus making the byelaws much easier. I've never known an unpaid PF being prosecuted as an unpaid civil debt, and always known them being dealt with by the relevant byelaw.

Thanks for the aditional information. I was making the point that a PF would not be recovered under the RRA, which you have confirmed.

 

[Stigy]

Is anyone actually prosecuted under strict liability offences?

Yes, in fact, alot of the time I've seen TOCs use numerous Byelaws in Court, and not just ticket ones.

Are you saying that if someone gets on a train at Rotherham and asks for a ticket they can be told "No, you are being prosecuted for byelaw offence of boarding without a ticket" yet if someone does the same thing at, say, Hadley Wood, they can be told "You are not being prosecuted but you must pay a penalty fare"?

As that's what seems to be suggested, which can't possibly right, can it?!

I'm not familiar with the stations you mention, but I'm assuming that one station has nowhere to purchase tickets, and the other does have?

Basically, if you board a train at a station whereby there are no ticketing facilities, you're not in breach of a Byelaw, and this is written in to them under the relevant Byelaw itself. As long as you have the means to purchase a ticket, and make some effort to purchase one during your journey at the earliest possibility (usually from the Guard, destination or on changing train, whiever is the soonest). Getting a ticket from a Guard can prove problematic sometimes, and as such I believe your destination is usually acceptable. At the end of the day, you'll probably never prove an 18.1 in Court if there were no ticketing facilities available, and as such, people are usually reported in consideration of using 5.3(a)RRA due to having travelled significant distance without purchasing a ticket, or walking out of their destination station without making an atrtempt to buy a ticket etc. As I said earlier though, depends on the questions asked as to whether prosecuting for any offence is feasable.

If however you board a train at a station whereby there were facilities to buy a ticket, and fail to buy one, you are committing a Strict Liability offence. You don't have to be reported by the RPI/A and can simply be Penalty Fared, but staff are under no obligation to issue a PF. The Penalty Fare (although I agree is easy revenue for the TOC), serves to keep minor ticketing Byelaw infringements out of court, much like a Penalty Notice for Disorder issued by the Police, Councils etc. for certain minor offences. If a PF is able to be issued, then a Byelaw has been breached. PFs shouldn't be used whereby intent to avoid payment has been established, or where an offender has had several before. Unfortunately, in reality staff tend to issue PF after PF to the same offender, which is quite okay, but begs the question as to whether after one or maybe two PFs, has this individual leant their lesson, as the obviously know the score?

 

[yorkie]

Yes, in fact, alot of the time I've seen TOCs use numerous Byelaws in Court, and not just ticket ones.

So the DfT are wrong?

I'm not familiar with the stations you mention, but I'm assuming that one station has nowhere to purchase tickets, and the other does have?

One is in a PF scheme, the other is not.

If however you board a train at a station whereby there were facilities to buy a ticket, and fail to buy one, you are committing a Strict Liability offence.

So the staff can dis-regard the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, and go against their training, and go against the DfT and report you for prosecution?

I am struggling to believe this can possibly be correct.

Also, if I am committing an offence by asking for an Anytime from London to Peterborough on board an East Coast train (despite East Coast being happy to issue it, their guards instructed to issue it, their publicity stating I will be issued it, and the NR CoC saying I will be issued with it), why do the boards at King's Cross say "You must have a ticket before boarding" on FCC services but not EC ones? Likewise at Euston with Virgin and LM.

This simply does not add up!

"Can I buy a ticket please?"
"No, Sir, I am going against my training, the Conditions of Carriage, company policy and common sense by reporting you for prosecution for attempting to buy on board"

I don't think so.

 

[Stigy]

So the DfT are wrong?


One is in a PF scheme, the other is not.

So the staff can dis-regard the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, and go against their training, and go against the DfT and report you for prosecution?

I am struggling to believe this can possibly be correct.

Also, if I am committing an offence by asking for an Anytime from London to Peterborough on board an East Coast train (despite East Coast being happy to issue it, and the NCoC saying I will be issued with it), why do the boards at King's Cross say "You must have a ticket before boarding" on FCC services but not EC ones? Likewise at Euston with Virgin and LM.

This simply does not add up!

Penalty Fare rules are seperate from Byelaws. Unless for the reason whereby there were no ticketing facilities available, even if it's not a PF station, the byelaws still stand. You can have a whole area whereby PFs aren't used, and yet the byelaws still can be, as long as the TOC has ticket issuing facilities available at the time of travel. Also, there are the other exceptions listed which are, you can travel on authority of an authorised person and you may travel if there's a notice allowing the boarding of a train without a ticket.

Where intent to avoid payment is established then the offender should be prosecuted under the RRA 1889. If the offender was not questioned under caution for any of a number of reasons, then obviously the 5.3(a) would be harder to prove, unless it's an Adult on a Child rate ticket, or they have no means etc. In cases such as intent appears obvious to the staff (other than adult on child ticket or no means), if the offender doesn't cough to the intention, then it's likely only an 18.1 will be used.

 

[FGWman]

Are you saying that if someone gets on a train at Rotherham and asks for a ticket they can be told "No, you are being prosecuted for byelaw offence of boarding without a ticket" yet if someone does the same thing at, say, Hadley Wood, they can be told "You are not being prosecuted but you must pay a penalty fare"?

As that's what seems to be suggested, which can't possibly right, can it?!

Yes that is correct. Just to add with penalty fares most TOC will keep records. Your address will be checked and at the same time a check to see if you have received a penalty fare before. If the answer is yes then they can decide to prosecute you rather than issue a penalty fare.

note in your post you use the word can. All these things can happen but it does not mean they will happen. Using the Rotherham example the first occasion you are found without a ticket you will probably be issued with one and warned not to do it again. On the second or third occasion you will most likely be reported for prosecution.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So the staff can dis-regard the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, and go against their training, and go against the DfT and report you for prosecution?

Where does it say in the NCoC's, and in the training notes, and in the DfT's literature that they can't prosecute with the byelaws?

Also, if I am committing an offence by asking for an Anytime from London to Peterborough on board an East Coast train (despite East Coast being happy to issue it, their guards instructed to issue it, their publicity stating I will be issued it, and the NR CoC saying I will be issued with it), why do the boards at King's Cross say "You must have a ticket before boarding" on FCC services but not EC ones? Likewise at Euston with Virgin and LM.

You're not committing an offence by asking for a ticket.

I fail to see how you cannot understand the byelaws! You are committing an offence if you get on a train in a non-compulsory ticket area with the purpose of travelling unless there were no facilities to get a ticket, or a member of staff, or a notice authorised you to get on a train etc etc.

 

[yorkie]

Where does it say in the NCoC's, and in the training notes, and in the DfT's literature that they can't prosecute with the byelaws?

.


"If you travel in a train:
(a) without a ticket; or
(b) the circumstances described in any of Conditions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22,
30, 35 and 39 apply;
you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty
Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special
terms unless...."

That is a "notice" stating you can buy a full fare ticket on board providing it's not in a PF area, is it not?

I am not saying it states they cannot prosecute for byelaw offences.

I am saying that your claim that someone can be prosecuted merely for boarding a train without a ticket cannot be true as NR CoC and the DfT say otherwise.

You're not committing an offence by asking for a ticket.

You admit that you aren't? That's some progress then

So you admit that you were wrong to suggest that the instant someone boards a train at Rotherham they can be reported for prosecution? and that if the customer is willing to buy a ticket, they can't be?

I fail to see how you cannot understand the byelaws! You are committing an offence if you get on a train in a non-compulsory ticket area with the purpose of travelling unless there were no facilities to get a ticket, or a member of staff, or a notice authorised you to get on a train etc etc.

That is at odds with what you just said above!

As I said, for a guard to refuse to issue a full fare ticket when asked for one and instead report for prosecution they would be going against the instructions in the Conditions of Carriage, their training, and going against what the DfT say.

I don't think the Conditions of Carriage, the DfT and TfL's documents can all be ignored!

Do you have no response to the DfT statement? Thought not!

 

[Stigy]

.


"If you travel in a train:
(a) without a ticket; or
(b) the circumstances described in any of Conditions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22,
30, 35 and 39 apply;
you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty
Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special
terms unless...."

That is a "notice" stating you can buy a full fare ticket on board providing it's not in a PF area, is it not?

I am not saying it states they cannot prosecute for byelaw offences.

I am saying that your claim that someone can be prosecuted merely for boarding a train without a ticket cannot be true as NR CoC and the DfT say otherwise.



You admit that you aren't? That's some progress then

So you admit that you were wrong to suggest that the instant someone boards a train at Rotherham they can be reported for prosecution? and that if the customer is willing to buy a ticket, they can't be?


That is at odds with what you just said above!

As I said, for a guard to refuse to issue a full fare ticket when asked for one and instead report for prosecution they would be going against the instructions in the Conditions of Carriage, their training, and going against what the DfT say.

I don't think the Conditions of Carriage, the DfT and TfL's documents can all be ignored!

Do you have no response to the DfT statement? Thought not!

The NRCoC state that you will be liable for the full standard single fare, and where appropriate a PF. The NRCoC are seperate from the Byelaws, which is probably why they don't mention prosecutions etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, a Notice in terms of the byelaws mean exactly what is says on the tin....A notice advising passngers to board without a ticket, at a specific rail station. The NRCoC wouldn't constitute a notice. I think tha Ralph meant that the offence had been commited already, and asking for a ticket wasn't commiting said offence in itself...Maybe.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

.
You admit that you aren't? That's some progress then

So you admit that you were wrong to suggest that the instant someone boards a train at Rotherham they can be reported for prosecution? and that if the customer is willing to buy a ticket, they can't be?

No, the byelaws are perfectly clear. If you get on a train with the purpose of travelling without a valid ticket in a non compulsory ticket area with the purpose of travelling, you are committing an offence. Even you cannot find a way around the byelaws.

What I said was that the act of asking for a ticket on a train is not illegal - as you implied - but the getting on and being on the train is.

That is at odds with what you just said above!

No, it agrees with what I have said.

As I said, for a guard to refuse to issue a full fare ticket when asked for one and instead report for prosecution they would be going against the instructions in the Conditions of Carriage, their training, and going against what the DfT say.

And as I have said MANY times now, it is still an offence REGARDLESS of whether the TOCs/DfT/Tfl apply it that way or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, a Notice in terms of the byelaws mean exactly what is says on the tin....A notice advising passngers to board without a ticket, at a specific rail station. The NRCoC wouldn't constitute a notice. I think tha Ralph meant that the offence had been commited already, and asking for a ticket wasn't commiting said offence in itself...Maybe.

Thank you! That is what I meant.

 

[Flamingo]

As I said, for a guard to refuse to issue a full fare ticket when asked for one and instead report for prosecution they would be going against the instructions in the Conditions of Carriage, their training, and going against what the DfT say.

As I say in my sig block other TOC's may vary, but with FGW the HSS guards can't issue PF's or report for prosecution. (I believe the RMT resist it) We can / do sell an OPEN single or return, or call BTP or Revenue to the train if we think it needs to be taken further (or ask Dispatch to tell Gateline to look for them depending on the station)

In a PF area, I advise the passenger that they would be liable to a PF if caught by Revenue, and in any area if selling less than an OPEN, (if appropriate) I advise the passenger that it is discretionary, how much the full open is, and that this could potentially be sold next time, the purchase of a discounted ticket is not a precident for the next time I see them.

If they persist in not taking the warnings, then I stop accepting YP railcards, selling plusbus, returns, etc.

 

[Ferret]

As I say in my sig block other TOC's may vary, but with FGW the HSS guards can't issue PF's or report for prosecution. (I believe the RMT resist it) We can / do is sell an OPEN single or return, or call BTP or Revenue to the train if we think it needs to be taken further (or ask Dispatch to tell Gateline to look for them depending on the station)

Surely you have the option of taking details and filling in a TIR Flamingo? That's certainly how things work my end, with someone from the revenue team then deciding if there's any evidence in that report that could be used for a prosecution.

 

[Stigy]

As I say in my sig block other TOC's may vary, but with FGW the HSS guards can't issue PF's or report for prosecution. (I believe the RMT resist it) We can / do sell an OPEN single or return, or call BTP or Revenue to the train if we think it needs to be taken further (or ask Dispatch to tell Gateline to look for them depending on the station)

I can understand that as a policy, as the Guard's main duties are to ensure the safety of the train etc. Having said that, as an employee of FGW, you're automatically an "Authorised Person" with regards to reporting for Byelaw offences (obviously PFs are a different kettle of fish). Any employee of any TOC can report offenders, it's just not feasable in many cases due to training, availability of MG11 paperwork and priority duties etc.

 

[Old Timer]

Yorkie
The NCoC represent the relationship between the passenger in respect of ticketing arrangements and set out the relationship between both parties in respect of Contract Law once a ticket has been purchased.

The Byelaws govern the permissible behaviour and acts of passengers and others on Railway premises.

Boarding a train without a ticket where there are facilities to purchase one is, as a minimum, a breach of the Byelaws, and I know old TTIs who would argue that such an act constitutes prima facie evidence of a deliberate intent to avoid paying the correct fare for the journey being undertaken and would have gone for a S5 Prosecution - Some of the old TTIs WERE *******s !.

The NCoCs set out HOW a TOC MAY (if it so wishes), proceed with someone who, whilst travelling in good faith, is found on a train without a ticket. It has to cover this scenario as for example a passenger COULD on the train find they do not have a ticket with them (left at home) or may have lost it, etc, etc. If the NCoC did not cover that situation then there would be dubiety. The NCoC place NO duty upon the TOC to issue a ticket in such circumstances, but merely legitimise Contractually that situation.

Does this perhaps make clearer ?

 

[yorkie]

No, it doesn't.

If someone joins a train with the intention of paying on board, then that is, according to some people here, a prosecutable offence. In reality guards are happy to accept the payment and sell the ticket. I've seen instructions to guards and it is to sell a ticket. The NR CoC says you will be sold a ticket.

Now, if someone can be prosecuted for that, why do the DfT not accept this possibility? The DfT state people can only be prosecuted where they intend to avoid the fare.

I am talking about situations where people intend to pay on board.

There's no way you can argue that merely getting on a train without already purchasing a ticket is evidence of avoiding to pay the fare; the question is whether or not TOCs can prosecute under a 'strict liability' offence basis. The DfT says they can't, yet some people here claim the DfT are wrong. That sounds far fetched to me. The DfT would know!

TOCs such as Northern (where the issue originally arose), East Coast, etc have a policy of selling non-discounted tickets on board where ticket issuing facilities exist.

If the claim is that the DfT are wrong, that's a pretty big claim to make. I want more than just "because I say so" as evidence.

 

[Mojo]

I am of the belief this thread is going nowhere. As I see it, the only way we are going to get a guaranteed answer on this is to:
- Write to every railway company asking what their policy is (bar East Coast and TfL the answer will probably be told to get lost)
- Find out from the courts how many cases have passed through them relating to Byelaw 18, and how many have been successful

 

[chuckles1066]

I am of the belief this thread is going nowhere.

I didn't understand where it was going from very early on?

I embark at Patchway - it has no facility for me to purchase a ticket prior to boarding. Sorry about that.

However, it's no big deal seeing as I buy a season ticket, my last one expired Xmas Eve and my next one kicks in on 4th January.

But.....but.....but, my employer doesn't provide parking except that during the three days between Xmas and New Year so many staff are on annual leave that I **may** get the opportunity to park there gratis.

But I won't know until I phone reception at 7.30a.m each morning......"can I have a parking place today, please?"......I either get told to f**k off or I get given a parking bay number.

So, if the former, then I pitch up at Patchway minus the golden ticket and expect to be able to pay the onboard representative of FGW.

Try and fine me for some "crime" and I'll laugh you out of court.

And then make sure every newspaper in the land knows how the railways are wasting money.

It's very simple.

Isn't it?

 

[Stigy]

No, it doesn't.

If someone joins a train with the intention of paying on board, then that is, according to some people here, a prosecutable offence. In reality guards are happy to accept the payment and sell the ticket. I've seen instructions to guards and it is to sell a ticket. The NR CoC says you will be sold a ticket.

Now, if someone can be prosecuted for that, why do the DfT not accept this possibility? The DfT state people can only be prosecuted where they intend to avoid the fare.

I am talking about situations where people intend to pay on board.

There's no way you can argue that merely getting on a train without already purchasing a ticket is evidence of avoiding to pay the fare; the question is whether or not TOCs can prosecute under a 'strict liability' offence basis. The DfT says they can't, yet some people here claim the DfT are wrong. That sounds far fetched to me. The DfT would know!

TOCs such as Northern (where the issue originally arose), East Coast, etc have a policy of selling non-discounted tickets on board where ticket issuing facilities exist.

If the claim is that the DfT are wrong, that's a pretty big claim to make. I want more than just "because I say so" as evidence.

I have personally seen cases prosecuted by TOCs in a Magistrates' Court, a lot of these are Strict Liability matters and ALL cases I've seen have been proved. At the end of the day, there's not only the TOC in the prosecutions process, there's also three Magistrates (fair enough they're not legally trained) and a highly qualified legal adviser. If these prosecutions were wrong and not allowed in law, do you honestly think TOCs would be able to take cases to court such as these? Regulation of Railways Act offence (5.3(a) and (b)) establish intent, whereas an 18.1 doesn't. Ignore the NRCoC here, as these aren't Byelaws, and they niether say you, or can't be prosecuted. Bear in mind Byelaw offences typically as a whole, are SL offences, not solely ticketing ones.

Where is the documentation in black and white that the DfT have written? Training paperwork can often be ambiguous.

 

[yorkie]

chuckles1066 - if there is no facility to buy at Patchway, you may buy the full range, including discounted tickets, on board. That's not the question though.

Stigy - we are going round in circles (and have been since about page 2!). The DfT quote can be found on post 81.

I agree with Mojo, we are getting nowhere.

People disagree with DfT/ATOC/TfL but the answers are not, in my opinion, good enough for me to disregard what is written in the Conditions of Carriage, on the DfT website and in the TfL training material. Sorry Ralph and co, I don't agree with the DfT's decisions all the time, but you are not able to convince me that the DfT are wrong on this matter.

 

[Old Timer]

No, it doesn't.

If someone joins a train with the intention of paying on board, then that is, according to some people here, a prosecutable offence. In reality guards are happy to accept the payment and sell the ticket. I've seen instructions to guards and it is to sell a ticket. The NR CoC says you will be sold a ticket.

Now, if someone can be prosecuted for that, why do the DfT not accept this possibility? The DfT state people can only be prosecuted where they intend to avoid the fare.

I am talking about situations where people intend to pay on board.

There's no way you can argue that merely getting on a train without already purchasing a ticket is evidence of avoiding to pay the fare; the question is whether or not TOCs can prosecute under a 'strict liability' offence basis. The DfT says they can't, yet some people here claim the DfT are wrong. That sounds far fetched to me. The DfT would know!

TOCs such as Northern (where the issue originally arose), East Coast, etc have a policy of selling non-discounted tickets on board where ticket issuing facilities exist.

If the claim is that the DfT are wrong, that's a pretty big claim to make. I want more than just "because I say so" as evidence.

OK THE DFT ARE WRONG...but only because the way it is being interpreted by people.

The error you are making is trying to compare the NCoC and Byelaws. Both are completely separate. One is Criminal Law the other relates to Common Law and the Law of Contract (again a Civil matter).

Let us use some worked examples.

I use the term TTI to refer to a person who is authorised to examine and issue tickets, report people, etc.

These are the long held historic BRB Practices.

Situation 1
Passenger arrives at station, passes onto platform and boards train. During the journey a TTI checks tickets. Passenger cannot produce one, claiming ticket left at home (Season) or has lost since purchasing.

Technical - Passenger has breached Railway Byelaws by passing through barrier without a valid ticket.

Practical - If TTI is happy, and passenger is happy to pay then a new ticket issued, and passenger is advised to make a claim for refund. It was not the practice to pursue Byelaw breaches in such cases, as this would be unreasonable.


Situation 2
Passenger is found travelling on train claiming started journey at manned station but did not have sufficient time to buy a ticket, offers to pay. TTI has no reason to believe that there is intent to avoid payment.

Technical - Passenger has breached Railway Byelaws by passing through barrier without a valid ticket.

Practical - If TTI is happy with explanation then a ticket issued, and passenger is advised to allow more time, and advised it is a Byelaw offence to pass through the barrier. It was not the practice to pursue Byelaw breaches in such cases, as this could be judged to be unreasonable. By cautioning though this prpared the ground for this to happen in the event of the person coming to notice again.



Situation 3
Passenger is found travelling on train without ticket. Offers fare claiming started journey at manned station. There is reason to believe that there is an intent to avoid payment but this cannot be proved on the evidence or demeanour of the passenger.

Technical - Passenger has breached Railway Byelaws by passing through barrier without a valid ticket.

Practical - TTI will note the details of the person concerned and issue the appropriate. A TIR is submitted and held on file. TTI also notifies the person that it is a Byelaw offence to pass through the barrier and that the matter will be reported for that offence.

Division would decide whether to proceed or send a suitably worded letter of warning, which would be recorded and held on file.


Situation 4
Passenger is found travelling on train without ticket. Demeanour of passenger, behaviour, and or previous opportunities to pay for ticket have passed and not be used (i.e. Guards ticket check - avoided)

Technical - Passenger has breached Railway Byelaws by passing through barrier without a valid ticket.

This is sufficient Pimia Facie evidence of intent under S5 of the RRA 1889 to avoid paying the correct fare for the journey being undertaken.

Practical - A free excess for the journey being undertaken is issued, name and address is obtained and the passenger is reported under the 1889 Act S5 as well as for breach of the Railway Byelaw. This is important as it is additional supporting evidence of intent as it demonstrates that sufficient notice has been given to the passenger. Remember that the Law requires that a person establishes all legal obligations and responsibilities, and this includes familiarising themselves with the Byelaws.

A final point in passing. BR operated plain clothes TTIs in cases where we had sufficient evidence that someone was consistently trying to avoid the fare. PLain clothes TTIs followed a suspect home and then undertake ongoing surveillance based on their travelling habits. Passenger was not charged but all journeys and payment avoidance was recorded in accordance with Judges Rules as it was in those days, and eventually when it was considered that enough evidence was there. the person would be stopped INSIDE that barrier and challenged, then issued with a free excess and notified that they were being Prosecuted for avoidance. In some cases the BT Police arrested and charged the person.

The Penalty Fare arrangement was introduced as it allowed the BRB to deal with increasing levels of fare avoidance which could NOT ordinarily be proven. Remember there has to be intent and as long as one of the Three requirements are complied with by the passenger then there can be no intent, irrespective of how we feel.
Under the Penalty Fare Scheme being on the platform or in the train or past any point where the Penalty Fare boundary was specified was deemed sufficient evidence to authorise the issue of a Penalty Fare.

The Penalty Fare itself has no legal Criminal status, unlike the Byelaw offence which does. Therefore the recovery of the Penalty Fare remains a matter for the Civil recovery process.. Note that Stigy states this is now routinely cancelled. The BR process was this would be proceeded with as part of the Byelaw offence claim for costs. If these were not ordered by the Magistrate then the matter has to go to Civil law as the debt is not a Criminal matter.

Note that recovery of the fare avoided is a Civil matter EXCEPT when it falls under the 1889 Act, in which case it forms part of the penalty imposed by the Court.


Stigy please can you review and comment on the above please.


Yorkie
The "DfT Quote" is actually mine, and it does not support your position here. The NCoCs DO NOT alter the Railway Byelaws, and never can.

I didn't understand where it was going from very early on?

I embark at Patchway - it has no facility for me to purchase a ticket prior to boarding. Sorry about that.

However, it's no big deal seeing as I buy a season ticket, my last one expired Xmas Eve and my next one kicks in on 4th January.

But.....but.....but, my employer doesn't provide parking except that during the three days between Xmas and New Year so many staff are on annual leave that I **may** get the opportunity to park there gratis.

But I won't know until I phone reception at 7.30a.m each morning......"can I have a parking place today, please?"......I either get told to f**k off or I get given a parking bay number.

So, if the former, then I pitch up at Patchway minus the golden ticket and expect to be able to pay the onboard representative of FGW.

Try and fine me for some "crime" and I'll laugh you out of court.

And then make sure every newspaper in the land knows how the railways are wasting money.

It's very simple.

Isn't it?

A completely pointless post as there is no intent to avoid payment and no issuing arrangements in place at the station. A ticket would therefore be sold on board as you full well know.

The matter only changes where there is an intent to to avoid payment, again something you already know.

For intent please note that failing to actively seek out the Guard has, in the past, been deemed to demonstrate intent and is one of the tests that (certainly in BR days when we did things much much better) the Prosecution would place in evidence.

Been there, seen it done, Prosecuted for BR, and always won.

 

[Ferret]

OT - spot on as far as I'm concerned. For me as a Guard, if I find somebody has boarded *without the means to pay* then that's evidence of intent to avoid the fare - so you then issue a zerofare ticket for the journey being made and put everything down in a TIR for the company to investigate.

As for your subsequent point about failing to seek out the Guard - agreed. I've also seen the Guard go through doing a 'tickets from Sheffield please'. TM gets to end of carriage, then RPI goes through doing a full check of everyone's tickets. Anyone who then doesn't have a ticket gets dragged outside for an interview under caution as they have demonstrated intent to avoid the fare by ignoring the Guard.