Strict liability offences

[Stigy]

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.

The section of the DfT website linked to us is solely regarding Penalty Fares and Regulation of Railways Act, where the intent DOES have to be established to secure a sucessful prosecution. Should they have used the RRA as an example of a deterant? probably not, no.

2.1 A penalty fares system was first developed in the late 1980s by the Network SouthEast sector of British Rail (BR), as a way to protect revenue in its particular circumstances. As well as reducing the expense of inspecting tickets at ticket barriers, BR also wanted to reduce the number of cases that were referred to the courts. Before penalty fares were introduced, the only way to deter people from travelling without a ticket was to prosecute them under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This was time-consuming, costly and often ineffective. For a prosecution to be successful, it had to be proved that the passenger intended to avoid paying. This was often difficult as most passengers without tickets were willing to pay if they were challenged, but did not pay if they were not challenged.

If you look elsewhere on their website, you'll find the Byelaws. I'll link us to them, but take note of the "enforcement" section (24).

National Rail Byelaws
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.


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.


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.



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.






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.

Seems spot on to me!

I'm also assuming when you say that recovery of the fare avoided is a Civil matter, refers to in PF being issued and/or payment being taken? Obviously if the PF is cancelled, as you said, the matter is refered to the Magistrates' Court, which then becomes Criminal as the byelaw is being prosecuted. and if reported for prosecution from the outset, it's Criminal.

Obviously all staff have discretion, and are not obliged to issue a PF or submit an MG11, however, this works both ways and staff can jump straight to the MG11 if they so desire, and needn't justify this to anybody, as the matter is Strict Liability unless RRA offence.

 

[Old Timer]

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.

Thank you.

It is good to have secondary support, especially from someone at the sharp end.

Its been some years since I last got involved in ticket matters, the last time I remember vividly as it was when I physically manhandled someone back over the barrier at New St when they rushed it in an attempt to jump over it. Unfortunately for them I had travelled in the same carriage and knew from conversation that they had no ticket and were going to jump the barrier

Cue TTIs and BT Police to rush to assist.

Of course our stupid judicial system means you cannot try to stop someone now.

 

[chuckles1066]

A completely pointless post

Au contraire.

I'm sure the thread degenerated a long time ago into a "if you get on a train without a ticket then you're bang to rights"??

And if FGW really want to protect their revenue streams, shut the disabled barrier at Bath Spa? Several dozn people use it on a daily basis and I'm not convinced 100% of them have tickets?

 

[yorkie]

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.

I don't disagree with these at all, as there's a case of intent to avoid the fare. But that's not what I have an issue with. You and I both agree with what happens in reality in these situations. My issue is with the claims that TOCs can make criminals out of people who do not intend to avoid the fare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Au contraire.

I'm sure the thread degenerated a long time ago into a "if you get on a train without a ticket then you're bang to rights"??

No, it didn't, it's about where facilities were available. This thread originated from the Rotherham-Sheffield topic and assumes the ticket office was open at the time. Sorry but OT is right, it was a pointless post!

 

[Old Timer]

I don't disagree with these at all, as there's a case of intent to avoid the fare. But that's not what I have an issue with. You and I both agree with what happens in reality in these situations. My issue is with the claims that TOCs can make criminals out of people who do not intend to avoid the fare.

Can you give an example ?

I can find only very limited reasons for ANYONE to be inside the barrier line without a ticket or a means to pay for it.

It is the Byelaws which prohibit being inside the barrier line and the RRA 1889 Act that specify when someone is travelling with intent, not the TOC.

 

[yorkie]

An example would be, say I want to do York to Sheffield, XC have a policy of selling full fare tickets on board, so I get on the train, guard comes round, I hand over £16.90 and the guard issues an Anytime Day Return ticket.

This happens all the time on certain trains, e.g. I'm told the Harrogate to London train is quite lucrative for guards as loads of people buy Anytime tickets and the guards get loads of commission. The guards act in line with company policy which is to sell an Anytime ticket on board and the customers expect this as it says so in the Conditions of Carriage. Everyone is happy.

Or to use the original example, a customer boards a train at Rotherham going to Sheffield, there is no barrier and NT do sell Anytime fares on board, the person realises they have left their ticket at work, if the guard then approroaches them the expected outcome would be that the person would be sold a new ticket (and be advised that if they sent that and the original ticket to the company they may be able to claim back the cost of the ticket left at work).

Are there any cases of people wishing to buy on board who are prosecuted for no reason other than for trying to buy on board? I suspect not!

 

[Ferret]

I don't disagree with these at all, as there's a case of intent to avoid the fare. But that's not what I have an issue with. You and I both agree with what happens in reality in these situations. My issue is with the claims that TOCs can make criminals out of people who do not intend to avoid the fare.

Well, I'm of the opinion that it says in black and white that they can do just that. It's just that there is no desire to do it - and for good reason too - how the hell would you have any passengers left if you just criminalised thousands of people in that way?! My opinion is that the SL Byelaws are there to fall back on to deal with those people where you'd struggle to get an RoR Act prosecution through, but you reasonably believe the person had no intention of paying.

 

[yorkie]

I agree, but then there should be something in there about "reasonably believing the person had no intention of paying" but then you're just duplicating the 1889 act if you say that.

 

[Ferret]

I agree, but then there should be something in there about "reasonably believing the person had no intention of paying" but then you're just duplicating the 1889 act if you say that.

Quite - my belief is that Byelaw 18 in particular is a convenient catch all if you like, only to be used in circumstances where intent cannot be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but is reasonably suspected.

 

[Stigy]

Are there any cases of people wishing to buy on board who are prosecuted for no reason other than for trying to buy on board? I suspect not!

It's not an offence to ask a Guard for a ticket in itself.

Unless you asked the Guard on the Platform and he said "Jump on!" and stated he'd sell you a ticket on the train, or unless there was good reason for not buying a ticket at the station (ie; no facilities etc), you have committed an offence. If the Guard tells you to get on board, no offence has been committed.

In reality I don't think joe public understands the byelaws etc, and assumes they are solely for fare evaders. They see a Guard selling tickets and assumes, quite rightly in some cases, that they can by on board. That, unfortunately, is where Strict Liability comes in to it. Ignorance is no defence. If I rarely used the trains, unless there were clearly no facilities to buy a ticket at my station of origin, I wouldn't even dream of boarding the train.

 

[Old Timer]

An example would be, say I want to do York to Sheffield, XC have a policy of selling full fare tickets on board, so I get on the train, guard comes round, I hand over £16.90 and the guard issues an Anytime Day Return ticket.

This happens all the time on certain trains, e.g. I'm told the Harrogate to London train is quite lucrative for guards as loads of people buy Anytime tickets and the guards get loads of commission. The guards act in line with company policy which is to sell an Anytime ticket on board and the customers expect this as it says so in the Conditions of Carriage. Everyone is happy.

Or to use the original example, a customer boards a train at Rotherham going to Sheffield, there is no barrier and NT do sell Anytime fares on board, the person realises they have left their ticket at work, if the guard then approroaches them the expected outcome would be that the person would be sold a new ticket (and be advised that if they sent that and the original ticket to the company they may be able to claim back the cost of the ticket left at work).

Are there any cases of people wishing to buy on board who are prosecuted for no reason other than for trying to buy on board? I suspect not!

Thank you for the example.

In that case the TOCs are following a Policy which personally I feel is quite wrong, as it dulls the distinction between intent and non-intent.

I suspect that the TOCs adopt this Policy out of some sort of "Customer Friendly" ethos, or they are now packed ful of retail people who really do not have a clue about how some passengers behave.

Unfortunately many TOC retail people think the Railway is like a shop.

I wonder if they have translated such a gesture to the retail situation, which would be akin to leaving the checkouts unmanned except by someone who would ask if you wanted to pay for the jumper you were taking out ? Because that is the closest analogy I can think of right now. It is actually dulling the distinction that took years to bring to peoples minds.

In a world where it is every man for himself and may the devil take the hindmost, and where there is an decreasing intolerance to theft, it simply encourages people to try it on. If they get stopped then they pay the fare, but if they get away with it then all the TOCs have done is to create the illusion that paying for a railway ticket is an option and something which can be regarded as hit and miss based upon the likelihood of being stopped.

You may think me an old duffer, but someone on the platform without a ticket when one could have been purchased is in my view trying it on.

If the TOCs are stupid enough to allow such attitudes to prevail on the basis of some misguided "customer friendly" basis then I despair, and may their fare box descend into chaos as their passengers inevitably take the option so many these days seek to.

The problem is that reducing fare revenue impacts upon the whole of the Railway. The sooner the Government pulls all but essential revenue support the better. If TOCs suffered the losses of revenue rather than being feather-bedded, something that Major never intended, then they would soon get their act together, man the stations, implement proper ticket and revenue controls and then we would actually see not only a decrease in fraud, but also less vandalism, a more secure environment in which to travel, and a reduction in the problems caused by undersirables and "ne'er do wells" who currently see the Railways as an extension of their "turf"

 

[RPI]

I have been for some time and still am involved with a TOC prosecutions team and we do prosecute for Byelaw 18 as it involves less court time, less evidence etc, we were always told that if the fare was at risk then report for a byelaw, so I could ask someone without a ticket "if I had not asked for your ticket then how would your fare have been paid?" well it wouldn't! now if the person was then cautioned and interviewed and admitted what was said above then you could probably prosecute for 5.3(a) but you could just prosecute for the strict liability byelaw offence which means that the person being reported doesn't need to be interviewed, no intent needs to be proven etc.... so yes, people are prosecuted regular for byelaws!!

 

[Old Timer]

RPI
Thank you for that valuable input.

May I ask, what are your views on TOCs allowing tickets, including reduced fare tickets, to be bought on board, even though adequate facilities exist at the originating station, and it is contrary to the Byelaws ?

 

[RPI]

I feel that discretion should only be used in certain circumstances, by a guard selling someone a ticket then I suppose they are technicly being given permission to travel by an authorised person! Penalty fares are used as a way of disposing of byelaw offences without involving court.

 

[Stigy]

I have been for some time and still am involved with a TOC prosecutions team and we do prosecute for Byelaw 18 as it involves less court time, less evidence etc, we were always told that if the fare was at risk then report for a byelaw, so I could ask someone without a ticket "if I had not asked for your ticket then how would your fare have been paid?" well it wouldn't! now if the person was then cautioned and interviewed and admitted what was said above then you could probably prosecute for 5.3(a) but you could just prosecute for the strict liability byelaw offence which means that the person being reported doesn't need to be interviewed, no intent needs to be proven etc.... so yes, people are prosecuted regular for byelaws!!

Indeed. To be honest nine out of ten people will say they intended to purchase their ticket at their destination, but then of course you could ask them how they'd have paid for their journey if the barriers were non-operational. You tend to have to question under caution to secure a 5.3(a) as you suggest. You could probably get one if it's blatent, even more so if you have evidence such as a child rate ticket to back it up! Otherwise, a statement of fact will secure at the least the 18.1. I always interview under caution, for any offence I'm reporting, unless the offender is under 18, incoherent with the English Language and thus probably wouldn't understand a caution or intoxicated, for the same reason as a non-english speaker. Legally you can of course caution a 17-year old without the need for an appropriate adult, although TOCs tend not to like staff cautioning under 18s. Obviously I wouldn't caution somebody with clear mental health issues, but then I probably wouldn't report them either! (bear in mind I'm no Doctor, so it's my choice as to whether I deam somebody fit to caution/question in any case, not just mental health ones).

The caution holds a lot of weight in court!

 

[Old Timer]

RPI
Thanks

 

[RPI]

sometimes there isn't time to interview under caution with close stations etc which is where byelaw 18 is very useful!

 

[Stigy]

sometimes there isn't time to interview under caution with close stations etc which is where byelaw 18 is very useful!

I have the ability to alight where ever I like....Having said that, I'd rather rush a Q&A session that get off a train with a geezer built like a brick sh*t house, alone, in the ar*se end of nowhere...

 

[RPI]

I have the ability to alight where ever I like....Having said that, I'd rather rush a Q&A session that get off a train with a geezer built like a brick sh*t house, alone, in the ar*se end of nowhere...

especially if its an unstaffed station aswell!

 

[Flamingo]

Thank you for the example.

In that case the TOCs are following a Policy which personally I feel is quite wrong, as it dulls the distinction between intent and non-intent.

I suspect that the TOCs adopt this Policy out of some sort of "Customer Friendly" ethos, or they are now packed ful of retail people who really do not have a clue about how some passengers behave.

Unfortunately many TOC retail people think the Railway is like a shop.

I wonder if they have translated such a gesture to the retail situation, which would be akin to leaving the checkouts unmanned except by someone who would ask if you wanted to pay for the jumper you were taking out ? Because that is the closest analogy I can think of right now. It is actually dulling the distinction that took years to bring to peoples minds.

In a world where it is every man for himself and may the devil take the hindmost, and where there is an decreasing intolerance to theft, it simply encourages people to try it on. If they get stopped then they pay the fare, but if they get away with it then all the TOCs have done is to create the illusion that paying for a railway ticket is an option and something which can be regarded as hit and miss based upon the likelihood of being stopped.

You may think me an old duffer, but someone on the platform without a ticket when one could have been purchased is in my view trying it on.

If the TOCs are stupid enough to allow such attitudes to prevail on the basis of some misguided "customer friendly" basis then I despair, and may their fare box descend into chaos as their passengers inevitably take the option so many these days seek to.

The problem is that reducing fare revenue impacts upon the whole of the Railway. The sooner the Government pulls all but essential revenue support the better. If TOCs suffered the losses of revenue rather than being feather-bedded, something that Major never intended, then they would soon get their act together, man the stations, implement proper ticket and revenue controls and then we would actually see not only a decrease in fraud, but also less vandalism, a more secure environment in which to travel, and a reduction in the problems caused by undersirables and "ne'er do wells" who currently see the Railways as an extension of their "turf"

To expand further on my perception of the management view of revenue collection (please read my sig block) as a humble guard.

The prime aim is to avoid delay minutes. This is easily understandable when the economics of it are brought into play. The cost to the TOC of delay minutes (which varies according to whomever one talks to, but is as far as I can work out approx £150 a minute) greatly exceeds the revenue taken for most tickets, therefore it is better financially for the TOC to ignore ticketless travel, and just shift the trains. Add this to the fact that after 7pm-8pm most stations on my patch have open barriers (to save wages), and it is obvious there is no real desire by TOC's to collect revenue out of hours. It's nice if the guard does, but whatever they manage to get is a bonus, and enforcement of the bylaws costs too much to do more than a token gesture.

To illustrate this, I recently held a train for four minutes late one evening whilst I got two drunks to pay for tickets. Although I had been arguing with these two for 40 minutes, including trying to move them from the First Class, this was the first location where back-up was available. I could have held the train at earlier stations where there was only platofrm staff, but this would have involved a wait for police of over 20 minutes.

A few days later I got a "please explain" for eight minutes delay (a freight was also held up), which, as my manager pointed out to me, was around ten times the cost to the TOC of the revenue collected. I was very firmly told not to repeat this behaviour in the future. A complaint was also received from one of the "gentlemen" about how rude I was, which I also had to answer.

So, not only did I take a serious amount of stress and abuse from two characters who could have turned nasty, and have to deal with the complaint that came in from one of them about my "rudeness", but I had a reprimand from my manager for not "seeing the bigger picture" and walking away, allowing them a free trip in First Class.

Add this attitude to "the customer is always right" even when they are attempting to defraud the TOC from some managers, and it's difficult to know how the industry is going to reverse the attitude that "if there are no barriers you don't need a ticket" - which is often said on late-night trains.

 

[Ferret]

To illustrate this, I recently held a train for four minutes late one evening whilst I got two drunks to pay for tickets. Although I had been arguing with these two for 40 minutes, including trying to move them from the First Class, this was the first location where back-up was available. I could have held the train at earlier stations where there was only platofrm staff, but this would have involved a wait for police of over 20 minutes.

A few days later I got a "please explain" for eight minutes delay (a freight was also held up), which, as my manager pointed out to me, was around ten times the cost to the TOC of the revenue collected. I was very firmly told not to repeat this behaviour in the future. A complaint was also received from one of the "gentlemen" about how rude I was, which I also had to answer.

So, not only did I take a serious amount of stress and abuse from two characters who could have turned nasty, and have to deal with the complaint that came in from one of them about my "rudeness", but I had a reprimand from my manager for not "seeing the bigger picture" and walking away, allowing them a free trip in First Class.

Add this attitude to "the customer is always right" even when they are attempting to defraud the TOC from some managers, and it's difficult to know how the industry is going to reverse the attitude that "if there are no barriers you don't need a ticket" - which is often said on late-night trains.

Amazing isn't it?! You'd still be in hot water if you failed to deal with the issue and another FC customer complained about you on the grounds his journey was ruined!!! Of course, this is what happens when you get TOCs employing managers who are so far out of their depth that you don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm thankful that my line managers seem to understand that just of the odd occasion, you may have to deal with an issue and will show common sense - indeed, many have been Guards at one point so may even have been in the same position themselves....

I must take issue on one point though - it shouldn't cost a TOC anything to prosecute somebody in these days of no win no fee. I believe the person in the dock actually pays the prosecutor to prosecute him!!! I can say that given the circumstances, I'd have been pushing our Prosecutions team to do the bloke who had the cheek to complain about your attitude under byelaw 19, which Yorkie will be horrified to hear is indeed a Strict Liability offence!

 

[Flamingo]

I must take issue on one point though - it shouldn't cost a TOC anything to prosecute somebody in these days of no win no fee. I believe the person in the dock actually pays the prosecutor to prosecute him!!! I can say that given the circumstances, I'd have been pushing our Prosecutions team to do the bloke who had the cheek to complain about your attitude under byelaw 19, which Yorkie will be horrified to hear is indeed a Strict Liability offence!

Last time I tried that (the passenger had assaulted me, so he was ejected with the help of other staff and local police) I got told "it would not be good customer relations..."

 

[Old Timer]

Last time I tried that (the passenger had assaulted me, so he was ejected with the help of other staff and local police) I got told "it would not be good customer relations..."

I despair for you, but sadly unless the TOCs ditch their "Retail" management nothing will change UNTIL revenue starts to drop because no-one cares anymore, or it becomes harder to attract Guards because the job is too much hassle.

THis is a good reason as to WHY the Government should just pull revenue support from the Railways entirely and let the TOCs start to earn their corn by collecting fares.

 

[Flamingo]

Oh, don't worry, I have a thick skin and a hard neck. I do find it quite amusing overall, and compared to other jobs I have had, this is a doddle!

 

[Old Timer]

Oh, don't worry, I have a thick skin and a hard neck. I do find it quite amusing overall, and compared to other jobs I have had, this is a doddle!

It is not the point though. When I was on the job I always pushed hard for the BT Police to Prosecute anyone who threatened or assaulted my staff. The word does get out there. We did similar with fare evasion especially from unmanned stations as I used to close down the whole section of line with TTIs everywhere. We took no prisoners, just plenty of 1889 S5 Prosecutions.

On the basis of that work I demonstrated that we could actually re-open a station booking office throughout the train service period and still make money !

Happy days, happy days.

 

[yorkie]

We took no prisoners, just plenty of 1889 S5 Prosecutions.

But no Byelaw 18 prosecutions. Sounds fine to me. So, what's changed, is it legal, and was this an intentional or accidental consequence of privatisation? Someone helpfully PMd me that their TOC will initially try with 1889 S5 prosecution and if that fails they will resort to Byelaw 18. That seems to be cheating to me! Did BR resort to such tactics? It does sound like things were better in your day, OT, as people who intended to avoid the fare were prosecuted, but these days people who do not intend to avoid the fare can be prosecuted (if these reports are true) yet people who do intend to avoid the fare usually are not, and are often given a PF instead (which is a misuse of PFs and proves that they do not work in my opinion, but that's a different story).

 

[Ferret]

Why is that cheating?! Are byelaws 17 or 18 somehow sneaky and naughty? The fact is that if a law is on the statute book then either BTP or a TOC can use it to prosecute. The only way you can change that is to write to your MP or even Phillip Hammond, and lobby them to repeal the 'offending' laws. I can't see such a campaign getting very far somehow.

Using law is not an easy option - and I've yet to see a single case of a byelaw being misused (unlike the PF procedure). Many PFs for me should be dealt with under the byelaws or 1889 S5.......

 

[mumrar]

I fail to see how trying to prosecute for two seperate offences is sneaky. Quite often in criminal law people will get charged with one thing and upon investigations or appeals get prosecuted for a different offence. It sometimes comes down to what specific wording.

 

[yorkie]

Why is that cheating?! Are byelaws 17 or 18 somehow sneaky and naughty?

You could say that, on the grounds that;
1. The DfT do not appear to recognise it as a valid means to prosecute;
2. We have reports from experienced high-ranking BR managers that BR did not use this method;
3. RPIs working for your company inform me they are instructed to look for intent to avoid payment to prosecute under the 1889 act;
4. The National Conditions of Carriage states that someone will be sold a ticket, it does not state that someone will be prosecuted;
5. The policy of TOCs, including your own is, by your own admission, is to sell tickets in such circumstances.
6. As you admit, there would be outrage if people willing to pay the fare and expecting a guard to sell them a fare, were prosecuted for no good reason.
7. By his own admission, Ralph, one of the leading people to say that these laws can be used to prosecute (which is at odds with what DfT say), admits that it is "against human rights".

The fact that the DfT state that PFs are needed to deal with Byelaw 17 as they can't prosecute under that, sums it up for me. If TOCs are carrying out actions contrary to what the DfT expect, then I wonder if the DfT are aware of this?

Unfortunately this topic will always go round in circles and will raise more questions than answers, unless we get answers from high-ranking officials in the DfT. Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request will yield some results?

I've yet to see a single case of a byelaw being misused

But my problem is that you, Ralph etc keep telling me that it can be. If it can be, then that should be prevented. Also, if someone is intending to avoid the fare, then Byelaw 17/18 are not needed. If someone is not intending to avoid the fare then it could be considered a misuse of the byelaws. You admit that someone in breach of byelaw 18 who asks you for a ticket should be sold one, and you admit that if an attempt was made to prosecute it would be a misuse, right?

(unlike the PF procedure). Many PFs for me should be dealt with under the byelaws or 1889 S5.......

That is at odds with what the DfT website, and TfL document, both linked to above, say, which indicate that prosecutions cannot be made for those offences.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/pf/penaltyfarespolicya?page=2

Before penalty fares were introduced, the only way to deter people from travelling without a ticket was to prosecute them under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This was time-consuming, costly and often ineffective. For a prosecution to be successful, it had to be proved that the passenger intended to avoid paying.

I don't think the DfT can be so easily dismissed as being incorrect.

And TfL say:

The Penalty Fares Act is a statute law and carries it’s own legislation. It would be a conflict of interests to have delegated legislation for the same offence

 

[Ferret]

1. The Courts do though. Just as a general observation, PF areas tend to be commuter areas - high volumes of people. Would it be practical to do everyone without a ticket under S5 or byelaw 17? Think of the Court Time! PFs solve a huge problem there don't they? Is that what the DfT are getting at?
2. Times change!
3. As indeed are SCs and TMs!
4 and 5. It's not viable to do otherwise! As I've argued before, you can't just criminalise people who want to pay!
6. It's all about opportunity to buy. I'd liken it to that case DaveNewcastle won - you can't be convicted of failing to do the impossible. Somebody who tries to buy a ticket but finds a massive queue - what's he supposed to do?!
7. Not sure what to say to that!!! Which part of the HRA is it contrary to? Ralph?