Given how a lot of people who are accused are in fact not guilty, perhaps this should be revisited. Why should defending oneself against a false or vexatious allegation come at great personal cost?
Albeit you don’t end up in a court based on an accusation unless someone (usually the CPS) has also decided there’s enough evidence to make it worth charging you. Over 75% of cases end in a guilty verdict. Of those who are found not guilty, those who are victims of entirely false or vexations allegations aren’t likely to be a significant %, since making such allegations is a serious criminal offence in its own right (likely to result in prison time).
This in the railway's case is why a system solely based around Penalty Fares with a statutory appeals process (other than stuff where you'd get a Fraud Act prosecution to stick) would be the best option. No different from parking; sending people to Court for forgetting to pay and display would be regarded as silly, and so it should be for rail fares which are typically, when you look at the majority of shorter journeys at least, of similar magnitude.
Perhaps there could be a two strikes and you’re out policy - albeit again this already exists to the extent that under the current system given that, once you’ve been given an out of court settlement, you’re more likely to be prosecuted for a subsequent offence.
Small number of people actually reported for prosecution? Pull the other leg. Tens of thousands of people are prosecuted by the railways each year. Many more, possibly even into the seven figures, are threatened with it. The railway is one of the biggest prosecutors in the country, by case numbers.
Small numbers
in terms of the total numbers of railway journeys (circa. 1.8 billion in 2018/19)
. The fact this tiny fraction still amounts to tens of thousands annually just shows high big a problem fare evasion is! That strikes me as an argument for bringing more prosecutions, not fewer.
In any event the power differential is enormous. It's no skin off the TOC's nose whether they prosecute one case more or less - the same staff will be working the same hours either way, and it's just one case on a long list. They'll be able to claim back their costs, win or lose.
By contrast, for someone to effectively defend themselves, they would have to take time off work, pay hundreds of pounds for a solicitor and hope that the Magistrates don't just rubber-stamp the conviction. And even if they win, they might not be able to recover their legal costs fully or at all.
So to claim that people are choosing to pay a settlement solely because they're guilty is missing the point. It is likely the cheapest option whether they are guilty or not!
Legal aid is available for those who can’t afford representation AIUI. Given that the vast majority of those prosecuted are guilty, as a tax payer and a fare payer, I really couldn’t care less whether they end up out of pocket. In fact, if they do, so much the better!
You can't argue it both ways - that it's OK that few people are actually wrongly prosecuted because 95% of people agree to a settlement under the extreme duress that the railway exerts. It would be ludicrous to suggest that "muggings aren't a big problem as they rarely lead to injuries"; that's only the case because 95% of victims cooperate with the attacker!
Please don’t put words into my mouth, Where have I ever argued that it’s “okay” that anyone is wrongly prosecuted. I’ve simply said that a few mistakes/procedural error are an inevitable consequence of any criminal justice system. That is not a reason to dispense with it. It’s also fairly clear that your idea of “wrongly prosecuted” means anyone being prosecuted by the railway full stop.
The fact you equate TOCs with muggers shows just what a distorted view of reality there is on this forum: the “victim” in this case is invariably the railway, and therefore the taxpayers and farepayers who fund it.
You also seem to criticise fare rises, and are quick to complain about the cost when front line staff want a payrise. So it seems a little odd that you’re apparently not bothered by hundreds of millions annually being lost to the system through evasion.
In my experience that would be unusual. Most expired railcards I come across have either just gone (in which case I just tell them to renew ASAP which with digital railcards can be done on the spot), or are senior ones where they get checked so infrequently that the passenger is less likely to notice an upcoming expiry date.
The two different expiry dates of the 16-17 Saver can be a trap for the unwary but it's clear how they work if you pay just a moment's notice. Most railcard misuse is where they don't have the correct railcard altogether, discounts such as 16-17 vice 16-25, or the JCP discount are the most misused, probably in part because they offer a greater discount.
That makes complete sense - and discretion of this type is often shown in this situation. Of course you’re speaking from experience of what happens in the real world, rather than obsessing over theoretical risks!
