Will a fare evasion case make it onto the Police National Computer?

[VyeKing]

OK, I've read around the subject, cross referencing various articles, threads and forums and cannot seem to find a definitive answer to this.

 

The general consensus seems to be one that a case of fare evasion convincted under the byelaws is not recordable on the Police National Computer (PNC) and that those convicted under a breach of the Regulations of Railways Act 1889 (since section 5c allows the possibility of up to 51 weeks in prison for repeat offenders) could in theory have an entry made against them in the PNC but it rarely, if ever is.

 

Would this only be recordable onto PNC therefore for someone who actually was a repeat offender? Am I correct? there seems some very knowledgable people on this board, whom I'm hoping might clarify this.

 

Also I presume for an entry to be made onto the PNC fingerprints and DNA samples would be taken? For this to happen, wouldn't the Police need to be involved, who I believe rarely are in these private prosecutions brought about by the TOCs?

[My Real Name]

Here's a link to a quick (albeit dry) breakdown of what might go onto the PNC.

[SRPO]

Deleted.

Edited September 23, 2009 by SRPO

[ippy]

Are the majority of prosecutions under regulation of railways act actually put onto the PNC?

[ippy]

Bump

[SRPO]

Yes.

[Old-CodJA]

This question has been asked many times before and as SRPO makes clear, the view from those of us on the 'prosecuting side', the answer is yes

 

To balance the books as it were, perhaps the advice given by one of the country's law firms defending people Summonsed in this field might be useful too

 

See this link

 

Railway Fare Evasion Solicitors - Fare Evasion Solicitors

 

I must make absolutely clear that I have no connection with this firm, but suggest the brief guide given on their website also makes the position clear.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Old-CodJA

[VyeKing]

Had a brief look at the website, and talk about scaremongering!

 

"A conviction will also prevent travel to certain foreign countries including the U.S.A and Australia"

 

How a company that claims to specialise in law can have an absolute total lack of appreciation of immigration law for both the USA and Australia is beyond me!

 

Suggest looking up for USA the so-called "Petty Offence Exception", and also to properly read Australian Immigration law before they try and panic anyone

 

 

e.g. for Australia, the law simply states that to enter: "you have no criminal convictions for which you have been sentenced for a total combined period of 12 months or more, whether or not the sentence/s were served."

 

Not aware of any cases under the standard Byelaws or Regulation of Railways Act where anyone was handed a full 12 months.

[Old-CodJA]

Had a brief look at the website, and talk about scaremongering!

 

"A conviction will also prevent travel to certain foreign countries including the U.S.A and Australia"

 

How a company that claims to specialise in law can have an absolute total lack of appreciation of immigration law for both the USA and Australia is beyond me!

 

Suggest looking up for USA the so-called "Petty Offence Exception", and also to properly read Australian Immigration law before they try and panic anyone

 

 

e.g. for Australia, the law simply states that to enter: "you have no criminal convictions for which you have been sentenced for a total combined period of 12 months or more, whether or not the sentence/s were served."

 

Not aware of any cases under the standard Byelaws or Regulation of Railways Act where anyone was handed a full 12 months.

 

 

No, I haven't heard of anyone getting a 12 month sentence either and don't have knowledge of immigration law, but I think the information given simply answered the specific question that was asked by the OP.

 

Yes, the offence can result in a record.

[HenrySA]

As per the initial question my recent experience in this is "NO" to the PNC

[Old-CodJA]

As per the initial question my recent experience in this is "NO" to the PNC

 

That just underlines the lack of consistency doesn't it?

 

Some do, some don't.

[SRPO]

Preparing for BICHARD 7

[strangee]

I think , but not sure , that if the police create the arrest number ..ASN .. theconviction enter in the PNC ..otherwise is just a court record ...

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, that's how I understand it although it does not rely on the police being involved in every case because there are very occasional instances where an arrest may be made by a Railways Revenue Protection Inspector

 

The ASN is given at the time the Summons is applied for if appropriate.

 

As most fare evasion cases do not involve arrest, there is no ASN and therefore only a Court record

 

The ASN or Arrest Summons Number, is essential for Bichard 7 to match a result to an original record on PNC. If the ASN is missing, the update to PNC cannot occur.

 

I believe that there are plans to bring all convictions into line to make this process more efficient

Edited April 21, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[VyeKing]

Under breaches of Regulations of Railways Act 1889 an ASN will be applied for by the Prosecuting Authority (since it is a Recordable Offence). For byelaw offences, there will be just a court record.

 

Although called an "Arrest summons Number", no arrest needs to take place - admission of guilt can come outside of arrest of course.

[Old-CodJA]

Under breaches of Regulations of Railways Act 1889 an ASN will be applied for by the Prosecuting Authority (since it is a Recordable Offence). For byelaw offences, there will be just a court record.

 

Although called an "Arrest summons Number", no arrest needs to take place - admission of guilt can come outside of arrest of course.

 

Yes, sorry I could have made that clearer.

 

Because there isn't an arrest most private railway prosecutors don't apply for the ASN and that's why adding to the PNC isn't standard practice yet.

 

The Summons can still be issued without ASN and usually is

[strangee]

I think in general the policy of prosecuting authority (Tfl etc etc) for a first offender (also under breaches of Regulations of Railways Act 1889 section 5.3.a that is the most common...)i that summons are issued without ASN.

First offence should be non imprisonable.

 

I have seen this in a police forum :

 

"You will often have a choice between specific legislation relating to the form of transport, and proceedings under the Theft Act 1978, or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

 

Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is usually used for offences of fare evasion on the railways for:

 

Both Section 5 and Section 103(a) are summary only offences. "Intent to avoid payment" in Section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due.

 

There are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion, but in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate to use the Section 5 offence.

 

Consider using the provisions of the Theft Act 1978, especially Sections 2 and 3, where there is evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat offending, or large loss by the transport authority.

 

Where tickets have been altered or defaced consider a charge under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981."

[onebadday]

As per the initial question my recent experience in this is "NO" to the PNC

 

Hi Henry, U mentioned that this does not lead to a record in PNC and thus would not appear on CRB as well. R u sure of that? I mean do u know someone who happened to go thru this and finally came clean on CRB check?appreciate ur reply.

[SRPO]

Hi Henry, U mentioned that this does not lead to a record in PNC and thus would not appear on CRB as well. R u sure of that? I mean do u know someone who happened to go thru this and finally came clean on CRB check?appreciate ur reply.

No one can say categorically whether a conviction will appear or not on a CRB check as private prosecutions should not (for technical reasons) but it has been shown that sometimes they do.

 

Whatever happens, if asked by an employer if you have qualifying convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act & you do not answer truthfully there are 3 possible outcomes:

1) No action.

2)Dismissal for gross misconduct.

3)Prosecution for obtaining pecuniary advantage.

[onebadday]

Hi SRPO,what exactly u mean by PRIVATE PROSECUTION here? and what are the technical reasons??thx.

[SRPO]

Any prosecution not undertaken by the CPS falls into the catagory Non CPS, the only Non CPS convictions which automatically appear on the PNC are Customs.

Other prosecuting authorities need to obtain an Arrest Summons Number for each prosecution to ensure the PNC is updated.

[Stigy]

Hi SRPO,what exactly u mean by PRIVATE PROSECUTION here? and what are the technical reasons??thx.

A prosecution by anybody other than the CPS probably. The trouble with Train Operating Companies etc, is that as they are not in cahoots with the CPS, or Police I guess, they often don't get things transfered. I'm not too sure what input the courts have, as I would have thought it would be them that passed on the details of the won cases etc.

[Stigy]

Sorry SRPO, I failed to go to page two and thus kind of duplicated what you have already said! ;(

[onebadday]

thanks for the info guys

[Wriggler7]

Offences charged under Section 5, Regulation of Railways act 1889 are 'recordable', under National Rail Byelaws are not.

 

'Non Public' prosecutors are slowly being brought into line, and will arrange for 'recordable' offences to be 'recorded'. For further light reading, start with the Bichard report, and his recommendations. The concept is that at the point of deciding to charge a recordable offence, the 'non public' prosecutor, through the appropriate police authority, will have the charge given an 'arrest/summons' number. After the hearing, the Court will put the result onto PNC.

 

This is supposed to be universal 'by Christmas'. It doesn't currently happen with all 'non public' prosecutions.