Merseyrail - Feet on Seat Frame

[Wriggler7]

Incidentally, seeing the 'Railway' chap on a Monday, which at that Court is 'trials day', I engaged in the usual friendly banter, and suggested to him that he would be out in time for coffee. Then he was whisked away by 'defence Counsel', in a usual pre trial sledging custom. The very simple issues of 'failing to show a ticket', 'giving false name' and interfering with the comfort of a person on the railway', in this instance pushing the TI, turned into a four hour trial. I cannot begin to imagine how that happened, and did take the time to ask afterwards 'what was that all about'. The evidence was apparently pretty straightforward, but Defence looked for every 'wriggle' known to man, and a few that aren't.

 

It boiled down to 'prosecution' sticking to the 'points to prove' and having the evidence neatly lined up. There were accusations of fabrication, bullying, overt racism and intimidation. However, the plain evidence, which was not discredited, was solid. I did not hear the case, and will not therefore give opinion specific to that case, but often, 'defence' tries to rely on issues that have nothing to do with the charge, and generally, the principal of 'stick to the point' is the way to go. Of course, that particular prosecutor may have had, over the many years he has been 'performing', wisdom imparted by some very wise old birds. As well as the odd 'kicking' which can be a very good way of learning how to avoid pitfalls. One of his witnesses suggested that he had actually gone to sleep during defence.

 

The long and the short of it is that he would probably not gone to first hearing if the case wasn't 'solid', and he certainly would not have gone to trial on a 'not guilty plea' without a pretty certain 'win', and he had the time to 'think it over' with 'defence' before the trial started. The 'guarantee' of his not proceeding with an unfair case is that he will be back in front of those same Magistrates (on Friday) and will not want them to think that he is not a reasonable man. Defence Counsel had never previously been to that Court, and is likely to never go there again. In other posts, I have often suggested that if you feel a need for a 'brief', you should get one of the regular performers from that Court.

[Wriggler7]

There are accusations of 'corruption' floating around, and I take a view that some 'railway company' practices may not be as honourable as they should be. However, the one area where I find the accusation laughable is in 'prosecution'. It is one activity undertaken by railways that is exposed to scrutiny by a body that is not allowed to be 'partial'. Magistrates that hear 'railway' cases must not have any financial or emotional interest with the 'railway'.

 

If the outcome of the case at the Magistrates Court was not 'right', it can be heard on appeal at the Crown Court. I have yet to meet a Judge who is frightened to pass judgement on the 'worthiness' of a case. I have not met a Judge who could be corrupted. (That isn't to say that there aren't any, just that I have never met one) The whole process of prosecution in Criminal Courts is far better scrutinised than, for example, passenger satisfaction surveys.

[mambo2946]

If your version of events is accurate, write back to merseyrail and inform them that as your feet were not on the seat (the frame part is structural and therefore cannot be sat upon) you cannot have committed an offence.

If your version is not accurate I suggest you pay the penalty or attend court and let the magistrates decide whether your actions interfered with the comfort of another passenger.

 

If you read the numerous notices on Merseyrail trains you will see that sub frames are included in this ignorant offence, fine them more I say. All trains usually have CCTV so the officers have back up if they are not wearing their head cameras. Putting feet on any part of the seat shows arrogance and a complete disregard for other passengers.

[mambo2946]

Duplicated reply

Edited March 20, 2011 by mambo2946

[Chris56000]

Hi!

 

I've been reading some of the argy-bargy this topic has generated and would like to add one or two of my own personal experiences!

 

Where I live on LM not only are there feet shod in mucky (I should say disgusting!!!) trainers on seats, there's curry remains, beer remains, half of the last McDonald's, cannabis roll-up remains and goodness knows what else!!!

 

However I would like to offer the following mitigating note - sometimes a passenger could be in quite severe pain or discomfort from muscles/joints or simple exhaustion from their daily work to such an extent he/she can't get relief unless they can stretch their legs out by resting their foot on the seat as the space between rows of face-to-face seats isn't wide enough!

 

About a year or so ago I was on an LM electric leaving Walsall siitting nearby to a youngish chap wearing black slip-on shoes. After a few minutes he stretched his legs out and started to drag the heels of his shoes along the floor trying to loosen them off his feet, and I distinctly heard him exclaim "ow!" as his shoes finally came loose enough to drop onto their sides and then for the remainder of his journey he left them like that, apart from occasionally wiggling his loose shoes with his socks/toes.

 

The point I make was that this young chappie, altho' in some severe pain from tight shoes and aching feet, still showed consideration to other passengers by refraining from putting either his socks or shoes on the seat!

 

This brings me to Asterix's observations! When I was a passenger on WAGN (as it then was!) full-time for over a year from Cambridge to Hitchin, it was always the "Suited-yobs" (as Asterix quaintly refers to 'em as!) who had more feet on seats than any other passengers and in a year and a half of commuting I never once saw any of them take their shoe off before doing so!

 

Member Stigy's method of a friendly warning followed by proceedings if the errant passenger hasn't complied with his first warning is the right and proper one I think and that's the policy Merseyrail ought to adopt!

[obiter dictum]

Can anyone link to the actual Railway byelaw about feet on seats being a summary offence

 

The reason i ask is that the signs on trains politely ask you to refrain from feet on the seats, not that you can be prosecuted

 

It appears to come under the 1993 Railways Act, probably deals with smoking and eating but cannot find the correct regulation

[Old-CodJA]

The legislation most appropriate would be a Byelaw prosecution relating to conduct & behaviour on the railway

 

The relevant sections from National Railways Byelaws (2005) are reproduced here:

CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOUR

Byelaw 6. Unacceptable behaviour

 

(1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.

 

(2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.

(3) No person shall write, draw, paint or fix anything on the railway.

(4) No person shall soil any part of the railway.

(5) No person shall damage or detach any part of the railway.

(6) No person shall spit on the railway.

(7) No person shall drop litter or leave waste on the railway.

(8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION

Byelaw 23. Name and address

(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person

(2) The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

Byelaw 24. Enforcement

Offence and level of fines

 

1. Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
   (2) Removal of persons
   (i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
   (ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.
   (iii) No person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these Byelaws or any other enactment.
   (iv) In exercising powers conferred by Byelaws 24(2)(i) and 24(2)(ii) the authorised person shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms prior to exercising the power conferred upon him.
   

It can be seen that, if in the reasonable opinion of an inspector or other officer of the railway company, the behaviour of an individual has, or is likely to, soil the railway; i.e; shoes on seats are likely to leave a residue, then an offence can be alleged. ( Byelaw 6.4 and possibly 6.8 )

[obiter dictum]

Many thanks for the link

[steveod]

The legislation most appropriate would be a Byelaw prosecution relating to conduct & behaviour on the railway

 

The relevant sections from National Railways Byelaws (2005) are reproduced here:

CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOUR

Byelaw 6. Unacceptable behaviour

 

(1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway.

 

(2) No person shall behave in a disorderly, indecent or offensive manner on the railway.

(3) No person shall write, draw, paint or fix anything on the railway.

(4) No person shall soil any part of the railway.

(5) No person shall damage or detach any part of the railway.

(6) No person shall spit on the railway.

(7) No person shall drop litter or leave waste on the railway.

(8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION

Byelaw 23. Name and address

(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person

(2) The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

Byelaw 24. Enforcement

Offence and level of fines

 

1. Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
   (2) Removal of persons
   (i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
   (ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.
   (iii) No person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these Byelaws or any other enactment.
   (iv) In exercising powers conferred by Byelaws 24(2)(i) and 24(2)(ii) the authorised person shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms prior to exercising the power conferred upon him.
   

It can be seen that, if in the reasonable opinion of an inspector or other officer of the railway company, the behaviour of an individual has, or is likely to, soil the railway; i.e; shoes on seats are likely to leave a residue, then an offence can be alleged. ( Byelaw 6.4 and possibly 6.8 )

 

 

Reading the above it states "no person shall soil any part of the railway". It doesn't say anything about attempting to soil, or likely to soil, and so "soiling" has to actually have occurred eg graffiti or someone with muddy shoes leaving mud on a seat. It has to be proven that the seat was soiled not just a guess by the inspector.or is there an appeal court ruling stating that that section is to be interpreted so wide as to include "likely to"?

[obiter dictum]

As far as i am aware if punishment is not expressly defined in statute then it is for the judiciary to interpret the wishes of Parliament

 

No forgetting this will probably be a Strict Liability offence as well

[steveod]

As far as i am aware if punishment is not expressly defined in statute then it is for the judiciary to interpret the wishes of Parliament

 

No forgetting this will probably be a Strict Liability offence as well

 

If parliament had of intended to cover actions likely to soil the railway then they would have put that in the legislation the same as they did in the public order act. Eg behaviour likely to cause distress, alarm or harassment. They didn't. It specifically states actions that' have soiled the railway. . If it was for the court to just add this in at their discretion then the court would be making the law not interpreting it.

 

It's a strict liability that has to be proved. A person putting their feet on a metal frame may soil on the balance of probabilities, but it would be up to the prosecution to prove that it did in fact soil the seat beyond reasonable doubt. Unless there is proof to that then offence not made out. On other hand if the legislation stated, putting feet on seats or any part of seats is an offence, then the strict liability of putting your feet on the seat or frame would apply.

[obiter dictum]

Disagree with that

 

The fact the feet were witnessed being on the seat is enough to convict under strict liability

 

You either had, or had not your feet on the seats

[steveod]

Disagree with that

 

The fact the feet were witnessed being on the seat is enough to convict under strict liability

 

You either had, or had not your feet on the seats

 

Except the bye law doesn't say anything about feet can or cannot be on the seat - if it did then strict liability would apply and so if your feet were on the seat you would be guilty. The byelaw just states in plain words that it is an offence to soil the railway property therefore it would need to be proven that the property was in fact soiled.

[Old-CodJA]

If parliament had of intended to cover actions likely to soil the railway then they would have put that in the legislation the same as they did in the public order act. Eg behaviour likely to cause distress, alarm or harassment. They didn't. It specifically states actions that' have soiled the railway. . If it was for the court to just add this in at their discretion then the court would be making the law not interpreting it. .

 

 

 

24. Enforcement

(1) Offence and level of fines

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2) Removal of persons

(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.

(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.

 

 

further extract

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY

It is hereby certified that

(1) the above Byelaws were made by the Strategic Rail Authority;

(2) this is a true copy of the Byelaws;

(3) on 22 June 2005 the Byelaws were confirmed pursuant to Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport; and

(4) the Byelaws came into operation on 7 July 2005.

 

In my experience, wherever a strict liability charge has been proven to the satisfaction of Magistrates they have convicted and have correctly applied a fine on the standard scale as noted in the Byelaws.

 

Usually a fine of around £200 (entry level for a strict liability matter) reduced by one third if a guilty plea is entered and then the imposition of an award of part of prosecution's costs and the usual Court charges as relevant.

[steveod]

24. Enforcement

(1) Offence and level of fines

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2) Removal of persons

(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.

(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.

 

 

further extract

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY

It is hereby certified that

(1) the above Byelaws were made by the Strategic Rail Authority;

(2) this is a true copy of the Byelaws;

(3) on 22 June 2005 the Byelaws were confirmed pursuant to Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport; and

(4) the Byelaws came into operation on 7 July 2005.

 

In my experience, wherever a strict liability charge has been proven to the satisfaction of Magistrates they have convicted and have correctly applied a fine on the standard scale as noted in the Byelaws.

 

Usually a fine of around £200 (entry level for a strict liability matter) reduced by one third if a guilty plea is entered and then the imposition of an award of part of prosecution's costs and the usual Court charges as relevant.

 

And that is right. Where a strict liability offence has been proven. It's the proven part that's essential. In other words if a sign in a train or station says no smoking, and a inspector, police constable or other official sees you smoking, then you cab be prosecuted under strict liability and it's no good saying to the court I was only smoking because of x or y and I didn't intend to smoke - the fact you did is enough to trigger the liability. However in this type of case of feet on the chair, the strict liability only applies where you put your feet on the seat and they can PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that you soiled the seat, so you don't have to have intent to soil the seat the fact it got soiled is enough. But just because you have your feet on the seat or seat frame does not mean it actually got soiled, they have to prove it got soiled and that it was in fact you that soiled it not some other person.

[obiter dictum]

There is no reasonable doubt in a strict liabiliy offence (Burden of proof)

 

That is why the liability is strict

 

Even if using a balance of probability it can naturally be assumed outdoor shoes will have contaminated matter on the soles of that shoe and be unintentionally transfered to the seat through cross contamination

 

Just because it looks clean and not soiled to the naked eye, does not mean it is not

 

Strict liability is a "Quasi offence"

 

It will be down to the commuter to prove no contamination passed from the sole of his shoes onto the seat, not the crown to prove it did not

Edited October 13, 2015 by obiter dictum

[steveod]

There is no reasonable doubt in a strict liabiliy offence (Burden of proof)

 

That is why the liability is strict

 

Even if using a balance of probability it can naturally be assumed outdoor shoes will have contaminated matter on the soles of that shoe and be unintentionally transfered to the seat through cross contamination

 

Just because it looks clean and not soiled to the naked eye, does not mean it is not

 

Strict liability is a "Quasi offence"

 

It will be down to the commuter to prove no contamination passed from the sole of his shoes onto the seat, not the crown to prove it did not

 

Strict liability does not necessarily reverse the burden of proof or lower it from reasonable doubt to on balance of probabilities. All strict liability does is remove the mens rea from the quasi criminal act so that if it is proved beyond reasonable that the act took place, it was the defendant that did the act, and the act was prohibited by the relevant legislation, then it doesn't matter that the defendant didn't mean to do the act, or was reckless or negligent in doing the act, they are still guilty. But all the elements still have to be proven.

 

As an example, if a policeman sees a teenager walking out of a store with a bottle of alcohol it cannot be held that the shopkeeper is guilty of selling the alcohol to the teenager unless all the elements are proven such as,

1. The shop does in fact have alcohol for sale

2. The alcohol the teenager has in his hands was purchased from that shop

3. That in fact the teenager is underage

 

In your definition the shopkeeper would be automatically guilty under strict liability and would have to prove he didn't supply the alcohol(which could be an impossibility ).

The teenager might have got the alcohol at the shop he visited before this shop, the teenager might in fact be 18 but refuse to provide his age after the event, the shop might not even stock that type of alcohol . The prosecution would need to prove the offence. If there was evidence that the teenager did in fact get the alcohol from that shopkeeper then the strict liability would apply so that the shopkeeper would be guilty even if he thought the teenager was over 18 or even if he mistakenly thought he was selling a bottle of soda pop to the teenager when in reality it was alcohol. That is what strict liability covers it doesn't mean that the shopkeeper is Automatically guilty and the prosecution don't have to prove anything at all.

[obiter dictum]

The difference between your example of the shop keeper and alcohol and that of feet on the seat of a train was that it was witnessed by Revenue protection officers the offence being committed on the train

 

R v. Storkwain (1986) and the forged prescription is a classic case of strict liability against a pharmacist

 

He was found guilty of dispensing prescribed controlled drugs with no way of knowing the prescription was forged

Edited October 13, 2015 by obiter dictum

[steveod]

The difference between your example of the shop keeper and alcohol and that of feet on the seat of a train was that it was witnessed by Revenue protection officers the offence being committed on the train

 

I can refererence the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain (1986) If you like and forged prescriptions though that was on a special responsibility his standing in the community as a pharmacist

 

 

Yes, I know that case. The pharmacist admitted supplying the drugs as he believe the prescription valid. So his mens rea that he though it was valid didn't come into it, he was guilty of the act.

 

 

The mistake you are making is that the byelaw doesn't state:

It is an offence to have your feet or shoes on any seat or part of the seat.

If the bye law stated that then an inspector on seeing you with your feet on the seat can then testify he saw you with your feet on the seat, your men's rea that you didn't mean to put your feet on the seat means nothing, and you are guilty.

 

However the bylaw states that you may not soil the train. This requires proof that it was you that soiled the seat(the inspector will state it was you so that is proved) but then he needs to prove that the seat was in fact soiled - it may be that you had very muddy shoes and he testifies that on checking the seat there was mud marks all over it so the case is proved, or he may only be able to say he didn't see any marks on the seat and so the case is not proved. That is why the CPS dropped the case of the man that soiled the seat on the station platform allegedly. It requires proof of fact that the seat was soiled.

 

As another crude example, suppose you are on the train. You get up and go to the toilet on the train. You enter and close the door behind you and then notice that someone has used the toilet and not flushed it after and the toilet bowl and the wall have number 2 marks spread out by some disgusting person before you. You rush straight out only to see the inspector enter. He sees the mess and blames you. You are then automatically guilty of the crime unless you prove it wasnt you that did it? No they would need to prove that it was you that did it , don't know how and I suppose that's why there are no cases put forward like this. If they could prove that it was you because for instance cctv showed nobody entering the toilet since the last noted cleaning of that toilet, then it wouldn't matter that you only did it because there was no toilet roll, you would still be guilty of soiling the railway.

[obiter dictum]

Once again, there is no mens rea in strict liability, only the actus reus needs to be proven, intended or not

 

We agree to disagree

 

Thanks for the debate anyway

[steveod]

Once again, there is no mens rea in strict liability, only the actus reus needs to be proven, intended or not

 

We agree to disagree

 

Thanks for the debate anyway

 

So we do agree then. That's what I stated above. The mens rea does not apply in the case of foot on the seat, alcohol sale or toilet scenario, only the actus reus which needs to be proven. Been interesting.

[obiter dictum]

Yes a good well balanced debate.

 

Even though we failed to agree we both used logic rather than insults

 

It is a shame a few other forum members cannot do the same as i rather enjoyed it as it stimulated the little grey cells

[Ganymede]

This is a fascinating debate but Merseyrail prosecute 'feet on the seat' under byelaw 6(8) and not 6(4), so soiling the seat is irrelevant.

[obiter dictum]

Thanks Ganymeade

 

As you say

 

Fascinating debate

[steveod]

This is a fascinating debate but Merseyrail prosecute 'feet on the seat' under byelaw 6(8) and not 6(4), so soiling the seat is irrelevant.

 

 

 

OK. lets add to that debate again.

Railway byelaw 6(8) states:

No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

 

 

lets analyse. It doesn't say "no person shall molest or wilfully interfere, or which is likely to molest or interfere, with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway"

 

 

This is very important part in bold that is missing from the legislation. It means that without the part in bold then accordingly the prosecution would have to prove that someone actually WAS molested or interfered with by the charged. They cannot just state that this make belief/potential reasonable person's convenience or comfort may or may not have been interfered with. Looking at other legislation such as the Public Order Act and the harassment legislation plus other common law, courts have ruled that where the "likely" term is included then an actual person does not actually have to have been impacted its just how a reasonable person would have been impacted or what a reasonable person would have expected.

 

 

additionally as the train officer/inspector would not be inconvenienced by someone having their foot on the chair(as he wouldn't be using the chair in any event) then they could not claim he was inconvenienced( similarly to the fact that police officers cannot be offended under the Public Order Act by swearing and foul language as long as it wasn't abuse directed personally at the specific officer - and in that legislation it does have the likely to offend any person specified in it).

 

 

Also the legislation states that the act must be done wilfully which means that the prosecution would have to prove that the act was done deliberately and intentionally and not mistakenly.

 

 

many hurdles for a successful prosecution with a good defense UNLESS the person genuinely

wanted to molest or interfere with another person eg blocking the inspector, locking oneself in the toilet for hours, sitting across multiple seats when someone else wants to sit down etc OR putting feet up on the chairs when someone wants to sit down on that chair and refusing to remove feet when requested.

But someone having their feet accidently resting on the frame of the seat is NOT wilfully interfering so 6(8) would not be effective. And even if they had their feet resting on the frame of the seat and they were not aware that someone wanted to sit on that seat as they had not been requested to remove their feet, then they have not wilfully intended to inconvenience a person.

 

 

all in my opinion.