Fare evasion - please help - ** SETTLED **

[firstclassx]

The point I'm making is, a settlement offer of £100 is likely to elicit an identical response to that of £500. Therefore, leading desperate people up the garden path isn't something to be at all proud of.

 

£100! You are having a laugh! Start talking at £150, if you have exceptional circumstances. I can easily get £125 in court costs alone.

 

My (rough mental) tariff I tend to work with when calculating amounts, there is obviously a lot of discretion here:

 

Byelaw (not 18/22) - start at £125

Byelaw (18/22) - start at £150

RoRA 1889 - start at £200

 

If no compelling reason/mitigating circumstances, I'd probably add 25% to the above.

If previous same/similar offence, add 100% or prosecute regardless

With mitigating circumstances, reduce by 25%

High value loss/misuse of high value season, add 50% (minimum of loss amount + costs)

Abusive to inspector/uncooperative initially, add 25-50% or refuse settlement

False details given initially, add 50% or prosecute

Offence committed in area with high fare evasion, add 10%

 

The likes of First Capital Connect will charge a hell of a lot more than that.

Edited September 21, 2012 by firstclassx

[Old-CodJA]

The point I'm making is, a settlement offer of £100 is likely to elicit an identical response to that of £500. Therefore, leading desperate people up the garden path isn't something to be at all proud of.

 

 

 

Despite still being actively involved in dealing with prosecutions, over the 30 plus years I have been in this line of work I try always to maintain a view of what is actually fair, not what can be grabbed!

 

In cases such as this, an offer of £100 may not get an immediate acceptance, but may well lead to settlement in due course.

 

An offer of £500 always will be accepted and there is an element here that cannot be condoned as good practice in my view.

 

This should always be about justice and not simply the ability to buy your way out of trouble.

 

If you genuinely do not believe that you are guilty of any offence, you should not be flashing a wad to make things 'go away'. It is not unheard of for cheques that have not been agreed to be returned as 'unsolicited payment'.

 

If you are charged with 'intent to avoid a fare' contrary S.5 RoRA [1889] and there is clear evidence that points to a likely conviction then the more serious matter of a criminal record might be avoided IF the TOC are prepared to accept an offer of settlement, and in the case of a first offence a fine of £400 plus costs, plus compensation and the standard victim surcharge may be the maximum ordered by a Court.

 

If a strict liability breach of Byelaw offence is charged by the TOC the maximum that any defendant is ever likely to face on conviction of a first offence if they do not answer the Summons is a total of around £350 plus the fare, plus a victim surcharge of £15. The 350 pounds figure is made up of a fine of £200 plus prosecutors' costs of £150. The Magistrates are under strict instruction not to use awards of costs as a punishment. The fine is the punishment, the costs must be justified.

 

In my view it would be very wrong of any of us who work in railway prosecutions to come onto this, or any other site simply encouraging people to offer exhorbitant settlement figures when the OP may only be seeking advice in respect of the likelihood of conviction. Indeed, it might well raise the question 'Why are we here in the first place?'

 

I have often suggested making an offer of settlement where the OPs description of what occurred in any incident suggests that it may be appropriate, but I have always used the term offer 'reasonably incurred costs' with respect to what might be acceptable. I shall continue to suggest such action where appropriate, but it isn't a panacea for all offences.

 

There is a danger that a habit of collecting inappropriate sums in settlement will lead to TOCs prosecution staff believing it should be the norm and the inevitable bad publicity this would lead to might well be counter-productive when deserving cases are brought before the Courts.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Old-CodJA