Penalty Fare Notice after trying to pay - ** RESOLVED **

[Guest]

Correct, BUT it is NOT an essential prepequitite that there must be evidence of intent in order to prosecute and the CPS recognise the TOC's right to bring private prosecutions.

 

CPS will ONLY intervene if a case has a serious public interest element, or is wholly without merit.

 

Please, check the legislation and Court records.

 

as in this case there would need to be.

if its not a private prosecution, then it would be cps! are they mostly private prosecutions!? don't think so!

yes, have checked thanks, hence for eg the case law above!

as you no doubt know, law in practice is quite different to its substance.

and, as mentioned, the policy is that where there is no 'assumption' of deliberate evasion then a penalty fare will be issued rather than reported for prosecution. wonder why they say that!

Edited January 8, 2013 by Ford

[Old-CodJA]

as in this case there would need to be.

if its not a private prosecution, then it would be cps! are they mostly private prosecutions!? don't think so!

yes, have checked, hence the case law above!

as you no doubt know, law in practice is quite different to its substance.

 

Yes, I have read FCC v Burns, I did so back in the summer and have refreshed my memory today.

 

You will see that the appeal was unopposed purely because FCC recognise they had laid the wrong charge. Nothing else.

 

Yes, they are mainly private prosecutions. CPS very rarely prosecute rail fares matters. Almost all TOCs have their own prosecutions department, or use other prosecuting agencies.

 

Yes, the law may be applied differently in practice SOMETIMES, but rarely.

 

I do have experience of prosecuting in Courts in this field and can assure you that quite a number of strict liability Byelaw offences are heard & convicted every week.

 

I am going to leave it there, like firstclassx, I recognise that you are not going to change your highly individual view.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Guest]

oh ok, private, lower standard of proof! no wonder they do it privately otherwise, would not have much of a chance!

fair dos, you have long experience in this area. i don't. but, i stand by my thoughts in this case given the law and how its practised. as said, railway policy says unless there is an assumption of deliberate evasion then issue a penalty fare rather than reporting for prosecution. which, imo, reflects the law in practice and substance. though maybe not in substance re byelaws.

i see what you mean but that case would still be applicable imo, generally re 'validity'. (nallab says has proof of oyster record at start station)

anyway, enjoyed the debate. cheers. ps, is not my 'highly individual' view, according to what your rail practice policy says, and what the cps say in general. did you not read my posts?

nallab, seems then maybe take the penalty fare and put it down to experience. just in case they then turn round and decide to prosecute you privately! (unlikely though imo)

ps nallab, seems they keep a record of penalty fares on record, which could be taken into account re any future 'infraction'.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Ford

[firstclassx]

The standard of proof for private prosecutions is the same as, if not higher than, than for prosecutions conducted by the CPS.

 

We work to the same guidelines and regulations as the CPS and I dare say we are able to present railway related offences BETTER than the CPS, as we concentrate our resources solely into legislation affecting the rail network.

[Guest]

The standard of proof for private prosecutions is the same as, if not higher than, than for prosecutions conducted by the CPS.

 

.

 

can never be 'higher', there is only one criminal standard of proof.

when you guys said private, did you mean civil or? plus there would be no 'interest'/evidence test, etc

anyway, cheers. happy prosecuting.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Ford

[antone]

I mean, maybe I'm an idiot or something, but when I get on a train here without a ticket, a ticket-seller comes along and sells me a ticket. If I get to Glasgow Central and no ticket-seller has appeared I join a line to pay at the barrier. Is there something fundamentally wrong with this business model?

[BazzaS]

I mean, maybe I'm an idiot or something, but when I get on a train here without a ticket, a ticket-seller comes along and sells me a ticket. If I get to Glasgow Central and no ticket-seller has appeared I join a line to pay at the barrier. Is there something fundamentally wrong with this business model?

 

Not with the business model, but you are failing to abide by the Bylaws and leave yourself open to prosecution if asked to show a valid ticket. There is no "travel first, pay later" scheme.

 

If there is no ticket office at your boarding station, you can only board a train without a ticket and not be liable for prosecution if there are no working facilities to pay (automatic ticket machine or "permit to travel" machine).

 

If there are no facilities to pay you can board a train with no ticket but must buy a ticket at the first opportunity : this translates to seeking out the guard / train manager to pay.

 

If you choose to board a train without a ticket and wait for a ticket-seller OR if no ticket seller comes to you and you "go to pay at your destination" you are reliant on their goodwill to sell you a ticket rather than issue you with a penalty fare / report you for prosecution. (For a penalty fare to be an option the member of staff must not suspect intent to avoid payment of the fare & the travel must be in a 'penalty fare area')

 

That may seem unfair but it is per Railway Bylaws, the Regulation of Railways Act, and the National Conditions of Carriage, as well as case law for the Bylaws / Act.

 

The problem lies that people have become accustomed to "buying a ticket on the train" or " at their destination" especially if "that's what they have always done", and then feel aggrieved when they find out they are liable for a penalty fare or prosecution.

[Old-CodJA]

can never be 'higher', there is only one criminal standard of proof.

when you guys say private, do you mean civil or? plus there would be no 'interest'/evidence test, etc

anyway, cheers. happy prosecuting.

 

 

Interesting that your opinion is that the standard of proof managed by private prosecutors is 'lower', (your post #28) but when this is challenged you then say 'there is only one criminal standard of proof' (your post #30).

 

The private prosecutions brought by TOCs prosecutors are in Magistrates Courts criminal lists. They are required to meet exactly the same standard as other summary prosecutions brought in criminal Courts.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but despite your seemingly detailed posts, you clearly haven't read the legislation fully or this would have been obvious to you much earlier.

 

The TOCs could bring civil proceedings in relation to unpaid penalty fare notices, but there is provision in the rules to allow unpaid notices to be cancelled and action can then be pursued for the criminal offence of 'having not previously paid the fare due' where pre-purchase facilities were available to the traveller.

 

There is never any obligation on rail staff to issue penalty notices, or unpaid fare notices, where evidence suggests that other action may be justified. Put quite simply, if there is a facility for a traveller to pay the fare before travelling, then the law obliges them to do so. If anyone reads the legislations fully, it becomes immediately clear that there are huge areas of the rail network where it is not possible to issue a penalty fare notice at all and staff will normally be forced to report with a view to prosecution of the offence in these areas. This does not mean that the matter will be prosecuted automatically, but the TOC does have the option.

 

Bazza is spot on with the post above and a part of the problem, whereby travellers may feel aggrieved, lies in the fact that as pressure is put on the TOCs to improve all of their operations, there is a move to re-educate travellers in pretty well all of those areas where custom & practice over the past 10 years has lead to the rules being ignored by far too many.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Guest]

Interesting that your opinion is that the standard of proof managed by private prosecutors is 'lower', (your post #28) but when this is challenged you then say 'there is only one criminal standard of proof' (your post #30)..............I'm sorry to have to say this, but despite your seemingly detailed posts, you clearly haven't read the legislation fully or this would have been obvious to you much earlier...........There is never any obligation on rail staff to issue penalty notices, or unpaid fare notices, where evidence suggests that other action may be justified

 

...

 

hence the question later did you mean civil!! crossed wires/wrong phrase #28, was thinking re a legislation use.

am aware of what the burden of proof is in criminal matters. thanks anyway.

you're quite right though, i have not read in full every piece of legislation or case related to railway law

didn't say there was such an obligation to issue. said (like bazza) policy is if no assumption of intent then a penalty fare would be considered. also, didn't say that a prosecution would be automatic.

seems you have 'clearly' misunderstood some of my points/posts re this case.

anyway, cheers. adieu. happy hunting.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Ford

[Nallab]

Thanks for all your comments. I’m glad my case has led to an enjoyable debate. All the references to case law, regulations, TOCs, OP and various bye laws shows that a lay man, like my self, has no chance in appealing my penalty fare.

However, I just wish the official on the platform had not been so concerned with regulations, had recognised an honest person who was only trying to rectify a mistake (who could have just gone through the barrier using his Oyster card) and shown a little understanding and flexibility!

 

Firstclassx, with reference to your original post and comment, ‘although I suspect you were not particularly co-operative either.’ I would like to state that although unhappy, I was co-operative and polite!

[honeybee13]

Hello nallab. I hope you followed all that.

 

It sounds as though the debate has enabled you to make a decision? Please let us know how you get on.

 

My best, HB

[Nallab]

Honeybee,

 

Appealed but not successfully, paid the penalty fare.

 

Nallab

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

Well, I know it's not the outcome you wanted, but you've stayed out of court, etc, yes?

 

Thank you for coming back to let us know; ould you like me to amend your thread title to show it's settled/resolved?

 

My best, HB

[Guest]

yes, thanks for coming back. did wonder how you got on. and, well done for appealing, even though unsuccessful. (don't let any threats of private prosecution under draconian byelaws stop someone from a genuine appeal)

Edited February 8, 2013 by Ford

[Nallab]

HB

 

Yes please.

 

Nallab

[Grotesque]

Sitck around mate; your experience could be valuable to others. Sometimes it's not just the experts people want- or ought- to hear from, but their fellows too, you know. Cheers. Luck bro.