TfL fare evasion discussion thread

[BazzaS]

NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.

 

Not qualified, and not useful.

 

The OP needs to consider BOTH

a) if Tfl could establish intent for the RRA 1889 offence, AND

b) if they have a defence to a Bylaw 18 (strict liability) prosecution, as Tfl can choose either.

 

The OP hasn't posted why they had a child's ticket, but noted making "a grovelling apology", so it is likely it was deliberate, but even so, if they don't accept the offer of an administrative settlement, TFL are likely to succeed with a RRA 1889 prosecution (unless there is new info to consider), but even more likely to succeed with a Bylaw prosecution (where intent is irrelevant, and it is judged on the actus and presence / absence of statutory defence)

 

 

I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University.

 

What a shame it didn't seem to result in you understanding that

a) statute gets clarified by case law

b) Academic understanding needs to have reality applied, to be able to yield useful advice .....

[king12345]

I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University. If Parliament which has sovereignty in England and Wales makes a criminal law statute with the term 'intent' then the prosecution has to prove intent otherwise it would be a strict liability offence, ie intent not required (no mens rea) The This Railways 1889 Act is clearly an intent offence, so the prosecution has to prove intent: mens rea, in addition to the actus reus (act).

 

 

NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.

 

As said by bazza and others, TfL doesn't necessarily prosecute under rra1889 but mainly using bylaws.

No escape from that, especially after admitting offence and writing a grovelling letter.

As you studied law, what do you think are the op's chances of avoiding a bylaw conviction if prosecuted, considering the above evidence???

[fletch70]

You need to remember that Ruleoflaw has only studied elements of law and never put them into practice. It tried to give the impression that he had an LLb from the OU but I believe when challenged he conceded that he did not actually have said degree.

 

I know for a fact he has been banned from two other forums , at least once for giving dangerous advice

 

I am not saying that some advice is not fine and dandy but please folks be careful.

[king12345]

You need to remember that Ruleoflaw has only studied elements of law and never put them into practice. It tried to give the impression that he had an LLb from the OU but I believe when challenged he conceeded that he did not actually have said degree.

 

I know for a fact he has been banned from two other forums , at least once for giving dangerous advice

 

I am not saying that some advice is not fine and dandy but please folks be careful.

 

All clear now...

[Ruleoflaw]

Not qualified, and not useful.

 

The OP needs to consider BOTH

a) if Tfl could establish intent for the RRA 1889 offence, AND

b) if they have a defence to a Bylaw 18 (strict liability) prosecution, as Tfl can choose either.

 

The OP hasn't posted why they had a child's ticket, but noted making "a grovelling apology", so it is likely it was deliberate, but even so, if they don't accept the offer of an administrative settlement, TFL are likely to succeed with a RRA 1889 prosecution (unless there is new info to consider), but even more likely to succeed with a Bylaw prosecution (where intent is irrelevant, and it is judged on the actus and presence / absence of statutory defence)

 

 

 

 

What a shame it didn't seem to result in you understanding that

a) statute gets clarified by case law

b) Academic understanding needs to have reality applied, to be able to yield useful advice .....

 

 

It is a professional course so it meets the professional and practical standards of criminal law, before doing a practice course per se. Making a grovelling apology is called 'circumstantial' - we don't know whether the questions I considered have been asked.

 

 

In any event, what you're not grasping is the point that the TFL do not have the power of the courts to make a conviction; that they are threatening the OP with a fine or pay £254. Even the first level of fine is £200 and that's for not having a ticket at all. The Op had a ticket just had the wrong ticket so it cannot be as serious an offence of not having a ticket.

 

 

Imagine if the prosecution could threaten a person who is the defendant to a murder charge who states, if you pay our client's estate damages for the deceased's pain and suffering prior to their death (ie damages for pain and suffering in Tort) then we'll drop the murder charge and accept a manslaughter defence, this is the same as what TFL are doing albeit the offence is fare evasion and not common law murder.

Edited October 22, 2016 by openlaw

[Ruleoflaw]

But TfL choose to prosecute or not.

 

 

 

If all Tfl were interested in was prosecuting, they would have done so. They have given the OP an opportunity to give their side of the story, to decide if a prosecution is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

If the OP doesn't agree to pay the administrative settlement, and/or TfL decide to prosecute before the OP pays the admin settlement, Tfl can seek those admin costs in court (as well asd the evaded fare) ; that money would go to TfL, unlike any fine and victim surcharge, which goes to the courts ....

 

 

 

They paid for a ticket. A child's ticket. They paid for a child's ticket, not "their fare"

 

 

 

Not hard for the prosecution to establish intent if the OP can't explain how they accidentally bought a child's ticket what with them being an adult .....

 

 

 

For the reasons above, you think wrong

 

 

 

 

Both irrelevant. The offence is "not having previous paid" ; it can't be avoided by offering to pay only once caught!.

 

You refer above to 'statutory interpretation'. If there is any doubt as to interpretation, the courts rule on it. Statute can't be read in isolation from subsequent case law clarifying it.

Corbyn v Saunders shows why you are wrong (or, rather, again wrong!).

http://swarb.co.uk/corbyn-v-saunders-1978/

 

 

 

So, buying a child's ticket when not a child, gets the OP a ticket, but not "payment of the proper fare", and offering to pay once stopped isn't "before he begins his journey".

 

You are so "way off base' that you appear to have next to no understanding of the issues.

If what you believe was to be true it'd be hard for the TOC's to ever prosecute anyone for fare evasion, and the fact that they can, and do, shows you are just wrong.

 

 

Oh I understand, but you seemingly have a conservative view of criminal law. Incidentally, when did you study criminal law? When did you do essays on strict liability even though I had to explain to you what strict liability was. The truth is that the only losses that TFL could claim for is the price of the ticket because Tort only relates to 'actual loss', which is the difference between the child fare and the actual fair paid on the facts. So, it doesn't leave a good claim for TFL, so they threaten or allude that the OP will get a criminal record if they don't pay the £254. I think you'd make for a great prosecution but a devastatingly poor defence lawyer. It may well be the case that the OP has to bite the proverbial bullet and pay up, but the matter should be considered from both angles, which incidentally is what criminal law teaches, ie the position of the prosecution (the state) versus the defence. Understanding Tort and Criminal law at degree level helps to look at things more fairly.

[BazzaS]

It is a professional course so it meets the professional and practical standards of criminal law, before doing a practice course per se.

 

Even if it is a qualifying law degree or equivalent (LLB / GDL or equivalent), it would satisfy only the academic stage requirement. Mind you another respondent has suggested you don;t even have that LLB / GDL .... care to comment?.

 

 

 

Making a grovelling apology is called 'circumstantial' - we don't know whether the questions I considered have been asked.

 

True, but given the OP had a child's ticket, and hasn't said "here's my explanation for how", it seems likely they were fare evading, or they'd have told us!.

 

 

In any event, what you're not grasping is the point that the TFL do not have the power of the courts to make a conviction; that they are threatening the OP with a fine or pay £254. Even the first level of fine is £200 and that's for not having a ticket at all.

 

You are the one who "just haven't grasped" it.

TfL don't have the power to convict, they have the power to prosecute.

Yet, if they choose to prosecute, they'll likely get a conviction.

If the OP is convicted the total cost to them will likely be greater than £254 (by the time the fine, fare, costs and victim surcharge are all added) ....... and have a criminal record that will appear on an eDBS .....

 

 

The Op had a ticket just had the wrong ticket so it cannot be as serious an offence of not having a ticket.

 

Wrong again. The OP likely had "the wrong ticket" just because they wanted a cheaper ticket to get through the barriers. It is just as "serious" an offence, because it is still either the bylaw offence, or the S5.3 RRA 1889 offence, depending on which TfL choose.....

If you think "the OP had a ticket, just a child's one" would be mitigation, you are deluded.

 

 

Imagine if the prosecution could threaten a person who is the defendant to a murder charge who states, if you pay our client's estate damages for the deceased's pain and suffering prior to their death (ie damages for pain and suffering in Tort) then we'll drop the murder charge and accept a manslaughter defence, this is the same as what TFL are doing albeit the offence is fare evasion and not common law murder.

 

You are confusing civil and criminal law.

The murder / manslaughter is criminal law, the claim for damages is civil law. So, the prosecution doesn't threaten such (leaving aside that murder / manslaughter are almost always prosecuted by the CPS, not companies).

TfL have decided it may not be in the public interest to prosecute IF the OP

a) pays an administrative settlement, and

b) accepts that this will be recorded so may not again be offered if caught ticketless again in the future.

Comparing this to murder / manslaughter is absurd.

[honeybee13]

Guys, can we keep to topic please? We're here to advise the OP, not discuss Ruleoflaw's qualifications.

 

HB

[BazzaS]

Oh I understand, but you seemingly have a conservative view of criminal law. Incidentally, when did you study criminal law? When did you do essays on strict liability even though I had to explain to you what strict liability was.

 

Gee, thanks for explaining strict liability to me.

I was commenting on strict liability re: Railway Bylaws in (at least) 2014 ..... and I'm sure if need be I can find earlier examples

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?425668-Magistrates-court-hearing-south-west-trains-breaking-byelaw-19

 

 

The truth is that the only losses that TFL could claim for is the price of the ticket because Tort only relates to 'actual loss', which is the difference between the child fare and the actual fair paid on the facts. So, it doesn't leave a good claim for TFL, so they threaten or allude that the OP will get a criminal record if they don't pay the £254.

 

No, they can charge an admin fee. If the OP doesn't pay, TfL will likely get its admin costs when the OP is successfully prosecuted.

 

I think you'd make for a great prosecution but a devastatingly poor defence lawyer.

 

I don't know. If they OP actually had a viable defence, it would be easier to be a "better" defence lawyer.

Your incorrect assertions have been pretty much demolished, so what is the "better" defence you feel I'm missing?.

 

It may well be the case that the OP has to bite the proverbial bullet and pay up, but the matter should be considered from both angles, which incidentally is what criminal law teaches, ie the position of the prosecution (the state) versus the defence. Understanding Tort and Criminal law at degree level helps to look at things more fairly.

 

It is what you think is "fair", but I've explained why you are wrong.

To give reliable advice you need to consider both "fairness" but also realism!.

[BazzaS]

Guys, can we keep to topic please? We're here to advise the OP, not discuss Ruleoflaw's qualifications.

 

HB

 

OK, lets discuss their advice, instead.

I've explained why they are wrong, so the OP can decide if they want to follow their poor advice.

Openlaw has just repeated their statements, rather than explaining why my analysis of their incorrect position is wrong.

[Ruleoflaw]

Even if it is a qualifying law degree or equivalent (LLB / GDL or equivalent), it would satisfy only the academic stage requirement. Mind you another respondent has suggested you don;t even have that LLB / GDL .... care to comment?.

 

 

I'll answer (if I may, HB), it's only relevant Bazza if I were to proceed with the legal practice course or go down the Legal Executive route. The point is I have studied the 7 (foundation) subjects of the LLB law degree course (which is transferrable to the USA; Canada; Australia; Hong Kong at least, as they're common law countries), whether I hold the piece of paper or not is irrelevant to this forum, and avoiding the question does not meant I do not hold the piece of paper - I just think it's an irrelevant question. I still possess sufficient knowledge of law through completion of this professional course entailing the completion of several LLB law modules. Notwithstanding I completed commercial law (well, commercial transactions: law and practice). The LLB modules are the professional standard of law immediately prior to a Legal Practice Course. I also hold an Open University degree in general.

 

 

 

 

 

True, but given the OP had a child's ticket, and hasn't said "here's my explanation for how", it seems likely they were fare evading, or they'd have told us!.

 

 

 

 

You are the one who "just haven't grasped" it.

TfL don't have the power to convict, they have the power to prosecute.

Yet, if they choose to prosecute, they'll likely get a conviction.

If the OP is convicted the total cost to them will likely be greater than

[king12345]

I think openlaw advice is very poor.

Fare evasion is an offence that many lawyers and solicitors do not touch because is a subject "per se", similar to some driving offences.

So a clear cut defence for a solicitor not familiar with fare evasion can result in a very easy conviction for the court.

I advice the op not to pursue the path suggested by openlaw, unless he wants to end up with a record and prejudice hi career.

The £250 odd TfL is asking is not a fine.

It's simply an administrative settlement that would save the op from a very likely conviction (I'd say certain).

As suggested by really experienced guys on the subject, pay up and consider yourself lucky, unless you fancy a higher financial loss and a record.

[Ruleoflaw]

I think openlaw advice is very poor.

Fare evasion is an offence that many lawyers and solicitors do not touch because is a subject "per se", similar to some driving offences.

So a clear cut defence for a solicitor not familiar with fare evasion can result in a very easy conviction for the court.

I advice the op not to pursue the path suggested by openlaw, unless he wants to end up with a record and prejudice hi career.

The

 

I do not offer 'advice' - I provide my opinion for something for the Op to think about, not persuade them with any advice. I do not offer advice because I am not qualified to offer advice, so I merely provide information that may result in my opinion. The more information am privy to, the more there is a likelihood that the information I initially offered would consequently change. We should at least think things through from all angles before providing an easy answer. I did however concede perhaps it 'may' be in the interests of the Op to pay the £254 owing to the 'threat' of the fine, but in my view it's very unfair.

[BazzaS]

I see that "openlaw" has become "ruleoflaw", and their posting history has become merged.

 

This makes things clearer.

[king12345]

I think openlaw advice is very poor.

Fare evasion is an offence that many lawyers and solicitors do not touch because is a subject "per se", similar to some driving offences.

So a clear cut defence for a solicitor not familiar with fare evasion can result in a very easy conviction for the court.

I advice the op not to pursue the path suggested by openlaw, unless he wants to end up with a record and prejudice hi career.

The

 

I do not offer 'advice' - I provide my opinion for something for the Op to think about, not persuade them with any advice. I do not offer advice because I am not qualified to offer advice, so I merely provide information that may result in my opinion. The more information am privy to, the more there is a likelihood that the information I initially offered would consequently change. We should at least think things through from all angles before providing an easy answer. I did however concede perhaps it 'may' be in the interests of the Op to pay the £254 owing to the 'threat' of the fine, but in my view it's very unfair.

 

If you don't offer advice you're in the wrong forum.

We all dispose advice based on our experience /opinion/expertise, the op will decide what to do with their life.

But misleading him by trying to mount a defence that would definitely fail is wrong and unfair.

Based on the op's information, there's zero chance to avoid a conviction if this case was taken to court.

Nil whatsoever.

Not in a million years and not even if you paid the magistrates

[honeybee13]

I've started a new thread for posts that have strayed into discussion, so that the original thread can advise the OP.

 

HB

[fletch70]

Hi folks

 

I am wondering if ruleoflaw will be back but just incase he is I want to let him know that he is barking up the wrong tree when it comes to my real identity.

 

It is not a secret who I am and which forums i have been/am on

 

One thing I can say for certain, I am not who he thinks i am

[Ganymede]

I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University. If Parliament which has sovereignty in England and Wales makes a criminal law statute with the term 'intent' then the prosecution has to prove intent otherwise it would be a strict liability offence, ie intent not required (no mens rea) The This Railways 1889 Act is clearly an intent offence, so the prosecution has to prove intent: mens rea, in addition to the actus reus (act).

 

 

NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.

 

This reminds me of the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

 

Always makes me chuckle when somebody did a law module on a course and then thinks that they're an authority on the law.

[BazzaS]

This reminds me of the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

 

Always makes me chuckle when somebody did a law module on a course and then thinks that they're an authority on the law.

 

The discussion thread HB suggested is here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?470884-TfL-fare-evasion-discussion-thread&p=4959818#post4959818

 

That thread also notes that the "new poster" 'openlaw' had their persona merged with established poster "ruleoflaw", which (with their posting history) explains a great deal.