Jump to content


ploddertom

Judge blasts decision to jail man who dodged £2.70 train fare as he frees him on appeal

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 854 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

He should of served 6 months.

Persistent thief.

6 convictions

Thinks he can free load off society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was revealed in court that the lad had two previous convictions for not paying a train fare so hopefully, after this 3rd occasion, he may change his behaviour !!! Here's hoping anyway.

 

The train fare incident appeared to 'gloss over' the other conviction that he was also jailed for on the same day. He was given a 13-week jail sentence over driving offences following a crash. The sentence was reduced to 52 days.

 

PS: I do agree though that such offences should be decriminalised but given the recent changes by the Sentencing Council into these offences, I cannot see any change being made anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had 6 previous convictions for fare evasion.

 

Yea great idea... Lets decimalise theft.........

And burglary

And then aggravated burglary

 

What after that???

Manslaughter?

 

He is a thief, nothing more nothing less....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read the article SGT Bush.

Apparently at the retrial the Jury was told that the figure of 6 convictions was wrong-it was only 2 which is partly why I guess the Judge released him.

 

I am sure one would not want him on one's property but jail for petty offences even him seems over the top. We as tax payers would have to foot the bill for that. far better to put him on some community payback scheme for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing is where i fully support the US's 3 strike rule that should be implemented in the UK. It will soon stop a lot of crime.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read the article SGT Bush.

Apparently at the retrial the Jury was told that the figure of 6 convictions was wrong-it was only 2 which is partly why I guess the Judge released him.

 

I am sure one would not want him on one's property but jail for petty offences even him seems over the top. We as tax payers would have to foot the bill for that. far better to put him on some community payback scheme for example.

 

It wasn't a retrial before a jury...

 

He appeared before a crown court judge to appeal the magistrate original sentence....


Just say No to 0870 and 0845 Numbers,Use

http://www.saynoto0870.com/search.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't a retrial before a jury...

 

He appeared before a crown court judge to appeal the magistrate original sentence....

 

Whatever. The case was revisited and as a result of certain factors coming to light, the man was released.

 

If there was a discrepancy between how many times he had been convicted of fare dodging one would have though you might have queried how that occurred rather than doing Sgt Bush.s pedantic job for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This kind of thing is where i fully support the US's 3 strike rule that should be implemented in the UK. It will soon stop a lot of crime.

 

Or further fill up the jails ......

 

 

What are you proposing :

a) "3 strikes" and you get a "life means life" sentence? For fare evasion?? !

b) 3 strikes where one of the convictions must be for a "severe violent felony"? Considering the UK doesn't have felonies and misdemeanors, but instead summary only, either-way, and indictable only : which of these applies? One indictable only crime of violence and 2 other crimes?

c) 3 "violent crimes"? How would that stop this recidivst fare dodger?

d) 3 "serious crimes" : Ditto.

 

What of the effect of on the criminal who faces being caught for their "3rd strike"? They have nothing to loose by doing ANYTHING to escape... they are facing a madatory life sentence anyway, so why not kill to evade capture?.

 

What of the effect on rehabilitation of offenders?. Those 2 offences from years ago, all of a sudden come back to haunt them after a new offence ...

 

It is a great 'sound bite' for a right-wing politician showing how "tough on crime!" they purport to be, but the implementation brings a whole new set of challenges, not least the fettering of any judicial discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think RI means 3 strikes as in one Shop crasting, one Jogging to the Public Danger, and one TV License Evasion that takes revenue from Crapita. Those 3 strikes should mean 30 years without parole. My tongue is in my cheek.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I.m not sure what any of this has to do with bailiffs or why the OP chose to post the link on this forum but, on top of the excellent points made by azzas,

 

Perhaps the mods / site team might move it?.

 

 

I would add the following:

 

Is it in the public interest to jail someone for fare dodging? What about the effects that this may have on the person's job and/or children? What about if the guilty person was a single parent? Surely this would be a classic example of an adjournment so as to facilitate a pre-sentence report?

 

My personal feeling (although this may not have any bearing on decision making) is the impact of exposing a relatively harmless fare dodger to an environment in which hardened criminals occupy. It could well introduce an otherwise law abiding citizen to the temptation of indulging in more serious crimes.

 

(IMHO) It isn't in the public interest to allow fare evasion to go unpunished.

 

You can't be sent to prison for breaching Byelaw 18, only fined.

For "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof", they can't be sent to prison for a first offence, only fined.

 

A second or subsequent offence (of travelling etc., with intent to avoid their fare) can lead to prison, but doesn't have to : The Magistrates / DJ have / has discretion.

 

The offender in this case still got sentenced to custody (for repeat offences), although the duration was reduced on appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I.m not sure what any of this has to do with bailiffs or why the OP chose to post the link on this forum but, on top of the excellent points made by azzas, I would add the following:

 

Is it in the public interest to jail someone for fare dodging? What about the effects that this may have on the person's job and/or children? What about if the guilty person was a single parent? Surely this would be a classic example of an adjournment so as to facilitate a pre-sentence report?

 

My personal feeling (although this may not have any bearing on decision making) is the impact of exposing a relatively harmless fare dodger to an environment in which hardened criminals occupy. It could well introduce an otherwise law abiding citizen to the temptation of indulging in more serious crimes.

 

Personal circumstances are taken into consideration prior to sentencing in UK courts.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the felon does something to help the community instead? I bet the police would love someone to help them with their tasering practice. It would mean less complaints about then tasering people carrying white sticks they think are swords, pensioners arguing with their wives over stopping to let them out of the car at the shops etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...