# Sign my Avaaz petition if you believe fare evasion should not be a criminal offence



## rliu (27 Jul 2014)

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Par...tters/?nWIoPbb

I see so many threads on prosections for fare evasion in all sorts of forums. I have started this petition because I think giving someone a criminal record, and often young people, for dodging a small amount of money for a fare, is just not right.
As I explain in the petition I do not condone fare evasion and support all the methods currently used to deter it. However I just think it's fairer for rail companies to recover their loss with fines or through civil courts, rather than give someone a criminal record that affects their employability and ability to live and travel abroad.


----------



## MarkF (27 Jul 2014)

Done.

It's gone crazy this past year with them enticing people to break the rules. I used to hop on an incoming train and buy a ticket from a real life condcutor, or, buy one at Leeds on arrival, to be able to exit the barriers..

I use Shipley Station, if the Leeds train comes in on platform 3 as I arrive, I want to get on it, now I can't. Because there are 2 security goons on the gate checkng for tickets, I can't buy a bleedin ticket, there is no machine on platform 3. So, I have to walk 200 yards past the train (train leaves), to buy a ticket in the station and wait for........the Leeds train. Why don't they sack one goon and morph the other into a ticket seller?


----------



## rliu (27 Jul 2014)

I totally agree it is a problem but I would suggest that train companies employ more staff to sell tickets, and if people get aggressive or rude to train staff get British Transport Police involved and charge them with assault. However from all the internet research I've done I've read so many stories of regular commuters getting prosecuted for incorrect tickets or inattentiveness when swiping Oyster cards etc. I don't see how this is different to people being too busy and forgetting to pay their gas bills etc., for which the provider have no ability to initiate a criminal prosecution.


----------



## rliu (27 Jul 2014)

User14044mountain said:


> I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. If you practice fare evasion, it is a criminal offence. The rest of us who obey the law have to pay for people that don't. If it is a civil offence, presumably we'd also have to pay (in raised fares) for the train company legal costs.
> 
> Why should the ordinary citizen have to pay for freeloaders?



The current prosecutions departments already adds costs to the train companies so changing the arena for chasing the debt doesn't change anything. Also as I understand it the criminal courts would only award the train companies the cost of the fare dodged, the fine is paid to the court and used in cost of running the courts. If they used civil courts they are allowed to slap on interest and fines, thus boosting the revenue recovered for the train companies.


----------



## mcshroom (27 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Why not a countrywide contactless payment system?


Because that would actually involve investing in the network outside of London and the South East


----------



## guitarpete247 (27 Jul 2014)

I can't condone anyone evading paying their fare. The fares are high enough as they are but if we have to subsidize more fare dodgers they will only go up more. The same as I would rather people use food banks rather that shop lift. I know that for some stealing food is the only way they feel they can feed themselves and their family. I cannot see any justification in not paying your fare.


----------



## Longshot (27 Jul 2014)

I don't care what it costs to prosecute a fare dodger. Just do it... To all of them.


----------



## Ern1e (27 Jul 2014)

IMO they should be able to prove that the dodge was done on purpose or as per @MarkF states he would have to miss the train in order to purchase a ticket,which as in days of old one was able to do this whilst on the train therfore no dodge and also no problem unless they could not pay ! then fair enough do the so and so's.


----------



## StuartG (28 Jul 2014)

One issue is consistency. I'm frankly confused (not unusual!).

My home station is manned and has barriers so if you get on there without paying you have done so knowingly and criminally. Throw the book would seem appropriate. The next station (same line, same operators) has no barriers and not manned. You can buy a ticket there but if the machine/your card is not working (not unusual) should you get on or not relying on the destination or inspector to know there is a problem and not get heavy?

SouthEastern out of London always have train guards who will happily sell you a ticket and is the easiest and accepted way. Southern sometimes have guards so if you board without a ticket who can say whether you intended to cheat or not? it is all a bit of a lottery for the honest traveller.

Twice on Chiltern I've got on having mistakenly thrown away the wrong set of tickets (you need 4 for a single advanced return). On both occasions I've been able to turn up email evidence of the purchase (thanks to their free on board wifi) and the guard has been gracious. But then what if I got a jobsworth?

So prosecute and always prosecute fare dodgers young or old. But you need to be able to identify who they are. What if the person used to, say, SouthEastern ways turns up on another franchise with a different policy?


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Jul 2014)

Kill them. Kill them all ....


----------



## Ern1e (28 Jul 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> Kill them. Kill them all ....


 Now that is a tad strong whip them yes but kill them ?


----------



## robrich (29 Jul 2014)

Criminal fare evasion requires a couple of points that the prosecution need to prove beyond reasonable doubt; that you travelled without having paid your fare for the journey undertaken and with intent to avoid payment thereof. Train staff should ask you for a ticket, if you haven't got one then ask for payment for the fare and if you don't have payment then for your name and address as an assurance of payment of any penalty fare, fare required or excess payment. If you give 'Mr Jones, 123 High Street, Anytown' then you can probably expect the Transport Police to be speaking to you.

I've looked at your campaign page and see - 
'The Regulations of the Railways Act comes from an era when the abolition of debtors' prisons was still fresh in the memory, and plainly does not match with modern society.'

Well so does a lot of legislation and just because it's old doesn't mean it doesn't suit today's society.

Criminal fare evasion under S5(3)a Regulation of Railways Act should remain a criminal offence as it requires an intent to be proved of the accused that they took advantage of a service without payment where that payment was expected. ie it should be impossible to do this accidentally.

If you've got a caution/court conviction for this offence in your past and you disagree with it, then challenge it. I am sure there are lots of people with this on their record which if they had challenged it would never have been recorded.


----------



## rliu (29 Jul 2014)

@robrich
Due to the cost of hiring a defence lawyer and the potential costs of the punitive element of fines for not entering a guilty plea as early as possible, case law on the Regulation of the Railways Act is stacked heavily against the accused.
In the case of Corbyn 1978 the Court of Appeal ruled that an intent to 'permanently' avoid payment of a train fare does not need to be proved, just that payment was not provided prior to travel. I can't think of any other area of law with odds so strongly stacked against the accused. Even theft requires a number of elements, as well as most importantly, the intent of 'permanent' deprivation of the rightful owner's right to the property. So for example if you borrowed a CD from a friend's house at a party, your friend forgets he said yes you can borrow it while drunk and bandies about the term of theft, you can say politely and firmly because you mean to return it you cannot be guilty of theft.
I have no doubt that if anyone did appeal their conviction at the magistrates' court the train companies would spare no expense to rustle together a strong legal team to maintain the status quo. The accused would have to be damn bloody minded to risk all the time and money to take on the big boys. As many may know from the case of the man who challenged his fixed penalty notice for riding the wrong way up a one way street, the fine level moves up the bands the higher the level of court it took to convict you, as a reflection of the time it has taken for the judges. http://road.cc/content/news/73530-£1000-bill-brighton-cyclist-who-rode-wrong-way-one-way-street
As per StuartG's example, it suits the train companies just fine to double charge people in a scenario where the ticket machines weren't working with a penalty fare. They know people won't have the time or spare effort to appeal the civil fine, and certainly don't want to risk the prosecution card that the train companies have up their sleeves.
Even though fare evasion is a minor conviction, in the eyes of many employers any criminal conviction probably automatically means your job application ends up in a bin, unread. Considering how often fare dodgers are teenagers, the way the system can spring a nasty surprise on them is something many parents are ignorant of.


----------



## DaveReading (30 Jul 2014)

A few years old, but I think most of the advice still applies:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html


----------



## StuartG (30 Jul 2014)

rliu said:


> As per StuartG's example, it suits the train companies just fine to double charge people in a scenario where the ticket machines weren't working with a penalty fare. They know people won't have the time or spare effort to appeal the civil fine, and certainly don't want to risk the prosecution card that the train companies have up their sleeves.


I never said or implied that. Do you have evidence double charging innocent people is train company policy and it being enforced by guards?

My not inconsiderable experience was that in practice guards do not criminalise passengers where there is no apparent deceit and there is a willingness to pay. Indeed even penalty fares are rarely enforced. The guard (and presumably the operator) just want their fare and a not too unhappy customer. That is surely in their business interest. Actually the regular train fare is penalty enough compared to what the passenger could have paid ahead of time.

But, but my fear is that a jobsworth guard (or one that just had a bad experience elsewhere) could help create a criminal record where no criminality is intended and this fear could be what you are playing on. As long as that can be dealt with reasonably by the company or the magistrate then I see no reason to forgo giving criminal records to criminals committing crimes. The latter appears to me the spirit of your campaign and why I cannot support it.


----------



## rliu (30 Jul 2014)

StuartG said:


> I never said or implied that. Do you have evidence double charging innocent people is train company policy and it being enforced by guards?
> 
> My not inconsiderable experience was that in practice guards do not criminalise passengers where there is no apparent deceit and there is a willingness to pay. Indeed even penalty fares are rarely enforced. The guard (and presumably the operator) just want their fare and a not too unhappy customer. That is surely in their business interest. Actually the regular train fare is penalty enough compared to what the passenger could have paid ahead of time.
> 
> But, but my fear is that a jobsworth guard (or one that just had a bad experience elsewhere) could help create a criminal record where no criminality is intended and this fear could be what you are playing on. As long as that can be dealt with reasonably by the company or the magistrate then I see no reason to forgo giving criminal records to criminals committing crimes. The latter appears to me the spirit of your campaign and why I cannot support it.


 
I wasn't trying to misquote you, I was just referring to unmanned stations as 'the example.'
Have a read of some of the posts on the Prosecutions and Disputes page on 'Rail forum', there are a good number of stories demonstrating heavy handed enforcement of the rules.
Generally speaking I think criminal prosecutions are brought too easily in this country. This is of course a separate debate to the issue of sentencing, which can be too light in instances of serious crime.


----------



## StuartG (30 Jul 2014)

rliu said:


> ... there are a good number of stories demonstrating heavy handed enforcement of the rules.


The petition is about not prosecuting people who commit deliberate fare evasion. 

Are you seeking to justify this by the 'heavy handed' criminal prosecution of people who have not been able to pay or willingly offer to pay - that is innocently or mistakenly are not holding the correct ticket. How many of these are there? Some examples and an estimate is sufficient.


----------



## rliu (30 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Containing a good number of people who have been caught but cannot bring themselves to acknowledge their criminality.



Sure deliberate fare dodgers ask for advice on there but there are also stories like this http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85687
Minor crimes such as these have little case law, most of which is not detailed, mostly because legal representation for the accused is often non existent or poor quality. The crime isn't serious enough for most people to want to pay for legal representation, nor qualify for legal aid.
As I mentioned the regulations of the railway act is made in an era where social values were different, firstly there was no such thing as consumer rights (hence the Latin phrase caveat emptor - buyer beware), and secondly criminal law regimes were far harsher. Furthermore, all ticket sales would have been made or checked by staff back in 1889. In this age of cutting back on train staff and relying on automated machines, using Victorian legislation that has a paucity of case law over 100 years is far less than ideal.
This is before I touch on the troubling aspect that the train companies are both enforcer and prosecuter, and therefore are able to carry out their enforcement with the intention of making prosecution easy for themselves. This is a real erosion of the separation of powers and roles played by the police and CPS for more serious crimes.


----------



## spen666 (31 Jul 2014)

rliu said:


> ...... They know people won't have the time or spare effort to appeal the civil fine, and certainly don't want to risk the prosecution card that the train companies have up their sleeves.....


 


So, if people don't bother to defend themselves on charges of something we abolish the offence?
the offence will be abolished?

then see what happens


----------



## spen666 (31 Jul 2014)

rliu said:


> ....
> As I mentioned the regulations of the railway act is made in an era where social values were different, firstly there was no such thing as consumer rights (hence the Latin phrase caveat emptor - buyer beware), ....


 


Because of course the Railways Act came into effect during the era of those well known train builders called the Romans


----------



## Markymark (31 Jul 2014)

I think the courts time would be better spent dealing with more serious issues. I don't know fully hiw it all works but surely a court making a criminal offence for all these small crimes could be used to properly deal with more serious issues when so many end only with a police caution.


----------



## Markymark (31 Jul 2014)

I'm not disputing that. Just suggesting that the powers that be spend more time properly dealing with serious offences and not waste on these small matters. 

I'd rather these fines are dealt with like, say a parking ticket, and free up court time.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jul 2014)

guitarpete247 said:


> ...
> I cannot see any justification in not paying your fare.
> ...



a young woman has purse stolen on a night out, home is a 20 minute train journey, or a two hour walk, at night, alone... If i was her I'd get on a train with no money and argue my case.


----------



## guitarpete247 (31 Jul 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> a young woman has purse stolen on a night out, home is a 20 minute train journey, or a two hour walk, at night, alone... If i was her I'd get on a train with no money and argue my case.


In the above situation I would not try to evade paying my fare. I would try to find a member of staff to give my details to to be able to pay the next possible opportunity. Finding a member of staff/Transport Police I could report stolen purse/wallet. Even if it was stolen elsewhere. 
I still see fare evasion as being the same as fare avoidance. Just the same as I do with paying taxes. Those that don't, or aren't willing, to pay for services they receive cause the rest of us to have to pay more.


----------



## StuartG (31 Jul 2014)

guitarpete247 said:


> In the above situation I would not try to evade paying my fare. I would try to find a member of staff to give my details to to be able to pay the next possible opportunity..


Absolutely. As a (successful) salesman once told me - "when all else fails, try the truth!". Honesty is surprisingly often rewarded. Many TfL staff, who have seen most things before, will look out for obviously vulnerable people.

Lost purses and wallets are no justification for decriminalising fare evasion. I've been there, my wife has been there, my daughters have been there. All got home without a criminal record.


----------



## User269 (31 Jul 2014)

Everyone's got an excuse and should be let off; fare evasion, illegal parking, speeding, using a mobile whilst driving, firing rockets into Israel, invading the Gaza strip, fiddling your expenses, tax evasion, paedophilia.....................all easy mistakes that any of us could make.


----------



## Archie_tect (31 Jul 2014)

In the days of GNER, I once arrived at Newcastle station to see the 7:30 am GNER train to Kings X at the platform so got on with my £15 advance Apex ticket to find my seat, which was reserved and restricted for that train only as stated on the ticket. No announcements were made until train left York... train due to stop along the line at Doncaster and Peterborough. Guard announced as we were leaving York that the service was the 7:00am delayed service to Kings X calling at Grantham. I and several other passengers realised we were on the wrong train. I went to find the ticket inspector .

When I did she was dealing with a queue of passengers who'd expected to get off at Doncaster or Peterborough but who now couldn't. When I got to speak to her she was severely fed-up and informed me that I didn't have a valid ticket for that train and either: would have to get off at Grantham and pay for a ticket from Grantham waiting for a local, slow connecting train to Kings X as my valid ticket's train, following behind, didn't stop there, or buy a single standard ticket from York to Kings X. "If I objected I could send a complaint to the Customer Services".

Sometimes the jobsworths are impossible to deal with. [I bought a ticket from York: £90 single, then the return Apex train was cancelled so my return ticket was magically transferred to the next available train even though it was only valid on the cancelled train, oh the irony... eventually got my money back from Customer Services but it took over a year].

Bitter, me? ... 4 or more years later? No, not at all....


----------



## rliu (31 Jul 2014)

spen666 said:


> Because of course the Railways Act came into effect during the era of those well known train builders called the Romans



The legal and social elite liked to use french and Latin to differentiate themselves and exhibit their expensive education throughout English history, so I'm not the one that needs a history lesson.


----------



## rliu (31 Jul 2014)

spen666 said:


> So, if people don't bother to defend themselves on charges of something we abolish the offence?
> the offence will be abolished?
> 
> then see what happens



Well these considerations are behind the abolition of a lot of Victorian methods to punish the poor.
I wouldn't call not being able to afford several thousands of pounds for a lawyer 'can't be bothered'


----------



## rliu (31 Jul 2014)

User said:


> A person doesn't have to spend loads on legal fees to defend themself. They can always go to court and explain.



An explanation of the facts from the accused's perspective is gonna be a lot less impressive in court than a legally trained prosecutor referring to case law. When the case law is an accumulation of this David v goliath situation it gets harder and harder for you average Joe to defend himself.


----------



## rliu (31 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Not always, magistrates' courts will usually bend over backwards to accommodate an unrepresented defendant, especially one who isn't still drunk and abusive.



It's easy for the typical person who isn't aware of how the law works to go off on unrelated tangents and not offer the relevant arguments. The best analogy I have is it's like writing an academic essay without quoting references and addressing the topic.
If the need to argue coherently in front of the magistrates isn't daunting enough for most people, there's also the carrot that early guilty pleas attract up to a third off the fine imposed.This again attracts most accused into just taking the 'easy hit' and pleading guilty.
However I agree any criminal prosecution should be treated seriously and considered worth defending, if not for the reputational implications then for the impact a criminal record for 5 years can have on someone's employment prospects.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (1 Aug 2014)

rliu said:


> It's easy for the typical person who isn't aware of how the law works to go off on unrelated tangents and not offer the relevant arguments.
> .


what about typical people that do know how the law and the court system works and have taken issue or picked up on something you have put?


----------



## StuartG (1 Aug 2014)

Archie_tect said:


> Sometimes the jobsworths are impossible to deal with. [I bought a ticket from York: £90 single, then the return Apex train was cancelled so my return ticket was magically transferred to the next available train even though it was only valid on the cancelled train, oh the irony... eventually got my money back from Customer Services but it took over a year].
> 
> Bitter, me? ... 4 or more years later? No, not at all....


Dreadful. There is never any use arguing with jobworths. It just makes a bad situation worse. You did the right thing by paying and appealing to management. They didn't do well but the point is - and it is a very strong point against the proposition of the OP - you eventually got your money back. You were not prosecuted, you have no criminal record.

In other words jobworths, lost purses etc etc are no justification for the decriminalisation of fare dodging - something you were clearly not doing.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (1 Aug 2014)

like ^ lots.

the purse issue is a red herring. The course of action the lady took was one option not the only option.


----------



## Dan B (1 Aug 2014)

StuartG said:


> Dreadful. There is never any use arguing with jobworths. It just makes a bad situation worse. You did the right thing by paying and appealing to management. They didn't do well but the point is - and it is a very strong point against the proposition of the OP - you eventually got your money back.


It really isn't a very strong point. That works if you're sufficiently well-off to be able to splash out £90 unexpectedly, but there are families on low incomes who have to budget that kind of expenditure. And it really doesn't sound like the inspector in @Archie_tect's story would have been swayed by stories of financial hardship

My own experience of penalty fares is being refused exit at Liverpool St one day because I'd fumbled my oyster swipe before getting on the train at Tottenham Hale and was too sleep-deprived to notice it didn't beep. I'm sure that at least one of the posters on this thread will be desperate now to tell me that wasn't what happened at all and I was intentionally trying to defraud the railway company of £3.60, and I can only say "you're absolutely right, it's a fair cop, you should know after all because you weren't there and I was'


----------



## StuartG (1 Aug 2014)

Dan B said:


> It really isn't a very strong point. That works if you're sufficiently well-off to be able to splash out £90 unexpectedly, but there are families on low incomes who have to budget that kind of expenditure. And it really doesn't sound like the inspector in @Archie_tect's story would have been swayed by stories of financial hardship


If you can't pay then you give your name and address. The issue here is a problem with an errant member of staff. Whether they are swayed or not doesn't matter in the long run. He/she CANNOT PROSECUTE YOU. It has to be passed up the line. And there are many steps where someone will say "don't be silly" and throw it out. Even if it got to Magistrates Court (and I note the OP has not risen to the challenge of how often non fare dodgers have got that far) the beak (who will have probably mislaid a ticket sometime in their life) will laugh them out of court.

Penalty fares is another red herring. The OP is not on about that but the decriminalisation of fare dodging. That is of bad people who will have proven to have refused to pay and/or have no intent of paying being sent to court. Do we really want to send this message to them?


----------



## Dan B (1 Aug 2014)

StuartG said:


> If you can't pay then you give your name and address


In the case being described it sounds more like if he couldn't have paid he'd have been put off the train at Grantham.


----------



## StuartG (1 Aug 2014)

Dan B said:


> In the case being described it sounds more like if he couldn't have paid he'd have been put off the train at Grantham.


If so the either or both someone there would have sorted the problem or the railway company would have probably subsequently made offered some compensation. After all they want repeat customers who pay (as opposed to the one's who don't and are therefore a cost). But that is speculation either way. So lets put that aside.

People screw up. We have to live with that. I doubt that guard is still customer facing if sufficient people wrote in to rightly complain there was both no/wrong announcement and station departure board was wrong/out of order (which was it?). Many times I've been at stations when chaos reigns and train departures are all over the place. A quick word usually confirms they are happy to waive the "designated train" restriction. If not you wait.

But this has precisely nothing to do with the decriminalisation of fare dodging. So why are you pressing (forgive me for saying) non-point?


----------



## Dan B (1 Aug 2014)

StuartG said:


> But this has precisely nothing to do with the decriminalisation of fare dodging. So why are you pressing (forgive me for saying) non-point?


Mostly, I think, because I fear that the criminal justice system is far more likely to say "don't be silly" and throw out the case in circumstances where the defendant is white, middle class, reasonably well off and able to articulate themselves in court than otherwise. Reg pretty much nailed it upthread when he used the dread words "attitude test".


----------



## rliu (1 Aug 2014)

_(and I note the OP has not risen to the challenge of how often non fare dodgers have got that far) the beak (who will have probably mislaid a ticket sometime in their life) will laugh them out of court._

Stuart - I really don't think anyone in the world has that stat just like no one has a stat for wrongful convictions for any crime. Who do you believe when someone complains they were wrongfully convicted? Likewise in court the magistrates are likely to trust the statement of a railway revenue inspector over the statement of an accused, the inspector has his/her notebook which are seen to be more reliable than the recollections of the accused, and is also seen to have no personal stake in the conviction. This presumption is not always reliable in my opinion because a few years back some train companies were paying their revenue inspectors commission for penalty fares http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...tors-getting-commission-on-penalty-fares.html
I'm led to think I wouldn't be surprised if there were also targets or bonuses for numbers sent for prosecution

Also importantly, no one has taken the effort to actually read the notes out there for the case of Corbyn, http://swarb.co.uk/corbyn-v-saunders-1978/
The quote there makes it clear to prove intent to avoid the fare the train company only needs to prove non payment of fare before travelling . So if the company doesn't prosecute you for having an invalid ticket because you said you will pay at your destination, they're doing you a favour and can easily prosecute successfully.

This means a court of appeal judgment it has binding effect on all lower courts, so if the prosecutor raises it the magistrate can sympathise with you all they like but you will 99% of the time be convicted.

This judgment also precedes the era where a central database of criminal records were kept, so Lord Woolf wouldn't have foreseen the impact his ruling would have 30 years later, whn a conviction for fare evasion stays with someone for 5 years.


----------



## spen666 (1 Aug 2014)

rliu said:


> The legal and social elite liked to use french and Latin to differentiate themselves and exhibit their expensive education throughout English history, so I'm not the one that needs a history lesson.



Now the real mask slips


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

User said:


> I know comprehension isn't exactly your strong point... but that isn't what the Court determined in _Corbyn v Saunders_, and even the excerpt you refer to doesn't say that (it's a quote about intent). _Corbyn v Saunders_ is actually a case revolving around someone who did buy ticket - but who deliberately bought a ticket for only part of the journey and who clearly had no intent to pay for the full journey (hence the discussion around intent in the Court of Appeal decision).



Well I know the Latin terminology will just draw more ire from spens666, but I suggest you look up the concepts of _stare decisis _and _ratio decidendi. _And I suggest you stay away from any more _ad hominem_.


----------



## Cubist (2 Aug 2014)

rliu said:


> Well I know the Latin terminology will just draw more ire from spens666, but I suggest you look up the concepts of _stare decisis _and _ratio decidendi. _And I suggest you stay away from any more _ad hominem_.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

But hey I made the petition so I will be prepared to explain as much as possible. The decisions of higher courts are binding on lower ones, and the pecking order of the criminal courts goes from top to bottom in the order of Supreme Court (House of Lords prior to 2009) - Court of Appeal - Crown Court - Magistrates Court.
Criminal acts consist of the _actus reus _(guilty act) and _mens rea _(guilty mind), both elements must be present. Some people may presume then that a statement of 'I didn't intend to do it' will be sufficient to get them off a prosecution, but of course the courts are much wiser than that and have countered that in most crimes by offering a very broad intepretation of what intent to commit a crime is.
A decision from a judge (there are usually several when an appeal has gone to Court of Appeal or Supreme Court) is usually lengthy and discusses in detail their interpretation of a piece of statute drawing on previous, similar cases; the writings of legal academics; and also hypothetically analogous scenarios. The comments which are not directly related to the case discussed is termed _obiter dictum, _and the comments which are the core of the judgment is termed _ratio decidendi. _So User, if you are under the presumption that Corbyn is only binding on scenarios which are a carbon copy of the facts in that case, that is not the case. Lord Woolf was offering a general interpretation of what intent means in s5 of the Regulation of the Railways Act, and so intent to avoid payment means passing up an opportunity to pay the correct fare before the start of the journey.
As Lord Woolf did not offer any mitigating circumstances in that judgment, such as the ticket machines weren't working or the queues were too long or the train timetables got disrupted, the Regulation of the Railways Act is weighted hugely in favour of the prosecutor. I speculate the reason for that is one of public policy (the judgment is from the days of the state owned British Rail), secondly the judges annoyance and dislike of the appellant (he was caught short-faring several times), and thirdly as I said, criminal records were not logged on a national database in the 70s so aside from the financial hit of the fine, a fare evasion conviction didn't have a big impact on someone's life.
I have tried to be concise but often you can't in legal discussions, this is why it takes a 3 year undegraduate course, 2 years professional training and many years of sitting in court to become a decent barrister, and why they can charge £500-1000 an hour.
As I have discussed, because of the cost of appealing a conviction for a train fare, hardly anyone has appealed a fare evasion case up to a high level court again to get the judges to offer more clarification or further rulings on fare evasion. So this is why my petition calls on Parliament to legislate again to not give people criminal records in a scenario where the tools for them to defend themselves are prohibitively expensive. As I have said, by all means fine people for not having a ticket, but don't give them the stigma of a criminal record.
As for that City manager who had to pay Southeastern 43k, makes me think about how you can count the number of financiers prosecuted in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis on one hand, whereas TfL prosecuted over 20,000 people successfully for fare dodging on buses in 2008 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fare_evasion_on_london_buses). It makes me think have we got our priorities right as a society.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 Aug 2014)

User said:


> One does have to wonder whether the OP has perhaps been caught fare-dodging and this thread is simply the OP refusing to accept responsibility for their own actions... It reads like a fairly poor attempt at _post hoc_ rationalisation and guilt assuagement.


that is exactly what I've thought all along but am trying to avoid too many heated discussions with the zealous nowadays on the internet.
They also seem to have read interpretations of how the judicial system works at the 'lower levels' they are rather disparaging of judicial skill and management of but don't seem to have experienced much of how the people sitting on the bench are there with the experience, overriding objective and god like powers in that room to ensure that the mechanisms of justice are attended to impartially and fairly whatever level or none of legal representation the sides employ.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

Like I have said on another forum, I don't need to have a personal stake in a topic to have an interest in it. Are all those who have an interest in animal welfare issues currently employed at wildlife sanctuaries?
You chaps mainly choose to engage with the moral issue of whether fare dodgers should be punished. But we don't disagree on that, I have said I support deploying inspectors and ticket gates and the penalty fares system. None of you so far have convinced me to think using the criminal law system is the best method in the majority of cases.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Aug 2014)

rliu said:


> Like I have said on another forum, I don't need to have a personal stake in a topic to have an interest in it. Are all those who have an interest in animal welfare issues currently employed at wildlife sanctuaries?
> You chaps mainly choose to engage with the moral issue of whether fare dodgers should be punished. But we don't disagree on that, I have said I support deploying inspectors and ticket gates and the penalty fares system. None of you so far have convinced me to think using the criminal law system is the best method in the majority of cases.



Putting up a coherent, sensible and well constructed argument is one thing, convincing someone with inflexible and entrenched views on the matter is another


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

User said:


> Don't need to have true, but have you?



Yeah I was given a penalty fare 4 years ago for boarding a train at an unmanned station when the ticket machine had a no change given sign on it. I started reading about the issue again because of related coverage in the Guardian in the last few months, and then read the narrow interpretations of this crime on rail forum. Then of course the government raised the issue of decriminalising non payment of TV licenses a few months ago which is why I thought this is also an area worth debating as there are similarities. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26727068

My petition isn't really going to help me for something that happened and is irreversible, so it's not a personal stake in that sense.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

User said:


> Thanks



Just to mention I edited my last post with a bit more info


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

User13710 said:


> Hmmm, that fare-dodger is back in the news today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...gh-flyer-who-dodged-43000-in-train-fares.html



I know this bloke wasn't able to buy silence in the end, but I'm sure many other middle class fare dodgers got away with it more than a young NEET, as suggested by Daniel Hannan's blog post a few years back on the same paper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...3/My-wifes-real-crime-Being-middle-class.html
_"she was to fight her case as a freeborn Englishwoman – albeit a freeborn Englishwoman with a couple of kind barrister friends who were prepared to act for her. Sure enough, TfL dropped the case._"


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

User said:


> In the case of the bloke just unmasked, do you think there should be no possibility of a criminal sanction?



It's an example the train companies will use for years to come to justify the current system, but in this case the real cost to him was having to resign his job due to a FCA investigation. I think this supports my point that there are other alternative ways of punishment, one that will not treat every person caught without a ticket the same.
Also due to the nature of his prolonged evasion the BTP could have prosecuted him under the Fraud Act. My issue is with the current legal regime of the Regulations of the Railways Act, which as I explained is interpreted by the courts in a very restrictive way.
I will amend my petition to clarify this distinction.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

User said:


> And what if it were this level of abuse of the system but by a person who isn't in the same position of loosing quite so much peripherally?



They can still be charged under Fraud Act if they have been fare dodging persistently. The Regulation of Railways Act doesn't seem to distinguish, from the cases I have read, between a one-off and persistent behaviour.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

User said:


> How do you see the fraud act being used in this situation?



http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/ - in the section of fare evasion the CPS suggests using Fraud Act for serious fare evasion.
If I remember correctly there are 3 types of fraud offences and one is acting dishonestly with intent to secure a financial gain for yourself, that can certainly cover serious fare evasion.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

That's my understanding too


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 Aug 2014)

rliu said:


> It's an example the train companies will use for years to come to justify the current system, but in this case the real cost to him was having to resign his job due to a FCA investigation. I think this supports my point that there are other alternative ways of punishment, *one that will not treat every person caught without a ticket the same.*
> Also due to the nature of his prolonged evasion the BTP could have prosecuted him under the Fraud Act. My issue is with the current legal regime of the Regulations of the Railways Act, which as I explained is interpreted by the courts in a very restrictive way.
> I will amend my petition to clarify this distinction.


*Does the law treat every person without a ticket the same though? @*Archie_tect in this thread has shown that being on a train without a valid ticket is no guarantee of ending up branded a criminal. You're making some rather broad generalisations on your trip through this thread.

It also seems clear that just as peoples arguments aren't convincing you, yours are no closer to convincing to them.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

shouldbeinbed said:


> *Does the law treat every person without a ticket the same though? @*Archie_tect in this thread has shown that being on a train without a valid ticket is no guarantee of ending up branded a criminal. You're making some rather broad generalisations on your trip through this thread.
> 
> It also seems clear that just as peoples arguments aren't convincing you, yours are no closer to convincing to them.



If it gets to court the law does treat all offenders the same, without much discretion. As I said earlier in the thread, 99% end up in a conviction. In fact the link I posted earlier in the thread showed that responding to a freedom of information request, there were only 25 unsuccessful prosecutions out of over 20,000 for London bus fare evasion in 2008, so the percentage is 99.99%

The discretion comes at the stage before court, where public transport operating companies may settle things with the passenger.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 Aug 2014)

thanks for the clarification that you only meant those that get to court.

I don't suppose you know what proportion of all captured fare offences get to court?

Did yours? & is so was that the only option offered to you or did you dispute/refuse a lower level out of court option? Also what criminal record do you receive for paying a penalty fare? - genuine question in the context of the discussion, I have no experience of having had to do it. I take it the sanction and likelihood of a criminal record is greater if you do take it all the way to court.

Another question there may not be the nuanced data for: what proportion of the 99+% convictions you quote when at court were utterly innocent mistakes anyone could make or significant technical failures on the part of the operator meaning that a ticket could not possibly be obtained and what proportion were either cynically deliberate non payments or were a choice made in the face of an unexpected circumstance - but where there was an opportunity/possibility not to try to ride for free**

Could it be that 25 non convictions is an accurate representation of the 'but for the grace of god' or catastrophic operator failure situations? (edit: 6 year old data - is that as recent as it gets?)

** e,g your situation : a machine not offering change is unfortunate but isn't the same as the machine having a out of order sign on it and not issuing tickets at all.

A great many pre-pay machines on car parks run the same (in my opinion) scam by very deliberately not offering the opportunity of receiving change when buying a ticket - there are several times I've had to overpay for a ticket (invariably in places I'm not familiar with) to avoid the potential worse consequences for not bothering to purchase a ticket at all because I was caught with the wrong combination of money in my pocket.
It may sound a harsh assessment but you made a choice & got caught out, same as RLJs on here before have & then complained about it.

also to be very pedantic, even one unsucessful prosecution shows the law doesn't just blindly follow the same pattern every time at court.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

I don't think I have any new expansions and clarifications beyond my other posts already. The only final point I'd make is that fare dodging is not a criminal offence in most other European countries, and their public transport systems have not been collapsed by fare dodging, so it's debatable whether criminalising people is effective at preventing undesirable behaviour. This is the same principle in play as the fact that higher incarceration rates and a harsher penal system in the USA hasn't led to a lower rate of serious crime than European countries. It's the underlying social attitudes and conditions that lead to crime, more than how harsh the penalties may be.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130917-fare-dodging-frances-national-sport/ 
_As a result, some 20 French cities have simply opted to make transport free... thus eradicating the cost of ticket checkers.

Since the large southern city of Aubagne did so four years ago, ridership on public transport has grown by 170 percent while car traffic has dropped 10 percent._

Would have thought as long suffering cycle commuters we should all support a solution that leads to greater use of public transport and reduced private motor traffic.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

That may be off topic to what we discussed before Adrian but it's certainly food for thought to compare different societies and criminal law codes.

If you read the article you will see the reason Aubergne made public transport free was partly due to the cost of administrating fare evasion issues, so I wasn't bringing in a completely different debate about whether public transport should be entirely taxpayer funded or passenger funded.

In Britain we are becoming more and more ideologically devoted to making individual service users pay but as recent news stories illustrate, the trebling of tuition fees has only served to double the estimated rate of debt default by students and in fact is deemed unlikely to boost income to the treasury or HE instutions. The American system of privatised healthcare costs the taxpayer more per head than the UK or other European countries, due to the cost of administering programmes to reimburse private insurers to offer basic health services to those on the lowest incomes.

As I said, off topic but things which may be interesting to consider for some.


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

Yeah I know, I'm not really trying to win the argument any more, just enjoying the debate for the sake of it.
In terms of that speeding example, I do believe it is probably better to get more people cycling, so they can experience how stressful it can be when someone is coming up your rear at 40mph, and to also make cycling experience a part of driving tests.
If you read the average Mail comments thread or speak to the average Top Gear type you will see they do see speeding as just some other scheme for the government to fleece people, and this perception can only be changed by first hand involvement in some accident (tragic) or by increasing cycling (beneficial to all)


----------



## rliu (2 Aug 2014)

Speeding is also another example of how minor criminal offences erode the credibility of a criminal law system. The case of Chris Huhne proved that even government ministers, with a lot to risk and supposedly pall bearers of social respectability, thought it was fine to raise that classic defence to speeding of 'my wife was driving at the time.' My current employment contract also has a term on that new criminal convictions during employment will lead to summary dismissal, aside from 'motoring offences with no jail term imposed.' When you have a situation where you can place an asterisk next to a criminal act it devalues the whole system.

I'm certainly hesitant to encourage drivers to drive at excessive speed as many times I've felt my heart beat rising from the engine rev of a car behind. The last time I crashed it was partly because I was trying to maintain over 20mph to stop a car behind from feeling tempted to overtake on a narrow road. But I think what I mentioned, incorporating cyclist awareness into driving tests, and also a mass TV campaign perhaps using helmet cam footage would be more effective at getting people to drive more responsibly.


----------



## MarkF (3 Aug 2014)

I don't know what Avaaz is, but I wish I'd not "signed" this petition, I am getting loads of requests and am all petitioned out, consider Avaaz spammed.


----------



## rliu (3 Aug 2014)

Fair enough, maybe I should have gone for a government e petition


----------

