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

[rliu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why not a countrywide contactless payment system?

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

 

[guitarpete247]

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]

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

 

[Ern1e]

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]

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]

Kill them. Kill them all ....

 

[Ern1e]

Kill them. Kill them all ....

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

 

[robrich]

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]

@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]

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]

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.