Intention to prosecute

[Chriseg1234]

So I can buy two tickets from Newcastle for me and my friend with a Two Together railcard, one to Durham and one to Kings Cross. I can then disembark at Durham and the friend can continue to Kings Cross without penalty? I can also leave the station without penalty as well?

I think the difference is, I hadn't bought a different ticket to my friend for a shorter (cheaper) journey, we both had tickets for the same journey (luton to London TERMINALS).

 

[Darandio]

I think the difference is, I hadn't bought a different ticket to my friend for a shorter (cheaper) journey, we both had tickets for the same journey (luton to London TERMINALS).

Indeed, I was just trying to work out the logic of the journey being finished when they left the train.

 

[6Gman]

The journey finished when they left the train.

I think you'll find that, legally, the journey doesn't finish until they have left railway property.

(We may choose to debate whether that's the barriers or the station boundary but that's irrelevant. It certainly isn't as you step off the train.)

 

[Chriseg1234]

So I can buy two tickets from Newcastle for me and my friend with a Two Together railcard, one to Durham and one to Kings Cross. I can then disembark at Durham and the friend can continue to Kings Cross without penalty? I can also leave the station without penalty as well?

So the question is could you buy tickets from Newcastle to Durham for you and your friend with 2together railcard, your friend then leaves at Durham. You stay on the train and travel to kings cross (say with a full price ticket from Durham to kings cross). Is your friend doing anything wrong?

 

[Chriseg1234]

So the question is could you buy tickets from Newcastle to Durham for you and your friend with 2together railcard, your friend then leaves at Durham. You stay on the train and travel to kings cross (say with a full price ticket from Durham to kings cross). Is your friend doing anything wrong?

And if they are doing anything wrong, is it so wrong that it warrants a criminal record/ prsion sentence.

 

[Haywain]

Unfortunately, on this forum we seem to have lost some more authoritative posters in recent times such as @DaveNewcastle and @Fare-Cop, who could cut through much of the rubbish posted above. However, a quick search of past posts allowed me to find the following quote which may help explain the problem the OP has, and how it may end.

If the Company chooses to pursue a prosecution of an offence under Railway Byelaw 18, (failure to present a valid ticket when asked), then it is the fact of that offence is all that the Court would be considering. The details which are not material to that fact are very unlikely to be persuasive in refuting the evidence of that fact.

 

[najaB]

And if they are doing anything wrong, is it so wrong that it warrants a criminal record/ prsion sentence.

At the moment you are facing neither. If you push the matter too hard you could end up facing the former. There is zero chance of facing the latter.

 

[Chriseg1234]

Unfortunately, on this forum we seem to have lost some more authoritative posters in recent times such as @DaveNewcastle and @Fare-Cop, who could cut through much of the rubbish posted above. However, a quick search of past posts allowed me to find the following quote which may help explain the problem the OP has, and how it may end.

What are the consequences if you're prosecuted under the bylaw and how can I try avoid this?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Indeed, and it is unfortunate that conversation has wondered onto RoRA when this isn't even what GTR are proposing to prosecute.

OP has categorically not committed a Byelaw offence: they boarded the train with a valid ticket (18(1)), and they handed their ticket over for inspection and verification of validity when they were asked (18(2)).

I would consider a Byelaws prosecution entirely without merit in these circumstances.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

What are the consequences if you're prosecuted under the bylaw and how can I try avoid this?

If you are convicted under a Byelaw offence, the sentencing guidelines are here. There is no criminal record associated with a Byelaws conviction.

I don't think it's necessary to avoid a Byelaws prosecution: from what you have described, you are not guilty of any Byelaws offence. It would be good to avoid a RoRA prosecution but GTR are not proposing this.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

My understanding is that the ticket(s) were both valid as far as St Pancras (as the OP and his friend were together for this part of the journey).

How can the OP (or his friend) expect to understand a ticketing technicality?

Had his friend been caught at London Bridge, could he have been "done" as well due to being alone?

 

[swt_passenger]

My understanding is that the ticket(s) were both valid as far as St Pancras (as the OP and his friend were together for this part of the journey).

How can the OP (or his friend) expect to understand a ticketing technicality?

Had his friend been caught at London Bridge, could he have been "done" as well due to being alone?

Yes, and for overtravelling beyond St Pancras.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Yes, and for overtravelling beyond St Pancras.

But only if it was intentional. If there was no intent, there would be no offence. Byelaw 18 does not apply when boarding with a valid ticket, as above.

 

[najaB]

But only if it was intentional. If there was no intent, there would be no offence.

Since it is impossible to know the content of a man's mind, intent can only be determined from the man's actions.

 

[Haywain]

from what you have described, you are not guilty of any Byelaws offence

Failure to produce a valid ticket. Their ticket was not valid at the time of the check because the railcard and second person were not present. What had happened on the train when the ticket was not checked is not relevant.

But only if it was intentional. If there was no intent, there would be no offence.

The byelaw offence is a strict liability offence and intent does not come into it. To repeat what I quoted earlier "the fact of that offence is all that the Court would be considering" - and the fact is that the ticket was not valid at the time of the check.

I am really struggling to comprehend your apparent determination to continue to be wrong on this when there are numerous previous threads on the same subject that contain the information that will prove you wrong. If this gets to court and the OP tries to argue that they had a valid ticket earlier they will be wasting their time because it is not relevant. They may gain sympathy but it won't reduce their guilt.

My advice to the OP would be to wait for the TOC to get in touch and when they do to write a letter of apology for the error and ask to settle the matter by covering the costs they will have incurred. GTR are known to settle out of court so this is likely to be fruitful.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Failure to produce a valid ticket. Their ticket was not valid at the time of the check because the railcard and second person were not present. What had happened on the train when the ticket was not checked is not relevant.

The byelaw offence is a strict liability offence and intent does not come into it. To repeat what I quoted earlier "the fact of that offence is all that the Court would be considering" - and the fact is that the ticket was not valid at the time of the check.

I am really struggling to comprehend your apparent determination to continue to be wrong on this when there are numerous previous threads on the same subject that contain the information that will prove you wrong. If this gets to court and the OP tries to argue that they had a valid ticket earlier they will be wasting their time because it is not relevant. They may gain sympathy but it won't reduce their guilt.

My advice to the OP would be to wait for the TOC to get in touch and when they do to write a letter of apology for the error and ask to settle the matter by covering the costs they will have incurred. GTR are known to settle out of court so this is likely to be fruitful.

Which Byelaw are you proposing this would fall under? It cannot be Byelaw 18(1), as that relates to boarding the train. And it cannot be Byelaw 18(2), since OP handed over their ticket. Note that Byelaw 18(2) does not require a valid ticket to be handed over, just his ticket (his, i.e. the traveller's). That is a very important distinction.

Unequivocally recommending grovelling and dobbing oneself in it for an out of Court settlement is not correct at this stage - no Byelaws offence has been committed and thus GTR cannot prosecute for that. Hopefully it is possible to make GTR be 'led up the garden path', as it were, to taking an nonexistent Byelaws offence to Court, and then it will be too late for them to change tack to RoRA.

I am far from wrong: reading the Byelaw carefully would enable you to see where you are missing the key phrase. Because a Byelaws offence cannot be committed, intent - and failure to pay the correct fare - would have to be present for the only viable alternative, which is a RoRA prosecution.

 

[Haywain]

Which Byelaw are you proposing this would fall under? It cannot be Byelaw 18(1), as that relates to boarding the train. And it cannot be Byelaw 18(2), since OP handed over their ticket. Note that Byelaw 18(2) does not require a valid ticket to be handed over, just his ticket (his, i.e. the traveller's). That is a very important distinction.

Cobblers. If you did some research (to use your own words) you would find that Byelaw 18 (2), which canbe read in the Fares and Ticketing Guide on this very forum states:

A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

Note carefully those words "verification of validity". The ticket was not valid.

Edit: You may find the content of this post by the aforementioned DaveNewcastle helpful: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fearing-prosecution.100133/#post-1784569

 

[island]

ForTheLoveOf is correct.

Under byelaw 18 (2) passenger must hand over his ticket when asked to do so. Nothing in the byelaw requires that the ticket be valid. Byelaw 18 (1), by contrast, uses the words “a valid ticket”. In a case involving FCC a number of years ago a passenger’s conviction for 18 (2) was overturned after it transpired he handed over an Oyster card with no credit.

Nothing, however, turns on this particular matter. The OP is being investigated for a byelaw 18 (1) offence of entering a train without having with him a valid ticket. He had a valid ticket when he entered the train. That is not in any doubt. He has not committed that, or as far as I can see any, offence.

 

[najaB]

Nothing, however, turns on this particular matter. The OP is being investigated for a byelaw 18 (1) offence of entering a train without having with him a valid ticket. He had a valid ticket when he entered the train. That is not in any doubt. He has not committed that, or as far as I can see any, offence.

Indeed. However, being too vociferous in pushing that point could see a relatively simple Byelaws prosecution replaced by a RoRA prosecution. I'm not as confident as @ForTheLoveOf is that the OP has a defence - it could be argued they didn't pay the correct fare for a single person making the journey from Luton to St. Pancras since their travelling companion apparently wanted to make a different journey.

It's by no means a slam dunk, but there's still some risk.

 

[Llanigraham]

The journey finished when they left the train.

Yes, if they had BOTH left the train together.
However they didn't.
The clue is in the name of the ticket; "TWO TOGETHER".

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Indeed. However, being too vociferous in pushing that point could see a relatively simple Byelaws prosecution replaced by a RoRA prosecution.

From a layman's viewpoint, doesn't a RoRA prosecution imply intent to evade paying the fare (i.e. any fare, discounted or not)?

The OP did not evade the fare and had no intention in doing so

Had he had his ticket checked on the train prior to alighting at St Pancras, all would have been well

 

[najaB]

From a layman's viewpoint, doesn't a RoRA prosecution imply intent to evade paying the fare (i.e. any fare, discounted or not)?

To quote the law:

If any person—
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

Note that it's 'his fare' rather than 'a fare'.

 

[ainsworth74]

Under byelaw 18 (2) passenger must hand over his ticket when asked to do so. Nothing in the byelaw requires that the ticket be valid.

Byelaw 18 (2) states:

A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

My reading of that has always been that you need to hand over a valid ticket but are we saying that due to the wording used that the byelaw only requires that you hand over a ticket but, in the situation in which you are not on a train, the actual outcome of the verification is not relevant to whether or not a contravention has taken place only that a ticket was handed over to be verified?

 

[Haywain]

ForTheLoveOf is correct.

Under byelaw 18 (2) passenger must hand over his ticket when asked to do so. Nothing in the byelaw requires that the ticket be valid. Byelaw 18 (1), by contrast, uses the words “a valid ticket”. In a case involving FCC a number of years ago a passenger’s conviction for 18 (2) was overturned after it transpired he handed over an Oyster card with no credit.

Nothing, however, turns on this particular matter. The OP is being investigated for a byelaw 18 (1) offence of entering a train without having with him a valid ticket. He had a valid ticket when he entered the train. That is not in any doubt. He has not committed that, or as far as I can see any, offence.

I don't agree but what is most important here is advice to the OP. If GTR choose to take the matter to prosecution on a Byelaw offence, the OP could avoid conviction but would probably need a specialist solicitor to put their case to the magistrates. This would likely be more expensive by some distance than settling in advance, and all to avoid a fine as the offence wouldn't carry a criminal record. On the other hand a RoRA prosecution would carry a criminal charge, and the same specialist would again seem essential to avoid conviction - again, an expensive option.

So, what advice do you give to the OP? Because that advice is what the OP came here for.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So, what advice do you give to the OP? Because that advice is what the OP came here for.

To reply to the letter within 14 days clearly setting out his account of the journey and how it was paid for

 

[cholsey-choose]

I don't agree but what is most important here is advice to the OP. If GTR choose to take the matter to prosecution on a Byelaw offence, the OP could avoid conviction but would probably need a specialist solicitor to put their case to the magistrates. This would likely be more expensive by some distance than settling in advance, and all to avoid a fine as the offence wouldn't carry a criminal record. On the other hand a RoRA prosecution would carry a criminal charge, and the same specialist would again seem essential to avoid conviction - again, an expensive option.

So, what advice do you give to the OP? Because that advice is what the OP came here for.

This seems like a fairly transparent attempt to fudge the topic because you are clearly in the wrong about what 18(2) requires.

The advice will clearly depend on whether we think OP actually did violate the Byelaw.

 

[Llanigraham]

From a layman's viewpoint, doesn't a RoRA prosecution imply intent to evade paying the fare (i.e. any fare, discounted or not)?

The OP did not evade the fare and had no intention in doing so

Had he had his ticket checked on the train prior to alighting at St Pancras, all would have been well

The point of the matter is that for a TWO TOGETHER ticket to apply then BOTH passengers must complete the same journey TOGETHER, but in this instance this did not happen, as they did not get off TOGETHER since one continued their journey. Therefore they were not TWO TOGETHER.
As has been pointed out the Terms and Conditions for this ticket are quite specific on this matter and these customers did not keep to those T & C's.

 

[MotCO]

Byelaw 18 (2) states:
My reading of that has always been that you need to hand over a valid ticket but are we saying that due to the wording used that the byelaw only requires that you hand over a ticket but, in the situation in which you are not on a train, the actual outcome of the verification is not relevant to whether or not a contravention has taken place only that a ticket was handed over to be verified?

Are we struggling with trying to define how a byelaw should be interpreted because of a situation arising which was never envisaged when the byelaw was written, i.e. that a ticket can become invalid during the course of a journey because a 'Two Together' became Two Separated? I would argue
that the byelaw intended that you always need to be in possession of a valid ticket, and that ceased to be the case when the friends went their separate ways.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I don't agree but what is most important here is advice to the OP. If GTR choose to take the matter to prosecution on a Byelaw offence, the OP could avoid conviction but would probably need a specialist solicitor to put their case to the magistrates. This would likely be more expensive by some distance than settling in advance, and all to avoid a fine as the offence wouldn't carry a criminal record. On the other hand a RoRA prosecution would carry a criminal charge, and the same specialist would again seem essential to avoid conviction - again, an expensive option.

So, what advice do you give to the OP? Because that advice is what the OP came here for.

If OP successfully defends what will have been an entirely unmeritorious Byelaws prosecution, one would hope they would be awarded their full legal costs. After all, otherwise how is an innocent person supposed to defend themselves against a false accusation and prosecution such as this?

An out of Court settlement is always the least risky approach. But equally it is guaranteed to cost money in the long run, and GTR would not learn from their very serious mistake.

What level of incompetence does it take to propose prosecuting someone who, from the evidence the TOC already has, has committed no offence? If there were ever a case needed to show that private prosecutions should be banned, this is it.

 

[Silverdale]

In essence, the OP's situation is the same as that of someone who has a railcard discounted ticket, but can't produce the railcard when requested. The only difference is, the OP couldn't produce the other railcard holder or their ticket, either.

Not doubting the OP's version of events, but if the defence to the 8(1) offence is that they had a valid ticket when they boarded the train, along with the railcard or proof of purchase, they will almost certainly need to produce the other railcard holder, willing to state and/or provide evidence they had their valid ticket and that they boarded the train together.