Rather large out of court settlement

[MarlowDonkey]

As for the fare evasion issue, Southeastern ought to look more at their own practices - how did he manage to travel between Stonegate and Cannon Street without a valid ticket for all that time without previously being convicted for fare evasion?

The implication of the press reports was that he was using a PAYG Oyster. Unless he was using cash to top up, doesn't that mean he could be identified by the linked Bank Account? Alternatively as someone else suggested, it could have been a Zone 1/2 Travelcard, but again that's not anonymous.

 

[Merseysider]

The implication of the press reports was that he was using a PAYG Oyster. Unless he was using cash to top up, doesn't that mean he could be identified by the linked Bank Account? Alternatively as someone else suggested, it could have been a Zone 1/2 Travelcard, but again that's not anonymous.

Perhaps he had two Oyster cards; one topped up with cash for his little scam and the other for when he legitimately paid the fare.

 

[MikeWh]

I'm puzzled by what a further prosecution might achieve. As it currently stands, Southeastern has lost nothing (they've actually gained rather more than they would have done had he continued to buy annual seasons). TfL have gained rather a lot of incomplete journey charges and it doesn't look like he even used their services! I can understand the FCA being interested because of his job, but that appears to have gone now. What sort of punishment could the courts apply? If it was financial, would he have a case to counter sue Southeastern to recover some or all of the settlement? I guess they could throw him in jail, but I'm not sure what the point of that would be given that he's already lost his job and any chance of getting a decent one in the future.

 

[Merseysider]

I'm puzzled by what a further prosecution might achieve.

Deterrence, perhaps?

 

[SephenWorceste]

Punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society (assuming he goes to prison)

 

[radamfi]

I'm concerned that this will lead to the small guy being persued for prosecution even after an out of court settlement following an innocent mistake. Obviously no one can be happy about the offence occurring, but I don't like the idea that a TOC can squelch on a deal.

 

[richw]

It all depends on the terms of his settlement. Dependent on the terms agreed between the two sides, if he his prosecuted or his anonymity has been breached but the settlement had terms agreed this wouldn't happen, he may have a case to counter sue. It's hard to call not knowing the terms of an out of court.

 

[455driver]

Punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society (assuming he goes to prison)

Eh?
How exactly is he a danger to society?
Did he slice somebodies neck with his Oyster card?

 

[Merseysider]

Eh?
How exactly is he a danger to society?
Did he slice somebodies neck with his Oyster card?

Omg

 

[jon0844]

Eh?
How exactly is he a danger to society?
Did he slice somebodies neck with his Oyster card?

Maybe he tapped it with extreme prejudice?

 

[SephenWorceste]

> How exactly is he a danger to society?

Fraud be it rail, benefit, tax, immigration or financial is real a danger. It undermines the consensus on which our society depends. If he only pays when he gets caught why should I pay. If nobody pays then we would have no trains.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . .
Obviously no one can be happy about the offence occurring, but I don't like the idea that a TOC can squelch on a deal.

I'm puzzled about this.

What 'deal' exists in which the corporate body has given a citizen immunity against prosecution for a Criminal Offence? And what redress could a citizen have against the corporate body if properly prosecuted for that Crime, successfully or otherwise?

 

[radamfi]

I'm puzzled about this.

What 'deal' exists in which the corporate body has given a citizen immunity against prosecution for a Criminal Offence? And what redress could a citizen have against the corporate body if properly prosecuted for that Crime, successfully or otherwise?

But surely you could say the same about any out of court settlement? What's the point of a settlement if you get prosecuted anyway?

 

[jon0844]

I doubt BTP or the CPS would ordinarily get involved, and of course the CPS may in fact do sod all with this too.

Ultimately, if people have gone to the police to demand action, they'll probably (eventually) do something. And as for his job, well he clearly admitted the crime to the TOC so even without a conviction it was enough for him to be forced to resign before being sacked.

Of course, maybe he can get a job. I'm sure a nice trustworthy bank like Lloyds would have him...

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[Tim R-T-C]

The prosecution is by the BTP and not the TOC. If they do not press the charges then I doubt he has any redress in regards the settlement.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The CPS only prosecute anyone if they deem it to be within the public interest. They might decide that it is not within the public interest to prosecute somebody who has already settled.

 

[richw]

Of course, maybe he can get a job. I'm sure a nice trustworthy bank like Lloyds would have him...

Seems too honest for Lloyds, after all he did admit he's wrong.

Maybe a TOC needs a fare dodging expert to join their revenue protection team. He seems an expert in that field.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Maybe a TOC needs a fare dodging expert to join their revenue protection team. He seems an expert in that field.

Does he? If he was truly paying the maximum fare twice a day, then he's an utter idiot.

 

[anme]

The man could have bought a car and ran it to and from work for several years, for the same amount his idiocy has cost him. Clearly more money than sense.

In Central London, you can argue that that would have been even more anti social. Not to mention slower.

 

[455driver]

Maybe he tapped it with extreme prejudice?

very good.

 

[Marklund]

Just checking that this appeared in the same Daily Mail owned by Viscount Rothermere, who benefits from having Non-Dom status?

I wonder how £43K compares with that tax saving scheme?

 

[bb21]

The CPS only prosecute anyone if they deem it to be within the public interest. They might decide that it is not within the public interest to prosecute somebody who has already settled.

... and by the same token, it is not going to be in the public interest to prosecute someone who avoids a £5 fare.

This is far worse than that, so I can understand why the CPS took a harder stance. At the end of the day, even if he paid SET what he owed them, it does not change the fact that he committed a criminal offence.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I don't think the CPS have decided to prosecute yet, have they?

 

[bb21]

I don't think the CPS have decided to prosecute yet, have they?

Not yet. I'm getting ahead of myself.

They might be looking at it. I hope they are.

 

[drbdrb]

He bought himself more than a month's time by "bribing" SouthEastern.

I am glad that the moderators of this forum have now changed their view, and also see these payments as "bribing" the train company not to take legal action.

Interesting that he has now lost his job and looks like he will be unable to work in that field again

Do you honestly think that a little matter like this would stop another company employing him? He will be snapped up by one of Blackrock's competitors who will just place him in one of their operations outside the jurisdiction of the FCA.

 

[neilmc]

I am glad that the moderators of this forum have now changed their view, and also see these payments as "bribing" the train company not to take legal action.



Do you honestly think that a little matter like this would stop another company employing him? He will be snapped up by one of Blackrock's competitors who will just place him in one of their operations outside the jurisdiction of the FCA.

Maybe, maybe not ... I used to be a Lloyds employee and I HOPE the bank wouldn't consider someone with a criminal record, given the efforts we made to curb employee fraud.

On the other hand, there seem to be areas of non-retail banking where perpetrating a large fraud against a rail company might be considered to demonstrate ingenuity and a personal risk appetite appropriate to the edgy environment they work in!

 

[Mojo]

I don't hold the view shared by others here about the fact that he was rich and could afford such a settlement makes it unjust. Having spent some time working in a railway company's revenue department and going to court (just to observe), it actually seems to me that those in a totally different demographic have the least to fear from getting caught, because the threat of a criminal record doesn't put them off, and because their income is so low the fine is either tiny or non-existent. And that's if they can be tracked down in the first place, because many people (especially somewhere with a transient population like London) don't appear on any sort of name & address checking system anyway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the BTP have just undermined the "fixed penalty notice"/"out of court settlement" culture at most TOCs far more than DafT ever could have done. It's going to be a lot harder to persuade people to cough up if they can still be prosecuted having done so.

We've just seen the £80 charges at Northern have no legal basis at all, as the BTP can just pick up the baton. Makes one wonder if it's worth paying.

What 'deal' exists in which the corporate body has given a citizen immunity against prosecution for a Criminal Offence? And what redress could a citizen have against the corporate body if properly prosecuted for that Crime, successfully or otherwise?

Interesting questions.

In English law the "victim" has little power to start or prevent a prosecution. Should they have more power? Is there the right amount of power? Should they be offering "out of court settlements" that they have no power to grant? Isn't that just as fraudulent as not paying your full fare anyway?

I have little doubt that the CPS will choose to prosecute, as they seem to feel that whatever the media are whining about is "the public interest".

 

[talldave]

Does he? If he was truly paying the maximum fare twice a day, then he's an utter idiot.

He was only paying a fraction of the fare due for his journey.

 

[MikeWh]

He was only paying a fraction of the fare due for his journey.

Of course, but paying the Oyster maximum fare every day to get through the barriers at Cannon Street was not the most cost effective way of doing that.