Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Since when does "But somebody else got away with it" become a valid defence in court? (Maybe the OP, with their legal training, can enlighten us?)
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Revenue Protection Officers' obligations under PACE
- Thread starter techno
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
All I know is, it never worked on my mother...
People might attempt some sort of abuse argument if the company prosecuting a person previously encouraged that person to carry out the very behaviour it's now pursuing (but the threshold for these types of legal arguments is high); or they might hope for a lucky day attempting to argue that approval of such behaviour on previous occasions provides sufficient permission for subsequent ones.
Penalty Fares schemes entirely avoid those problems:
Now, why did the DfT choose not to retain protections similar to those when introducing its new byelaw 18 penalty?
Last edited:
unfortunately there's noting that anyone can tell me which is honestly going to convince me that these draconian laws are justifed... even proving intent for thr RoRw Act (Bremme v D) is basically strict liability in teh sense that tehres basically no room for a passenger to argue they had every intent to pay at a later date... laws have been found to be wrong and changed for as long as time has begun.. don't all look so shocked that people think the current law is totally wrong!
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Maybe I can't convince you, but if anyone can then it would be based on the very case you cite: Bremme v Dubery. As I've already told you two weeks ago, that was one of the most obvious circumstances demonstrating a willful intention to avoid paying the full fare, and with no intent to pay it at a later date. He got off the train without a ticket, and when challenged he lied, saying that he'd got on at a station closer to his destination, and which carried a lower fare. There is no way you can read into his lie an intention to pay the correct fare at a later date, and there is no way that you can show his lie wasn't an intention to avoid the fare. There's no 'stricy liability' about it.
He deliberately tried to cheat the railway company, the Act defined the Offence which requires 'intent', the Court agreed that the 'intent' was present when he lied, and his Guilt is used to assist in prosecuting fare dodgers ever since.
You are not going to persuade be that there is anything 'draconian' or unjustified in capturing this willful form of fare evasion with the RoRA and using 'Bremme v Dubery' as an authority.
I suspect that you don't WANT to be convinced.
I also suspect that you've confused the Railway Byelaws with Statute.
headshot119
Established Member
I've only skim read the thread, so do correct me if I'm wrong however... It's going to be your word against them in terms of whether you where cautioned or not!
I've been cautioned three or four times (All for ticketing issues, all of which where in my favour) and I was never told I was free to leave. My Dad is an ex police officer and he never used to tell people they where free to go either.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I'm sorry to confess that I'm struggling to reconcile what you write on here with your claim that you are a practicing lawyer.
As we had dealt with in the first 6 posts in this thread, the arguments about procedure in questionning a suspect can have a crucial bearing on any evidence which was obtained during that procedure. You and your solicitor colleage are quite correct about that. But the point which any Court is concerned with is evidence which has been correctly obtained; and, as I have understood from your posts on here, the evidence which is captured by the offence in your incident had been obtained adequately to secure a conviction without reliance on the evidence obtained under the questionning which you are challenging.
It's quite simple really, the key points were made in the first 5 or 6 posts on here. Is there adequate evidence of the offence to the required standard to support a prosecution? I'm sure you know how these terms are defined.
I've been very willing to support your enthusiasm for a JR of a conviction under the Railway Byelaws, but not for this pointless protesting about inconsequential matters - you'll have to become more intellectually focused if you are going to direct your resentment anywhere that's useful to you.
Last edited:
PermitToTravel
Established Member
The current legal requirement (definitely in the training of all police officers, and theoretically in that of all railway revenue officers):
If a person is being arrested, the standard caution is stated to them, as seen in The Bill et al.
If a person is not being arrested, the standard caution is stated to them and appended is the wording "You are not under arrest. You are free to go at any time."
This was explained in the part of the thread you didn't read.
It's interesting to see what this thread is saying. When it comes to Northern Rail and there revenue teams they do not caution under PACE (because they haven't been trained in PACE) BUT they do gather the FACTS!! and report it to the prosecution department. After all the revenue teams are there to catch the fare evaders NOT to pass judgement.
That's exactly right.
The more intensively trained RPIs, those who have undergone P.A.C.E training (particularly in the relevant Codes 'C' & 'E') and who have completed 'Successful presentation of evidence' courses, should have a far better understanding of the reporting process than non-P.A.C.E trained staff, but their primary role in reporting matters that might proceed to Court action is still to gather and accurately record evidence of that allegation.
It is not for the inspector to be Judge & Jury. Once the collection of details reported by the inspector has been assessed by prosecution department staff and once any explanation given by the alleged offender has been investigated and assessed, only then should the decision to prosecute (or not) be made. At that point, if there is a sufficiently robust case, a Summons (or Summonses) may be prepared for Court action.
It is not always necessary to undertake an interview under caution in order to prosecute someone of course, but as others have said, whether or not that process has been followed correctly by P.A.C.E trained staff may have an important bearing on the admissibility of their evidence.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,274
Are you sure it's an RPI or a guard?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Really? This is a slam dunk Byelaw case. They might not pursue RoRA however you were unable to produce a ticket when asked. Did you get a PACE caution? Not all interviews are under PACE.
Also you are a solicitor??? Hmmmmmm.
Last edited:
I think the doubts came about not because of a lack of understanding of the details of railway law, but due to some apparent misunderstanding of generic legal principles.
Surely you know what strict liability means, as a Lawyer?
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
or launching a Judicial Review of a judgement against someone else more than 50 years ago!
This appears to be a good point to close the thread.
Stiri, it's up to you whether you take the advice that's offered here, and if you would like the thread reopened at any time in order to provide an update on what happens next, please contact any of the forum staff by Private Message (PM).
Stiri, it's up to you whether you take the advice that's offered here, and if you would like the thread reopened at any time in order to provide an update on what happens next, please contact any of the forum staff by Private Message (PM).
- Status