Smoking bylaw question

[Pex]

The signs that I see plastered everywhere around open stations state "It is against the law to smoke on these premises".
I wonder if these are invalid as they are telling a lie. It is the owners decision not to allow smoking rather than (as implied) against the law of the land.

Apart from being annoying I am tempted to smoke just because they are trying to kid the public. Any thoughts on the legal side?

Thanks

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The signs that I see plastered everywhere around open stations state "It is against the law to smoke on these premises".
I wonder if these are invalid as they are telling a lie. It is the owners decision not to allow smoking rather than (as implied) against the law of the land.

Apart from being annoying I am tempted to smoke just because they are trying to kid the public. Any thoughts on the legal side?

Thanks

No, the sign is quite correct. By virtue of the sign being there, it is against the law to smoke.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With regard to the "no smoking signage" and not smoking with in it's immediate proximity....

Does the law stipulate how far away from the signage you could smoke and not commit an offence....

ie If you are 10 yards away would that be ok ?

That would be up for the jury or magistrates to decide.

 

[Mojo]

No they are not incorrect. The Railway Byelaws are enforceable in the criminal (Magistrates') courts, and the Byelaws allow for smoking to be prohibited where signs state that smoking is not permitted.

 

[ainsworth74]

And just to follow up those comprehensive responses here is the aforementioned byelaw:

3. Smoking

No person shall smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter
or other lighted item on any part of the railway on or near which there is a
notice indicating that smoking is not allowed.

And you can see a copy of the full byelaws here.

 

[Pex]

Thanks for the 2 instant replies.

Perhaps I'll take the sign down and then I can smoke

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Thanks for the 2 instant replies.

Perhaps I'll take the sign down and then I can smoke

Ah, but that would be an offence in itself

 

[Mutant Lemming]

No, the sign is quite correct. By virtue of the sign being there, it is against the law to smoke.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That would be up for the jury or magistrates to decide.

Would you be able to stipulate that you be tried by a jury of your 'peers' and bar any non-smokers from the jury for fear of them being prejudiced ?

 

[Butts]

Thanks for the 2 instant replies.

Perhaps I'll take the sign down and then I can smoke

Just come up to Scotland and apart from Network Rail Controlled Stations you can smoke in most open areas.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Just come up to Scotland and apart from Network Rail Controlled Stations you can smoke in most open areas.

..but you can't drink !

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Would you be able to stipulate that you be tried by a jury of your 'peers' and bar any non-smokers from the jury for fear of them being prejudiced ?

I very much doubt it

 

[Butts]

..but you can't drink !

I'd rather have a tab and a coffee

 

[Smudger105e]

Would you be able to stipulate that you be tried by a jury of your 'peers' and bar any non-smokers from the jury for fear of them being prejudiced ?

No, Juries only sit in Crown Court, an offence such as this would be heard in a Magistrate's Court.

 

[Butts]

Would you be able to stipulate that you be tried by a jury of your 'peers' and bar any non-smokers from the jury for fear of them being prejudiced ?

If you were being tried by most RailUK Forums members I'm afraid the "black cap" would be straight out

 

[ralphchadkirk]

No, Juries only sit in Crown Court, an offence such as this would be heard in a Magistrate's Court.

It would be heard in a magistrates court in the first instance, but for example if Butts' advocate argued about the distance between the smoker and the sign then it (I think) could be case stated to a Crown court.

(As an aside from that, juries can sit in civil court).

 

[transmanche]

I wonder if these are invalid as they are telling a lie. It is the owners decision not to allow smoking rather than (as implied) against the law of the land.

ISTR when the general workplace smoking bans came into force, it stated that the railway was going to apply a complete ban - as it made it simpler and clearer for all concerned. So there's no arguing about whether you are 'under cover' or not.

There was even a small kerfuffle caused by the pro-smoking lobby, when ATW banned smoking at all its stations (including the ones in England) when the Welsh smoking ban came into force.

Incidentally, T&W Metro operated a total smoking ban from when it opened.

 

[KA4C]

It would be heard in a magistrates court in the first instance, but for example if Butts' advocate argued about the distance between the smoker and the sign then it (I think) could be case stated to a Crown court.

No, that would be a not guilty plea and the subsequent trial would be heard in the magistrates court. This is a summary offence, is it not? (punishable by a maximum of a L3 fine)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

No, that would be a not guilty plea and the subsequent trial would be heard in the magistrates court. This is a summary offence, is it not? (punishable by a maximum of a L3 fine)

I believe that a magistrates' court can refer the case to crown court if they see it fit, regardless of whether on the surface it fits the bill or not.

 

[David Goddard]

3. Smoking

No person shall smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter or other lighted item on any part of the railway on or near which there is a notice indicating that smoking is not allowed.

Just as well oil lamps are a thing of the past then.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

No, that would be a not guilty plea and the subsequent trial would be heard in the magistrates court. This is a summary offence, is it not? (punishable by a maximum of a L3 fine)

Yes, it's a summary offence, but if an appeal is made then it has to go somewhere. So they would make an appeal to the Crown Court. However, if I remember correctly that is heard by a Judge and two Magistrates so I was incorrect in originally inferring that it could be heard by a jury.

 

[KA4C]

I believe that a magistrates' court can refer the case to crown court if they see it fit, regardless of whether on the surface it fits the bill or not.

not with summary offences
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, it's a summary offence, but if an appeal is made then it has to go somewhere. So they would make an appeal to the Crown Court. However, if I remember correctly that is heard by a Judge and two Magistrates so I was incorrect in originally inferring that it could be heard by a jury.

Ah, I read your post that it was a case of someone stating that they were not guilty and were pleading as such, hence the trial. Appeals of magistrates court sentences are indeed heard by a judge and two magistrates

 

[Butts]

ISTR when the general workplace smoking bans came into force, it stated that the railway was going to apply a complete ban - as it made it simpler and clearer for all concerned. So there's no arguing about whether you are 'under cover' or not.

There was even a small kerfuffle caused by the pro-smoking lobby, when ATW banned smoking at all its stations (including the ones in England) when the Welsh smoking ban came into force.

Incidentally, T&W Metro operated a total smoking ban from when it opened.

Just as well in Scotland (as usual) they came up with a sensible compromise.

 

[island]

Just come up to Scotland and apart from Network Rail Controlled Stations you can smoke in most open areas.

Fishguard Harbour is a good choice too.

ISTR when the general workplace smoking bans came into force, it stated that the railway was going to apply a complete ban - as it made it simpler and clearer for all concerned. So there's no arguing about whether you are 'under cover' or not.

But they didn't apply a complete ban in the end. Only a ban where there is signage of the ban.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

i know you shouldnt smoke on stations but so late in night and no body near you i think its abit sly that you are getting sanctioned

 

[MidnightFlyer]

i know you shouldnt smoke on stations but so late in night and no body near you i think its abit sly that you are getting sanctioned

I hate to be so blunt on this, but it's the law, be it morning, afternoon or night, sunshine, cloudy, rain or thunderstorm. It applies at all times.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

i know you shouldnt smoke on stations but so late in night and no body near you i think its abit sly that you are getting sanctioned

Why? If you smoke where smoking is banned then you should be prepared to accept the consequences.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The Railway Byelaw which prohibits smoking on those parts of the Railway where signs are displayed was tested on Appeal to the House of Lords.
Please refer to Boddington vs British Transport Police 1977. (Boddington had been accused of smoking, prosecuted by the BTP, fined by the Magistrates, appealed to the District Court, given leave to Appeal to the Lords and lost his Appeal).

The Judgement is particularly interestng, as it considers several points of Law, including the matter of whether or not a Railway Operator has the jurisdiction to prohibit smoking absolutely and how a citizen can ask the Courts to subject Criminal Law to scrutiny when they are also public Law Byelaws).

 

[johnnychips]

If a sign at the entrance to a station says, to paraphrase, 'You can't smoke anywhere on this station', would that be enough to ban it either by law, or railway bylaw. In other words, if you were having a fag at the end of an oncovered platform, you still have no defence?

 

[KA4C]

The Railway Byelaw which prohibits smoking on those parts of the Railway where signs are displayed was tested on Appeal to the House of Lords.
Please refer to Boddington vs British Transport Police 1977. (Boddington had been accused of smoking, prosecuted by the BTP, fined by the Magistrates, appealed to the District Court, given leave to Appeal to the Lords and lost his Appeal).

The Judgement is particularly interestng, as it considers several points of Law, including the matter of whether or not a Railway Operator has the jurisdiction to prohibit smoking absolutely and how a citizen can ask the Courts to subject Criminal Law to scrutiny when they are also public Law Byelaws).

I remember it well, Boddington was a knob who caused no end of problems to traincrew and station staff in his quest to make some kind of point. He cared little for his fellow passengers either

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Boddington is now quite a famous case, and is in many law textbooks.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

If you were being tried by most RailUK Forums members I'm afraid the "black cap" would be straight out

That would be an interesting way of dealing with smokers, perhaps fare dodgers too. Mind you I can't talk as I was caned a couple of times at school for smoking, that was back in the 1970s. (I don't smoke now.)