NARobertson
Member
That passengers can on Britain's railways, as seen on this forum, sometimes find themselves in considerable difficulties arises I think in part from the operation of old laws that were intended to operate in a markedly different environment from that today. Normally, in most countries, it is very unlikely that one can commit a criminal act through nothing else but having made a mistake. I do not dispute that fraud of one type or another, where there is no doubt that an action was deliberate, is not uncommon on the railways nowadays. Such unambiguous cases of fraud include:
1. Travelling on someone else's Rail Card;
2. An adult using a child ticket;
3. Someone apparently scanning out at a barrier but really following very closely the person in front of them;
4. Using manipulated tickets.
The 1889 Railways Act was primarily intended to improve railway safety after a particularly bad accident in Ireland. An overloaded train had stalled on a bank. The driver divided the train, parking the rear half and taking the front half up before leaving this in a loop. Unfortunately, the brakes on the rear half failed and it rolled down the bank, gaining speed and finally colliding with a following train. As a result railways had to spend large sums of money on safety improvements, particularly on braking systems. Perhaps as a consolation the railways were at the same time given additional powers for recovery of unpaid fares.
What was a valid ticket in 1890 was probably simple and straightforward. But now there are many different types of ticket, some of very limited validity. Therefore, the chances of a ticket not being valid are much higher today than in 1890. Back then most stations had ticket offices where even the illiterate could purchase a ticket without difficulties. Today many stations have only ticket machines. Sometimes these are situated outdoors where rain or particular lighting conditions can result in reflections on their screens that make them awkward to use. Warning signs that a station is in a penalty fares zone can be placed where some passengers will not see them. At my local station the sign on one side is much more likely to be seen on alighting from a train and leaving the station than on entering the station. Tickets are often sold freely on trains in such zones, suggesting perhaps that this is perfectly legitimate. Add to these circumstances a magistracy with fairly minimal legal qualifications and the result is a system that is very much loaded against railway passengers.
Another question is that of private prosecutions in this country. Currently, some organizations such as the Post Office and the railways can start criminal, as opposed to civil, proceedings. One result of this system has been the great injustice of many postmasters who were wrongly jailed for embezzlement. But, in general, it seems fundamentally unjust that one party can be all of the plaintiff, the police and the prosecutor. The Times on 25 November reported on p. 64 on efforts to make changes to this system. The Parliamentary Committee on Justice recommended last year that all defendants against whom private prosecutions are brought should be notified by the court of their right to have the case reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The report of that committee also recommended that organizations that conduct frequent prosecutions should be subject to inspections. Where one is found to be misusing the power the right ought to be removed, or consent from the Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions must be granted before initiating cases. One solicitor blamed magistrates for not sufficiently scrutinizing such cases. Another said that one problem with private prosecutions is that judicial scrutiny does not start until the crown court, with cases sometimes being dropped if they go to a crown court.
There is also the question of what incentives and pressures RPIs work under. That does not need to be bonuses that encourage the issuing of penalty fares and reports for prosecution. It could include the performance appraisal systems that are a feature of many, if not most, jobs. What indices would an RPI be assessed on? Penalties issued and cases resulting in prosecutions would seem to be obvious criteria. On the other hand, an RPI that is seen as being unsatisfactory could perhaps be pressurized to improve their 'productivity'.
1. Travelling on someone else's Rail Card;
2. An adult using a child ticket;
3. Someone apparently scanning out at a barrier but really following very closely the person in front of them;
4. Using manipulated tickets.
The 1889 Railways Act was primarily intended to improve railway safety after a particularly bad accident in Ireland. An overloaded train had stalled on a bank. The driver divided the train, parking the rear half and taking the front half up before leaving this in a loop. Unfortunately, the brakes on the rear half failed and it rolled down the bank, gaining speed and finally colliding with a following train. As a result railways had to spend large sums of money on safety improvements, particularly on braking systems. Perhaps as a consolation the railways were at the same time given additional powers for recovery of unpaid fares.
What was a valid ticket in 1890 was probably simple and straightforward. But now there are many different types of ticket, some of very limited validity. Therefore, the chances of a ticket not being valid are much higher today than in 1890. Back then most stations had ticket offices where even the illiterate could purchase a ticket without difficulties. Today many stations have only ticket machines. Sometimes these are situated outdoors where rain or particular lighting conditions can result in reflections on their screens that make them awkward to use. Warning signs that a station is in a penalty fares zone can be placed where some passengers will not see them. At my local station the sign on one side is much more likely to be seen on alighting from a train and leaving the station than on entering the station. Tickets are often sold freely on trains in such zones, suggesting perhaps that this is perfectly legitimate. Add to these circumstances a magistracy with fairly minimal legal qualifications and the result is a system that is very much loaded against railway passengers.
Another question is that of private prosecutions in this country. Currently, some organizations such as the Post Office and the railways can start criminal, as opposed to civil, proceedings. One result of this system has been the great injustice of many postmasters who were wrongly jailed for embezzlement. But, in general, it seems fundamentally unjust that one party can be all of the plaintiff, the police and the prosecutor. The Times on 25 November reported on p. 64 on efforts to make changes to this system. The Parliamentary Committee on Justice recommended last year that all defendants against whom private prosecutions are brought should be notified by the court of their right to have the case reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The report of that committee also recommended that organizations that conduct frequent prosecutions should be subject to inspections. Where one is found to be misusing the power the right ought to be removed, or consent from the Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions must be granted before initiating cases. One solicitor blamed magistrates for not sufficiently scrutinizing such cases. Another said that one problem with private prosecutions is that judicial scrutiny does not start until the crown court, with cases sometimes being dropped if they go to a crown court.
There is also the question of what incentives and pressures RPIs work under. That does not need to be bonuses that encourage the issuing of penalty fares and reports for prosecution. It could include the performance appraisal systems that are a feature of many, if not most, jobs. What indices would an RPI be assessed on? Penalties issued and cases resulting in prosecutions would seem to be obvious criteria. On the other hand, an RPI that is seen as being unsatisfactory could perhaps be pressurized to improve their 'productivity'.
