Unlawful Use of SJPN by Train Companies for Section 5(1) RoRA Prosecutions

[AdamWW]

We may notice that airlines have likewise moved on to modern self-service methods of ticket purchase and validity, but have no issues at all arising from air passengers found mid-flight with the wrong or no ticket.

I don't think I've ever been on a flight where the flight attendants came round checking tickets mid-air.

(Apparently decades ago there was a US airline that really did work like that though).

 

[Taunton]

The whole concept of a for-profit company having the power to bring criminal proceedings against their own customers is abhorrent, unjust, and inherently corrupt.

Indeed. And not only that, but note how in both the post office and the railway cases, having that power inexorably leads to quantities of prosecutions some hundreds of times more than is found in general legal cases. The staff engaged in this pursuit seem to get onto some whoop-de-do of grabbing as many people as possible.

 

[BingMan]

I don't think I've ever been on a flight where the flight attendants came round checking tickets mid-air.

(Apparently decades ago there was a US airline that really did work like that though).

But airlines check everyone's ticket before allowing them to board

 

[AdamWW]

But airlines check everyone's ticket before allowing them to board

Exactly.

So not really a very meaningful comparison with the railways.

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed. Airlines don’t like people split ticketing or buying a cheaper return ticket, but only travelling one way.

The difference is airlines don’t have laws available to prosecute people for it.

Neither do train companies in these circumstances. Both of the strategies you mention here are perfectly legitimate under criminal law whether done with an airline or a train company.

In any case, many low cost airlines *only* offer split ticketing! It’s a cheaper and more efficient - and less risky - way of selling tickets for the company, as it reduces their obligations.

I don't think I've ever been on a flight where the flight attendants came round checking tickets mid-air.

(Apparently decades ago there was a US airline that really did work like that though).

Tickets used to be sold on board BA Shuttles until I think, the early 90s.

In any case this is a moot point because your credentials to board an aircraft nowadays are checked before you board. It’s a closed system.

 

[Taunton]

So not really a very meaningful comparison with the railways.

It is. Because traditionally everyone's ticket was looked at on entry, along with a gruff "Change at Crewe" or whatever, and doubtless sometimes a "Stop! Cheap day tickets not allowed until after 9.30", or whatever. Now this responsibility somehow in destaffing got passed to the passenger without recognising that there were legal restraints in place for non-compliance - which the independent TOCs then lapped up.

You don't get into a coach either without showing the driver your ticket at the door. You don't get someone coming along as you roll down the motorway saying "This is a Megabus ticket to London. We're National Express. Fined!". Honestly, it is up to a commercial business to make sure their customers pay for the service at an appropriate point.

 

[Haywain]

Because traditionally everyone's ticket was looked at on entry, along with a gruff "Change at Crewe" or whatever, and doubtless sometimes a "Stop! Cheap day tickets not allowed until after 9.30", or whatever.

I don't know when you think this happened but it's not been my experience in over 50 years of rail travel.

 

[AdamWW]

It is. Because traditionally everyone's ticket was looked at on entry, along with a gruff "Change at Crewe" or whatever, and doubtless sometimes a "Stop! Cheap day tickets not allowed until after 9.30", or whatever.

In the days of manual ticket barriers I'm not sure that tickets tended to be looked at all that carefully.

 

[35B]

In the days of manual ticket barriers I'm not sure that tickets tended to be looked at all that carefully.

They weren’t. At school, there were many accounts of people getting through by waving their lunch pass.

 

[AlterEgo]

They weren’t. At school, there were many accounts of people getting through by waving their lunch pass.

The old barrier at New Street used to accept Bite cards.

 

[Titfield]

They weren’t. At school, there were many accounts of people getting through by waving their lunch pass.

For the same reason that the security staff who look at the baggage scanners at airports are limited to 20 minutes of continuous viewing.

 

[35B]

For the same reason that the security staff who look at the baggage scanners at airports are limited to 20 minutes of continuous viewing.

I don’t think the issue was just about how long they’d been on duty - there was a fair dose of CBA too

 

[AdamWW]

I don’t think the issue was just about how long they’d been on duty - there was a fair dose of CBA too

I think we're veering somewhat off topic here, but with the best will in the world and a large number of people forcing their way through a manned ticket kiosk there's only so much anyone could do.

 

[fandroid]

Northern were hoist by their own arrogance here. If they'd simply used the Bylaws for their prosecutions then the SJP would have been entirely valid. As for the guilt or otherwise of those whose convictions have been quashed, in many cases they would been been guilty due to the strict liability nature of the Bylaw offences. Those in professions or sensitive roles who lost their jobs as a result of these (now overturned) convictions may well have lost them via internal disciplinary processes anyway, if the offences had come to light.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Northern were hoist by their own arrogance here. If they'd simply used the Bylaws for their prosecutions then the SJP would have been entirely valid. As for the guilt or otherwise of those whose convictions have been quashed, in many cases they would been been guilty due to the strict liability nature of the Bylaw offences. Those in professions or sensitive roles who lost their jobs as a result of these (now overturned) convictions may well have lost them via internal disciplinary processes anyway, if the offences had come to light.

What about those prosecutions which stemmed from appealed penalty fares?

Seems Northern thought they had found a home run round the rather inconvenient impediment of clause 13 of the Penalty Fares legislation.

 

[John Palmer]

What about those prosecutions which stemmed from appealed penalty fares?

Seems Northern thought they had found a home run round the rather inconvenient impediment of clause 13 of the Penalty Fares legislation.

Regulation 11 rather than 13, I think, although Regulation 13 has some relevance because it is the provision that obliges the passenger to give name and address where a collector proposes to charge a penalty fare.

However, the substance of @KirkstallOne's point remains: a Section 5(1) RoRA offence is not one of those specified in Regulation 11(4) of the Penalty Fares Regulations, consequently prosecution for an offence under that subsection theoretically remained remained available to a TOC where a penalty fare remained unpaid.

There was, however, an obvious problem in doing so: in order to be issued a penalty fare, the passenger concerned must have supplied his name and address. But, in the ordinary course of events, by doing so he had complied with Section 5(1)'s requirements and consequently had a defence to prosecution under that subsection. One way of seeking to get round that inconvenience would be to omit any mention of Section 5(1)'s “give the officer or servant his name and address” option from the charge and to suggest instead that “Travelling on a train without a valid ticket ... is an offence ... under Section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889”.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Regulation 11 rather than 13, I think, although Regulation 13 has some relevance because it is the provision that obliges the passenger to give name and address where a collector proposes to charge a penalty fare.

Apologies, yes regulation 11 I meant.


Update 2/12/2024

Two more companies listed today.

First Great Western Railway, 2401308662 Courtroom 03 10:00
First Transpennine Express, 2401308670 Courtroom 03 10:00

So I guess this is the TPE incarnation from 2016-2023.

I have the number of cases for these two, and Avanti:

459 for Avanti West Coast
1726 for First Great Western
1603 for Transpennine Express (First era)

Another listing for Thursday 5th December:

C2C RAIL LTD, 2401308867 Courtroom 03 10:00

And the results for C2C:

• C2C – 5 cases declared a nullity

 

[KirkstallOne]

Update 12/12/2024

Arriva, Greater Anglia and Merseyrail are listed for 10:05 courtroom 3 at Westminster Magistrate’s court on Monday morning

Update 16/12/2024

And the figures from this morning. As expected a large number of merseyrail ones:

Merseyrail – 16461 cases.
Greater Anglia – 4676 cases.
Arriva – 4358 cases.
Northern – 398 cases.

 

[KirkstallOne]

An article following up on this with some quotes from myself:

New figures show a train operator has made more than half a million pounds worth of out of court settlements for fare evasions in the last four years. Some of the fines that have been paid – and can’t now be overturned – should never have been pursued.

A Freedom of Information request by The Lead to Northern rail has revealed almost 6,000 out of court settlements made by the government-run rail operator for fare evasion charges between 2020 and November 2024, totalling over £560,000.

https://national.thelead.uk/p/north...alf?r=3u6vmv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

 

[Gonzoiku]

An article following up on this with some quotes from myself:



https://national.thelead.uk/p/north...alf?r=3u6vmv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

And a mugshot to boot!

Well done on continuing the fightback

GZ

 

[Puffing Devil]

Abysmal reporting with a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.

There is nothing (legally) wrong with the agreed out-of-court settlements. As we all know, they are not fines.

Routing the prosecutions through the SJP was procedurally incorrect. They should have issued a requisition to a physical court.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Also not sure if this has been posted, the announcement of a consultation on private prosecutors. The preamble references these cases as a notable example of the private prosecutor failures.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...s-in-the-criminal-justice-system-consultation

Some private prosecutors have been found to have acted unlawfully, improperly and well below the standards the public expects. There have been cases where this has resulted in serious injustice.

Perhaps the most egregious example is the Post Office scandal. These private prosecutions have – rightly – been described as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in our country’s legal history. Evidence submitted to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry highlighted the failings in the prosecutorial practices that led to hundreds of innocent postmasters being wrongfully convicted. One of the greatest concerns for the purposes of this consultation is how the unacceptable behaviour of the Post Office as a private prosecutor could have gone undetected for so long – and whether better oversight and regulation could have prevented it.

There are other notable examples of private prosecutor failures – such as the thousands of convictions for railway fare evasion offences that were quashed following a ruling in 2024 that the prosecutions were brought unlawfully.

 

[soil]

Abysmal reporting with a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.

There is nothing (legally) wrong with the agreed out-of-court settlements. As we all know, they are not fines.

Routing the prosecutions through the SJP was procedurally incorrect. They should have issued a requisition to a physical court.

A SJP is a single justice procedure. It is a physical court.

There are many things (legally) wrong with the out-of-court settlements. These are fundamentally consumer contracts, governed by consumer contract fairness law, as well as by wider contract law. So for example if you lie to the consumer that they could be prosecuted under SJPN and RORA, when that is not the case, either because the TOC only has civil remedies available , governed by the CoT, or because the criminal threat made was a lesser one, namely a byelaw prosecution, then very obviously that would cause legal issues between the consumers lied to by the TOCs in order to extract cash settlements, and the TOCs

 

[furlong]

There is nothing (legally) wrong with the agreed out-of-court settlements. As we all know, they are not fines.

The suggestion is that the true legal situation may have been misrepresented, tricking the passenger into settling under false pretences. (For example, a settlement made under threat of prosecution AFTER a Penalty Fare appeal with no reference to the bar on the very prosecution threatened.)

 

[talldave]

The suggestion is that the true legal situation may have been misrepresented, tricking the passenger into settling under false pretences. (For example, a settlement made under threat of prosecution AFTER a Penalty Fare appeal with no reference to the bar on the very prosecution threatened.)

That's why I use the word extortion in such discussions. It may not be a 100% accurate use, but it sets the scene appropriately.

I believe one of the Post Office victims has laid papers in court alleging fraud. It's refreshing to see the little man fight back.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I would posit that many of the cases above are a very small minority. We do see some TOCs overstepping, though the vast majority of these numbers are fare evaders who have been caught and are being pursued. Look at this forum—95% of the requests for help are for people who openly admit to evasion.

It is egregious for a press report to make a swinging accusation that the "Fines" were somehow wrong without substantive evidence and drawing parallels with the Post Office scandal, which was a very different scenario.

 

[soil]

I would posit that many of the cases above are a very small minority. We do see some TOCs overstepping, though the vast majority of these numbers are fare evaders who have been caught and are being pursued. Look at this forum—95% of the requests for help are for people who openly admit to evasion.

It is egregious for a press report to make a swinging accusation that the "Fines" were somehow wrong without substantive evidence and drawing parallels with the Post Office scandal, which was a very different scenario.

? It's been clearly explained in this thread that may of the 'fines' were in fact wrong, e.g., a criminal prosecution following a PF appeal. There is substantive evidence for this.

They could not have been prosecuted or find guilty in such a circumstance.

 

[Wolfie]

I would posit that many of the cases above are a very small minority. We do see some TOCs overstepping, though the vast majority of these numbers are fare evaders who have been caught and are being pursued. Look at this forum—95% of the requests for help are for people who openly admit to evasion.

It is egregious for a press report to make a swinging accusation that the "Fines" were somehow wrong without substantive evidence and drawing parallels with the Post Office scandal, which was a very different scenario.

Given the mismatch due to the underlying legislation, some frankly antediluvian and others where what was promised in Parliament and what has actually happened in practice bear precious little resemblance, in this area your confidence in TOCs to fairly seek the "overriding objective" is frankly not one which l share.

Oh and many of us were warning years ago that the way that the TOCs were behaving would lead to comparisons with the Post Office. Don't whinge now that has come to pass.

? It's been clearly explained in this thread that may of the 'fines' were in fact wrong, e.g., a criminal prosecution following a PF appeal. There is substantive evidence for this.

They could not have been prosecuted or find guilty in such a circumstance.

Another apparent example on here of rail industry wagon-circling.

 

[najaB]

Given the mismatch due to the underlying legislation, some of frankly antediluvian, in this area your confidence in TOCs to fairly seek the "overriding objective" is frankly not one which l share.

Agreed some TOCs have behaved badly, but sheer numbers mean that the majority of people affected were, in fact, fare evading.

As such they get a *tiny* bit less sympathy from me than truly innocent people caught up in the net.

 

[Wolfie]

Agreed some TOCs have behaved badly, but sheer numbers mean that the majority of people affected were, in fact, fare evading.

As such they get a *tiny* bit less sympathy from me than truly innocent people caught up in the net.

Oh l absolutely agree.