Heads up - Panorama tonight, BBC1 8.30pm

In message , at 18:25:56 on Tue, 27 Oct
2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
All prosecutions are under the approval of the CPS. They may do
nothing and a prosecution can be made by others,
but the CPS can stop a private prosecution if they feel that it is not
in the public interest.

I think you are getting confused between private prosecutions by
individuals, and prosecutions by other authorities.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:35:03
on Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jim Mason
remarked:
This gives me page not found, even after correcting the wrap

http://tinyurl.com/forlazyroland

Huh? A tinyurl obscures the potentially information about what was wrong
with the original reference. There are many other disadvantages of using
them, that I won't dwell upon. The potentially lazy thing is to miss off
the delimiters, which I carefully added.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

You been given references; this getting tedious.

Nowhere has there been a reference to traveling with a ticket on the
wrong train.

The point I was trying to make is that in the UK it is not possible to
commit a criminal act inadvertently.
The whole British ethos is that criminal law takes into account intent.
Also fairness has a great part in justice, if someone
boards the wrong train then there is dual responsibility. The passenger may
have been careless or the train company may have failed to
indicate the trains destination clearly. Which is why British law takes both
the act and the context of the act into account.
As I said in an earlier post, the word 'intent' comes into the act that
prosecution is based on. The acts which permit penalty fares also require
the company
to have an appeals procedure where the passenger can justify that he was not
intentionally evading a fare.

Note that the references that were given all refer to fare evasion,

Definition of evasion:
evasion [ɪˈveɪʒən]
n
1. the act of evading or escaping, esp from a distasteful duty,
responsibility, etc., by trickery, cunning, or illegal means tax evasion
2. trickery, cunning, or deception used to dodge a question, duty, etc.;
means of evading
[from Late Latin ēv�si�, from Latin ēv�dere to go forth; see evade]


Clearly there is an overt act of trying to avoid paying, which is not the
case with boarding the wrong train.

The law refers to evasion, the terms and conditions refer to 'not holding a
valid ticket'. Which is why I discussed contract law. The terms and
conditions only apply if a contract exists, otherwise it is the
parliamentary acts.

If you can show a single case of a passenger being taken to court and found
guilty having boarded the wrong train with a ticket for the intended journey
then I am wrong.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:25:56 on Tue, 27 Oct
2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
All prosecutions are under the approval of the CPS. They may do nothing
and a prosecution can be made by others,
but the CPS can stop a private prosecution if they feel that it is not in
the public interest.

I think you are getting confused between private prosecutions by
individuals, and prosecutions by other authorities.


A rail company is not an 'authority' and would be classified as a
private prosecution.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:56:21 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that in the UK it is not possible to
commit a criminal act inadvertently.

Er, yes it is, at least in some cases.

Exceeding the speed limit when driving a car is a criminal offence.
This may have occurred because you were negligent in watching the
speedometer rather than because you deliberately chose to ignore the
limit, but is still an offence regardless of how it came about.

The answer to someone getting excessed a whackload of money for
getting on a wrongly timed train, though, is to some extent (certainly
at the London termini) individual ticket checks before boarding. This
is practiced at Euston, and passengers are turned away (or sold a new
ticket or excess on the spot if desired) if they hold the wrong ticket
for the train for which the grip is being carried out. I suspect the
arrangement at Euston is this way because it isn't practical to
barrier the whole station because of its layout and size[1], but it
does have a passenger-friendly side effect.

[1] Euston is a very large station with 18 platforms, but (unusually
for the UK) was built "too big" for future expansion - perhaps the
Schiphol of railway stations. Thus the cost of automatic barriers for
the whole thing probably exceeds substantially the cost of two or
three groups of staff to manually check tickets on the small number of
trains actually boarding at the same time. At the same time, it
wouldn't be practical to put a row of barriers across the concourse
without altering the layout substantially or causing major congestion.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message , at 20:56:21 on Tue, 27 Oct
2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
The point I was trying to make is that in the UK it is not possible to
commit a criminal act inadvertently.

Of course it is. There any number of absolute offences, that can be
triggered "inadvertently". And that's even before we start exploring the
"ignorance is no excuse" angle.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:04:59 on Tue, 27 Oct
2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
A rail company is not an 'authority' and would be classified as a
private prosecution.

It is operating under various Acts of Parliament. Are you certain it's
status is a private individual? The DfT says train companies often
prosecute privately precisely to avoid the CPS (who have less experience
in this class of offence) being involved.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news
It is operating under various Acts of Parliament. Are you certain it's
status is a private individual? The DfT says train companies often
prosecute privately precisely to avoid the CPS (who have less experience
in this class of offence) being involved.

If you think about it the name is the give away 'company' an association of
individuals.

I have been trawling through sites on the web and I can find plenty of
discussions on people being taken to court for not
having a valid ticket as a result of deliberately either not buying one or
travelling outside the validity of the one held.
All however have declined to pay the penalty fare.

Few cases seem to go to court as the process appears effective. i.e. you can
a. decide to pay the penalty fare at the time.
b.You can plead your case with the rail company and have a reasonable chance
of a waiver if a good case is presented.
c. Going to magistrates courts would appear to be a lost cause and just
results in a higher fine and a criminal record.


None have been for travelling on the wrong train. One major difference of
course is the person doing so was law abiding and did pay
for their travel and probably more inclined to pay a requested penalty. It
may be that option b. above kicks in and there never are any cases.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:56:21 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that in the UK it is not possible to
commit a criminal act inadvertently.

Er, yes it is, at least in some cases.

Exceeding the speed limit when driving a car is a criminal offence.
This may have occurred because you were negligent in watching the
speedometer rather than because you deliberately chose to ignore the
limit, but is still an offence regardless of how it came about.


I was hesitant when I wrote it. 'Ignorance is no defense would suggest
that it is possible to inadvertently break the law.
However there is a duty of care, in the case of driving it is to keep
aware of the highway code and obey the rules, including not
being negligent. In other areas it is to employ specialist advice in
situations outside ones own knowledge, such as running a business.



Driving on the road is totally covered by statute law. Travelling by train
is a mixture of criminal, civil ,contract law and convention. Boarding a
train with the intention to travel without paying is criminal. Boarding the
wrong train is stupidity. It is difficult for the train company to determine
intention so it is understandable they try and simplify it by calling it
'travelling without a valid ticket', but a court case has to be against the
act of parliament as worded, not a paraphrase of it added into the T&Cs.


You may find the following interesting

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...are-dodgers.do

In message , at 22:28:42 on Tue, 27
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
Few cases seem to go to court as the process appears effective. i.e. you can
a. decide to pay the penalty fare at the time.

Penalty fares cover the London area and some other big cities. They
don't generally apply to long distance travel. For those urban journeys
they are a useful "safety valve".

b.You can plead your case with the rail company and have a reasonable
chance of a waiver if a good case is presented.
c. Going to magistrates courts would appear to be a lost cause and just
results in a higher fine and a criminal record.

None have been for travelling on the wrong train.

Even that Evening Standard article you quoted, gave as options for
"wrong train" travel only (a) as paying a full new fare, or (b) paying
the difference between the [probably heavily discounted Advance ticket]
and the full fare.
--
Roland Perry