Sign my Avaaz petition if you believe fare evasion should not be a criminal offence

[rliu]

I never said or implied that. Do you have evidence double charging innocent people is train company policy and it being enforced by guards?

My not inconsiderable experience was that in practice guards do not criminalise passengers where there is no apparent deceit and there is a willingness to pay. Indeed even penalty fares are rarely enforced. The guard (and presumably the operator) just want their fare and a not too unhappy customer. That is surely in their business interest. Actually the regular train fare is penalty enough compared to what the passenger could have paid ahead of time.

But, but my fear is that a jobsworth guard (or one that just had a bad experience elsewhere) could help create a criminal record where no criminality is intended and this fear could be what you are playing on. As long as that can be dealt with reasonably by the company or the magistrate then I see no reason to forgo giving criminal records to criminals committing crimes. The latter appears to me the spirit of your campaign and why I cannot support it.

I wasn't trying to misquote you, I was just referring to unmanned stations as 'the example.'
Have a read of some of the posts on the Prosecutions and Disputes page on 'Rail forum', there are a good number of stories demonstrating heavy handed enforcement of the rules.
Generally speaking I think criminal prosecutions are brought too easily in this country. This is of course a separate debate to the issue of sentencing, which can be too light in instances of serious crime.

 

[StuartG]

... there are a good number of stories demonstrating heavy handed enforcement of the rules.

The petition is about not prosecuting people who commit deliberate fare evasion.

Are you seeking to justify this by the 'heavy handed' criminal prosecution of people who have not been able to pay or willingly offer to pay - that is innocently or mistakenly are not holding the correct ticket. How many of these are there? Some examples and an estimate is sufficient.

 

[rliu]

Containing a good number of people who have been caught but cannot bring themselves to acknowledge their criminality.

Sure deliberate fare dodgers ask for advice on there but there are also stories like this http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85687
Minor crimes such as these have little case law, most of which is not detailed, mostly because legal representation for the accused is often non existent or poor quality. The crime isn't serious enough for most people to want to pay for legal representation, nor qualify for legal aid.
As I mentioned the regulations of the railway act is made in an era where social values were different, firstly there was no such thing as consumer rights (hence the Latin phrase caveat emptor - buyer beware), and secondly criminal law regimes were far harsher. Furthermore, all ticket sales would have been made or checked by staff back in 1889. In this age of cutting back on train staff and relying on automated machines, using Victorian legislation that has a paucity of case law over 100 years is far less than ideal.
This is before I touch on the troubling aspect that the train companies are both enforcer and prosecuter, and therefore are able to carry out their enforcement with the intention of making prosecution easy for themselves. This is a real erosion of the separation of powers and roles played by the police and CPS for more serious crimes.

 

[spen666]

...... They know people won't have the time or spare effort to appeal the civil fine, and certainly don't want to risk the prosecution card that the train companies have up their sleeves.....

So, if people don't bother to defend themselves on charges of something we abolish the offence?
the offence will be abolished?

then see what happens

 

[spen666]

....
As I mentioned the regulations of the railway act is made in an era where social values were different, firstly there was no such thing as consumer rights (hence the Latin phrase caveat emptor - buyer beware), ....

Because of course the Railways Act came into effect during the era of those well known train builders called the Romans

 

[Markymark]

I think the courts time would be better spent dealing with more serious issues. I don't know fully hiw it all works but surely a court making a criminal offence for all these small crimes could be used to properly deal with more serious issues when so many end only with a police caution.

 

[Markymark]

I'm not disputing that. Just suggesting that the powers that be spend more time properly dealing with serious offences and not waste on these small matters.

I'd rather these fines are dealt with like, say a parking ticket, and free up court time.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
I cannot see any justification in not paying your fare.
...

a young woman has purse stolen on a night out, home is a 20 minute train journey, or a two hour walk, at night, alone... If i was her I'd get on a train with no money and argue my case.

 

[guitarpete247]

a young woman has purse stolen on a night out, home is a 20 minute train journey, or a two hour walk, at night, alone... If i was her I'd get on a train with no money and argue my case.

In the above situation I would not try to evade paying my fare. I would try to find a member of staff to give my details to to be able to pay the next possible opportunity. Finding a member of staff/Transport Police I could report stolen purse/wallet. Even if it was stolen elsewhere.
I still see fare evasion as being the same as fare avoidance. Just the same as I do with paying taxes. Those that don't, or aren't willing, to pay for services they receive cause the rest of us to have to pay more.

 

[StuartG]

In the above situation I would not try to evade paying my fare. I would try to find a member of staff to give my details to to be able to pay the next possible opportunity..

Absolutely. As a (successful) salesman once told me - "when all else fails, try the truth!". Honesty is surprisingly often rewarded. Many TfL staff, who have seen most things before, will look out for obviously vulnerable people.

Lost purses and wallets are no justification for decriminalising fare evasion. I've been there, my wife has been there, my daughters have been there. All got home without a criminal record.

 

[User269]

Everyone's got an excuse and should be let off; fare evasion, illegal parking, speeding, using a mobile whilst driving, firing rockets into Israel, invading the Gaza strip, fiddling your expenses, tax evasion, paedophilia.....................all easy mistakes that any of us could make.

 

[Archie_tect]

In the days of GNER, I once arrived at Newcastle station to see the 7:30 am GNER train to Kings X at the platform so got on with my £15 advance Apex ticket to find my seat, which was reserved and restricted for that train only as stated on the ticket. No announcements were made until train left York... train due to stop along the line at Doncaster and Peterborough. Guard announced as we were leaving York that the service was the 7:00am delayed service to Kings X calling at Grantham. I and several other passengers realised we were on the wrong train. I went to find the ticket inspector .

When I did she was dealing with a queue of passengers who'd expected to get off at Doncaster or Peterborough but who now couldn't. When I got to speak to her she was severely fed-up and informed me that I didn't have a valid ticket for that train and either: would have to get off at Grantham and pay for a ticket from Grantham waiting for a local, slow connecting train to Kings X as my valid ticket's train, following behind, didn't stop there, or buy a single standard ticket from York to Kings X. "If I objected I could send a complaint to the Customer Services".

Sometimes the jobsworths are impossible to deal with. [I bought a ticket from York: £90 single, then the return Apex train was cancelled so my return ticket was magically transferred to the next available train even though it was only valid on the cancelled train, oh the irony... eventually got my money back from Customer Services but it took over a year].

Bitter, me? ... 4 or more years later? No, not at all....

 

[rliu]

Because of course the Railways Act came into effect during the era of those well known train builders called the Romans

The legal and social elite liked to use french and Latin to differentiate themselves and exhibit their expensive education throughout English history, so I'm not the one that needs a history lesson.

 

[rliu]

So, if people don't bother to defend themselves on charges of something we abolish the offence?
the offence will be abolished?

then see what happens

Well these considerations are behind the abolition of a lot of Victorian methods to punish the poor.
I wouldn't call not being able to afford several thousands of pounds for a lawyer 'can't be bothered'

 

[rliu]

A person doesn't have to spend loads on legal fees to defend themself. They can always go to court and explain.

An explanation of the facts from the accused's perspective is gonna be a lot less impressive in court than a legally trained prosecutor referring to case law. When the case law is an accumulation of this David v goliath situation it gets harder and harder for you average Joe to defend himself.