I will freely admit that I'm an idiot; and could use some practical advice.

[Old-CodJA]

Just one little point of correction that I hope you will not mind Stigy. There is no power of arrest for rail staff detecting a straightforward fare evasion under Section 5.3.a of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889). There must be evidence of three elements of failure. It requires that the traveller i) fails to show a valid ticket ticket, ii) fails to pay the fare on demand, and iii) fails or refuses to give their correct name & address. The correct clause is Section 5.3.c.

 

Anyway, for the OP, I suggest that you wait until you get a letter and as others have said, attempt to mitigate the damage by being very truthful and offering a profuse apology

 

So far as the 'Mens Rea' is concerned, you may have set out with the intention of paying your fare, but an intention to avoid the fare can be evident at any time. The moment that you made off without having paid and knowing that a fare was due, you exhibited a changed state of mind.

 

That is the major factor going against you in this case so far as I can see. There are other points as you have correctly idntified.

 

The fact that you boarded without previously paying your fare when facilities were available to you to do so allows a case to be brought for the strict liability breach of National Railways Byelaw 18.1 alone.

 

I understand you may say you believed it was OK to pay on the train, but there are signs exhibited at all stations & platforms and if you are running late, unfortunately the responsibility is to make time to buy a ticket and get the next train.

 

That offence could have been disposed of as a civil matter by accepting an administrative penalty in the form of a penalty fare.

 

By running away whilst being questioned you made this much more serious. As others have said, a charge of fare evasion is most likely, but the act of 'bilking' could lead to a more serious charge on occasion.

 

The best advice I can give is sit tight and wait for that letter from the TOC and then you will know what you are defending.

 

Come back and let us know what the letter alleges when you get it.

 

.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Ahh, I see SRPO and I were typing at the same time again!!

[SRPO]

6 mins in it OC!

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, it sometimes takes this fuddled head a few minutes to evaluate everything before putting a post together,

 

When I started typing you hadn't replied, by the time I finished you had given the first answer

[RPI]

Could the OP potentially be charged with making off without payment under the theft act 1968? (been a while since my PACE course so may have misquoted that!)

[Wriggler7]

Someone said 'read law', and there are a few 'corrections' flowing between normal mates here.

 

Doesn't the power for 'officers of the railway' to detain come from '5,2'?

 

As there seems t have been elements of 'ruff stuff' in this incident, wouldn't the railway be looking to prove themselves right in an independant forum, ie Court?

[Old-CodJA]

Yes it does. I misread the earlier post and was thinking about the making off element and confused myself! It's easily done when you get fuddled like me!

 

If you've got a correct name & address, it doesn't matter what else has happened, the 3 failures are not evident of course so there is no reason to detain.

 

5.3.c would be the relevant charge if all are failed

 

5.2 provides the power to detain

 

My apologies

[Wriggler7]

Don't you just love statute law, with all the paragraphs and sub paragraphs?

 

The first day of my first course an ancient instructor said 'if you think it is wrong, it probaby is wrong, your job is to find the right law.'

 

As the offence is supposed to be explained in 'plain language', the inspector only has to say 'Oi is reporting yew for not avin the roight ticket.' The prosecution team will work out if it is 5,3,a or 5,3,b, and the actual prosecutor can generally explain that a 'short ticket' or a 'child ticket' for the right distance actually amounts to the same thing, and therefore a 5,3,a charge covers almost everything.

 

The signature or not at the end of notes is not 'fatal' to the case.

[Wriggler7]

5,3,c covers false name & address, but watch out for Byelaw 23, where a false name and address can be an offence on it's own even when there is no proof of a substantial offence. All that is required that an authorised person reasonably suspects an offence and requires details. I have seen it used, Courts are 'happy' to accept the charge. Leads to interesting evidence in as much as the inspector, unusually, can give his opinion of what he thought someone was up to. That is to establish his 'right' to ask for a name and address. Then the refusal or false details are 'the offence'. The Court will probably want to know why there is no evidence of a 'real' offence, and then deal with the matter.

[Stigy]

Stigy, correct me if im wrong but I was under the impression you had received some legal training regarding railway law?

In the circumstances described by the OP the rail staff had power to detain him under S.5 RRA 1889 as he had failed the '3 Fs' there is no actual 'arrest' & the power to detain lasts only until the DP gives his correct details or police arrive, whichever comes soonest.

I have received some legal training on railway law, but unfortunately alot of what's said in the classroom contradicts what's said elsewhere. That is why I said,

 

"there are alot of grey areas about holding on to people, and it's one that I (although not an RPI/A) only do as a last resort. "

 

And I stand by that remark. Although you might say it's pretty black and white really, try justifying your actions in court when it all goes wrong. Although in theory you have nothing to worry about, chances are you'll be out of a job at the very least because the TOC you work for certainly won't stand by you. I'd hazard a guess that the RPA/Is involved here weren't thinking about what was and wasn't legal, and they just got caught up in the adrenalin rush.

[silly11]

I appreciate all the advice given thus far and would like to give my thanks.

 

My arm is pretty knackered today from where I was grabbed, and I've got a beautiful bruise developing on my upper back from where I was put against the wall. That said, I won't think of taking the matter further as I put myself into the situation in the first place.

 

My only concern is avoiding a conviction - not that I have a lot of money, but a fine would be infinitely preferable.

 

All I can now do is wait for an envelope to drop through my door, and deal with it then as suggested. Don't doubt that I've been kicking myself all day.

 

This is a good community. Thanks again for your help.

[Grotesque]

Worth photographing any injuries. Southern probably wouldn't appreciate that coming out in Court.

[Wriggler7]

I think that is a question for 'the prosecutor'. He, (or she) might say 'and he was so violent that I am afraid he was injured whilst resisting being restrained'. I suspect that the CCTV will cause 'the prosecutor' more concerns, and 'we' in this forum will not get a chance to watch it. It is a good idea to photograph the injuries, make sure and have a method 'in shot' of dating the image. If they are taken after a rugby match or a strenuos workout with a cage fighter, they may not be worth much.

[SRPO]

Worth photographing any injuries. Southern probably wouldn't appreciate that coming out in Court.

 

I suspect they will consider them a reason why a prosecution should proceed to ensure any counter claim is nulled.

[Grotesque]

Are you suggesting he should sue first?!

[SRPO]

Are you suggesting he should sue first?!

Its a bit late now & would be seen as an attempt to avoid the charge.

Railway prosecutors are not scared off by these tactics, infact they tend to enjoy a change from the monotony of proving in absence.

[Grotesque]

Was joking of course.

 

Yes you are right; for an Inspector it would be a laser-copied Gold Card as opposed to a no ticket/ NMoP situation eh. Gets the juices going!

 

Keep up the good work son.

[SRPO]

Son.....

[Grotesque]

Sorry, S(ENIOR)RPO

 

No disrespect.

 

G.

[silly11]

Its a bit late now & would be seen as an attempt to avoid the charge.

Railway prosecutors are not scared off by these tactics, infact they tend to enjoy a change from the monotony of proving in absence.

 

As per my last post, I have no intention of suing or any nonsense like that. I put myself into the situation in the first place, and will now deal with any consequences that arise from it.

 

I want to be proactive and get in touch with the company directly over this, but will follow the advice given and sit tight.

[SRPO]

Sorry, S(ENIOR)RPO

 

No disrespect.

 

G.

 

Guess again....

[silly11]

I've spent way too much time looking at this situation over the last few days. And have come across the "10 points to avoiding penalty fares" or some such a thousand times - I can sense the rolling of eyes from here

 

4 Even if they pass these tests, politely refuse to pay the penalty and simply pay the full single fare.

 

On the train or at the station, you have the absolute right to make only "a minimum payment that is equal to the full single fare which [you] would have had to pay for [your] journey if penalty fares had not applied." This is section 8 (2) of the Penalty Fares Rules 2002 - quote it if anyone tries to tell you different. (The full single fare means the fare without any railcard discounts, cheap offers etc.)

 

I suspect that this interpretation of Section 8 may be twisted a bit to suit the author's ends, but if it weren't?

 

A payment for my journey is what I offered, but this was rejected. Upon the announcement of the penalty fare I was then an idiot and bolted. But, should the original offer of payment for the journey been accepted?

[Stigy]

A payment for my journey is what I offered, but this was rejected. Upon the announcement of the penalty fare I was then an idiot and bolted. But, should the original offer of payment for the journey been accepted?

You didn't have to give them the £20 up-front, and by paying the standard single fare, this would merely have been deducted from the £20 Penalty Fare. Even if the Evening Standard were advising their readers that you could refuse the PF, and that the whole PF system is very illegal etc (which I'm not 100% sure they were or weren't doing to be honest) the RPI/A or other staff would have every right to request your details anyway as they believed an offence might have been commited (this is a legal obligation on your part, to give correct details). That being the case, it's swings and roundabouts really!

 

Unfortunately in your case...you bolted, by your own admission, therefore the whole PF thing is irrelevant now.

[SRPO]

...A payment for my journey is what I offered, but this was rejected. Upon the announcement of the penalty fare I was then an idiot and bolted. But, should the original offer of payment for the journey been accepted?

 

It would have been & then you would have been required to give your name and address under the Penalty Fare Act.

When you bolted you lost the chance of a simple penalty fare.

[RPI]

the way I read the PF rules is that an Authorised collector may insist that the equivelent to the Anytime single be paid up

front, the customer cannot insist on paying it.