Train fare evasion: article on the law

Grolschevik

There are plenty of threads on here about fare evasion and/or "couldn't buy a ticket". Here's an interesting article from a legal perspective, at p33:
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202011/November%202011.pdf

Some selected quotes:

“The best advice is to buy a ticket before travel. But that does not always happen. If a passenger is on a train without a ticket and has the intention to evade, then they have committed a criminal offence."

However:

"It is not an offence to be on a train without a ticket. There may be valid company policy reasons why Irish Rail have adopted a strict approach to this issue, but this strict approach does not reflect the legislative scheme in the 2005 act. Therefore, it is possible for a passenger to board a train and seek to buy a ticket on board."

"In order to convince the court that they did not have an intention to evade a fare, the passenger would need a good reason for not prepurchasing a ticket, and probably needs to seek out an RPU officer as soon as he has boarded the train."

The legislative background:

"The most important statutory provision in relation to fare evasion is section 132 of the Railway Safety Act 2005. This section creates two offences. Firstly, where an employee of Irish Rail asks for a ticket, and a passenger does not have one, the passenger must do one of three things:
1) Pay the standard fare,
2) Pay another fare as determined by Irish Rail, or
3) Give the employee his name and address.

Failure to do one of these things is an offence, with a maximum fine of €1,000 (section 132(2)). Secondly, under section 132(3), where a passenger attempts to travel on a train without paying a fare, and “with intent to avoid such payment”, he is guilty of an offence. Again, the maximum fine is €1,000.

This second offence is the most important one and goes to the core of the issue. In order to have committed the offence, the passenger must be on a train without a ticket (the actus reus) and intend to avoid paying the fare (the mens rea).

These offences have to be read in conjunction with statutory instrument 109 of 1984, enacted under section 22(4) of the Transport Act 1950. Bye-law 3 of that SI states that no person shall travel on a train without a valid ticket. It is unclear what the impact of this is, as it is expressly stated that bye-law 3 is not an offence. Bye-law 4 states: 'Where any person is instructed by an authorised person to board a train at a station without purchasing a ticket at the booking office so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station, any person not in possession of a valid ticket entitling him or her to travel may enter a vehicle at that station for the purpose of travelling, but that person must obtain a ticket or other authority from an authorised person on the train as soon as practicable after entering any vehicle, or from an authorised person on arrival at the station to which such person is travelling by the train'."

schemingbohemia

Grolschevik wrote: »

There are plenty of threads on here about fare evasion and/or "couldn't buy a ticket". Here's an interesting article from a legal perspective, at p33:
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202011/November%202011.pdf

Some selected quotes:

“The best advice is to buy a ticket before travel. But that does not always happen. If a passenger is on a train without a ticket and has the intention to evade, then they have committed a criminal offence."

However:

"It is not an offence to be on a train without a ticket. There may be valid company policy reasons why Irish Rail have adopted a strict approach to this issue, but this strict approach does not reflect the legislative scheme in the 2005 act. Therefore, it is possible for a passenger to board a train and seek to buy a ticket on board."

"In order to convince the court that they did not have an intention to evade a fare, the passenger would need a good reason for not prepurchasing a ticket, and probably needs to seek out an RPU officer as soon as he has boarded the train."

The legislative background:

"The most important statutory provision in relation to fare evasion is section 132 of the Railway Safety Act 2005. This section creates two offences. Firstly, where an employee of Irish Rail asks for a ticket, and a passenger does not have one, the passenger must do one of three things:
1) Pay the standard fare,
2) Pay another fare as determined by Irish Rail, or
3) Give the employee his name and address.

Failure to do one of these things is an offence, with a maximum fine of €1,000 (section 132(2)). Secondly, under section 132(3), where a passenger attempts to travel on a train without paying a fare, and “with intent to avoid such payment”, he is guilty of an offence. Again, the maximum fine is €1,000.

This second offence is the most important one and goes to the core of the issue. In order to have committed the offence, the passenger must be on a train without a ticket (the actus reus) and intend to avoid paying the fare (the mens rea).

These offences have to be read in conjunction with statutory instrument 109 of 1984, enacted under section 22(4) of the Transport Act 1950. Bye-law 3 of that SI states that no person shall travel on a train without a valid ticket. It is unclear what the impact of this is, as it is expressly stated that bye-law 3 is not an offence. Bye-law 4 states: 'Where any person is instructed by an authorised person to board a train at a station without purchasing a ticket at the booking office so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station, any person not in possession of a valid ticket entitling him or her to travel may enter a vehicle at that station for the purpose of travelling, but that person must obtain a ticket or other authority from an authorised person on the train as soon as practicable after entering any vehicle, or from an authorised person on arrival at the station to which such person is travelling by the train'."

Everything after the enlarged text falls by the wayside, it's not an either or it's only where instructed can you buy a ticket on board or at the destination.

The whole system though needs revisiting to stop the chancers and thieves from having any hope of escape from paying the fare.

monument

It's worth the time to look at the article in full on page 33 of the PDF linked to in the first post.

There is not strict liability and Irish Rail have said things which are not said it law.

schemingbohemia

I plan to read the whole thing, though given it's source it's obviously looking for arguable/chargeable loopholes.

monument

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I plan to read the whole thing, though given it's source it's obviously looking for arguable/chargeable loopholes.

A loop hole is something which is unintended. The way the laws are written on the other hand is not as strict as Irish Rail or many on here would contend. Intent is very important. But there is also a balanced to this, as the article reads:

"In order to convince the court that they did not have an intention to evade a fare, the passenger would need a good reason for not prepurchasing a ticket, and probably needs to seek out an RPU officer as soon as he has boarded
the train."

Anyway, the law is always shades of grey while people here only see well defined black and white.

Grolschevik

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I plan to read the whole thing, though given it's source it's obviously looking for arguable/chargeable loopholes.

Actually, I think it's written just out of academic interest, as he basically concludes that, in most cases, it's cheaper to pay the fine than engage a solicitor...

schemingbohemia

sorry, I shouldn't have commented on the potential "bias" in the article before reading it!

foggy_lad

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Everything after the enlarged text falls by the wayside, it's not an either or it's only where instructed can you buy a ticket on board or at the destination.

The whole system though needs revisiting to stop the chancers and thieves from having any hope of escape from paying the fare.

But when the booking office is closed or even unattended this can be seen as an instruction from an authorised person as otherwise the booking office would have to be manned for all trains. also in many stations including Kildare and Newbridge the platform signalman doubles up as the ticket clerk so often the booking office is open but empty as the signalman is out on the platform seeing off a train.

AlekSmart

Interesting piece of Legal INTERPRETATION there sure enough

However it may also be worth noting that there may well be some equally interesting developments quite shortly in the Legal position of the entire Irish Rail Revenue Protection operation.

I understand that moves are in train ( :rolleyes: )by Irish Rail to seek a Judicial Review of some recent judgements,which may lead either to significant increases of RPU Activity OR to an entirely new Revenue Protection framework with far less opportunities for debate.....

foggy_lad

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting piece of Legal INTERPRETATION there sure enough

However it may also be worth noting that there may well be some equally interesting developments quite shortly in the Legal position of the entire Irish Rail Revenue Protection operation.

I understand that moves are in train ( :rolleyes: )by Irish Rail to seek a Judicial Review of some recent judgements,which may lead either to significant increases of RPU Activity OR to an entirely new Revenue Protection framework with far less opportunities for debate.....

What recent judgements would they be? Were their penalty fares found to be extortionate be a judge?

AlekSmart

foggy_lad wrote: »

What recent judgements would they be? Were their penalty fares found to be extortionate be a judge?

Nope Foggy,there is no issue with the amount of Penalty Fare or Standard Fare.

I'm not intimate with the actual details,except that it relates to more basic aspects of Revenue Control and the regard being shown by members of the judiciary for adherence to legal procedures ...other than that I cannot say,but it all sounds VERY interesting !!!!

foggy_lad

AlekSmart wrote: »

Nope Foggy,there is no issue with the amount of Penalty Fare or Standard Fare.

I'm not intimate with the actual details,except that it relates to more basic aspects of Revenue Control and the regard being shown by members of the judiciary for adherence to legal procedures ...other than that I cannot say,but it all sounds VERY interesting !!!!

Sounds interesting, So are judges taking the railway statutory instruments to mean exactly what they say? eg: booking office = the booking office and does not include vending machines? or has it more to do with the actual bringing of cases where it has not been shown or proven there was any intent to evade the fare?

AlekSmart

Sorry Foggy,I've no further information,but I'm sure that it will feature in the Legal Diary some day soon?