Irish Rail Fixed Penalty notice

schemingbohemia

In this case are you suggesting that stupidity is a defence as in they never had any intent, oblique or otherwise, because they thought their LEAP card worked everywhere? Even in a place where there are no leap card validators?

n97 mini

Stupidity isn't a legal term.

Not having a validator is not an indication of anything. Kilcoole, which is in the SHZ, doesn't have one. Doesn't mean anything other than it doesn't have one.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

The term oblique and the example you've given are straight from internet searches.

I've bounced this case off a legal person who says that IE would have bit of a job trying to prove intent.

No they are examples of how intent is dealth with and one which anyone in the legal profession (criminal) is aware of and stem from the Hayes case in relation to Oblique intent.

It would be easy enough to prove intent when you take into consideration recklessness and foresight based on the test of objectiveness.

A reasonable person should forsee they may not have a valid ticket if they don't check it's validity, assumption is not enough. It is held that we intend the consequences of an act when a reasonable person foresees that it will probably happen, whether they desire that consequence or not. The OP failed to check that they had a valid ticket and a reasonable person would check if they had a valid ticket, in doing so they were also reckless. This in itself is evidence of intent as it's an objective test in this case.

People have been found guilty of murder using the same test to apply intent, there will be no problem applying it to fare evasion and it has been many times in the District Court, I have seen it many times where a judge will decide in similar cases against the accused based on what a reasonable person would do.

Sit in District Court No.8 on the third Thursday of each month and you will soon see that IE regularly have no problems proving intent when very similar cases appear, and they appear very regularly.

n97 mini wrote: »

They claim to have been completely unaware.

As per the above such cases are not based on what the accused believed or how they acted, but rather based on what a reasonable person would be expected to believe and how a reasonable person would be expected to act.

L1011

Dravokivich wrote: »

All you'll need is the card number. Not the card.

Card is held as evidence more than anything else.

XPS_Zero

Phil.x wrote: »

Since you didn't actually bother to reply it's hard to respond
Either make an argument or don't,
Posting just emojis as an argument makes you look like a 14 year old

When you refuse to pay a fine and it goes to court that's a criminal conviction
It stays beside your name on all those databases.
That's fact, so you can lol it like a tool all you like, but it's the way it is

XPS_Zero

...and don't listen to people who think not knowing is a defence

It's the exact opposite, it's a near famous saying "ignorance of the law is not a defence "

There is intent and action in a crime (yes it's a crime, not a civil thing it's a criminal offence) but recklessness can replace intent in the crime

If I didn't mean to knock you down with my car but I was doing twice the speed limit I'll still get charged with vehicular manslaughter in many countries due to recklessness.
You can't get out of something by saying "sure I didn't know". You should know that too, we're not 5 here were adults. When we use services we accept the rules of those services if we didn't bother reading the easily accessible rules that is our fault

The SHZ is prominently explained on tickets and on the IE website it's not hard to find info like it's not obscure rule 236 section 3B

Imagine if we let people off cos they claimed not to know the rules. Anyone could dodge a fare. A 21 year old could get a child ticket saying he didn't know what age it went up to, you could take your Belfast - Dublin ticket and use it on the whole DART line saying "assumed it was for all of Dublin"


You should also keep in mind bench warrants can be issued for fines once they get high enough, they do it for the TV license fines, I'm not sure if the new laws replacing custodial sentences for fines with the new system to attach pay are in yet, if not, then just ignoring it until you're stopped by the traffic corps one day might be embarrassing or at the airport on the way home

XPS_Zero

n97 mini wrote: »

An example:
Person drives car recklessly in an urban area and kills a pedestrian. Two intents, one direct, one indirect.
Person drives car safely and with due care in an urban area and kills a pedestrian.
Same outcome, but no-one goes to jail.

The term oblique and the example you've given are straight from internet searches.

I've bounced this case off a legal person who says that IE would have bit of a job trying to prove intent.

Judges would be aware of precedent setting

Allowing an intent defence here would mean anyone can get a ticket converting x to y but travel to z saving money then if caught saying they didn't know and boom - a legal way of evading fare

Intent isn't end all and be all there is a huge distinction between not intending to commit a crime and being careless
For example if I start a fight with you and you die cos your head struck the kerb, the state might have a near impossible time proving murder (they don't bother trying in Ireland in many obvious cases of intent to kill but that is another story) as I clearly didn't intend to kill you BUT they might get me for manslaughter instead of assault if I was careless by say shoving you hard to the ground each time you tried to get up and the third time you struck your head

People confuse google with research these days or watching law and order with knowing how the law works for example discussing the JFK assassination I always hear people smugly saying "x had motive and opportunity "...cos that phrase litters media legal dramas and movies but those two are utterly meaningless on their own there might be 6 people who have those you need some actual evidence linking that specific person to the crime

If our legal system required pure intent without taking carelessness or recklessness into account in every case it would be farcical

beauf

I think boards has outdone itself going from not paying the correct fare with Murder and JFK assassination.

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

There has to be intent. This is basic stuff.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/132/enacted/en/html

The intent is clear until you get caught and looking for a way out and then it turns to " I didn't mean it ".

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

You've been on wikipedia! Oblique intent (aka indirect intent) is still a form of intent. The OP didn't do anything on purpose. They claim to have been completely unaware.

I got a fine for going over the speed limit recently, i didnt mean to but i still got fined. Should i appeal based on the fact that i didnt mean to go over the limit.?

JCX BXC

This sounds absolutely shocking for someone who made an honest mistake. The complete lack of empathy from the users on here is completely surprising, 10k is half of the OP's wage!

GM228

XPS_Zero wrote: »

There is intent and action in a crime (yes it's a crime, not a civil thing it's a criminal offence) but recklessness can replace intent in the crime

Just a small point, recklessness can't replace intent. When intent is required in law for a criminal offence it still needs to be shown either way using evidence of such.

The inference of intent can be drawn from the evidence of recklessness or foresight and that is how intent is proven objectively in these cases.


With so much focus on intent I forgot to mention that S132 of the Railway Safety Act 2005 does not actually require intent to take a charge against someone for failing to produce a valid ticket showing the fair has been paid. S132 (2)(a) is a strict liability offence.

Also worth noting that S3(2) of the Coras Iompair Éireann Bye-Laws (Confirmation) Order 1984 also makes it a strict liability offence if they prefer to charge you under the Transport Act 1950 instead of the Railway Safety Act 2005.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

punisher5112

JCX BXC wrote: »

This sounds absolutely shocking for someone who made an honest mistake. The complete lack of empathy from the users on here is completely surprising, 10k is half of the OP's wage!

Its a 1k fine not 10k

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Do RPU persons have the power to search a person if they fail to produce a ticket or leap card?

No.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

That is very interesting. So a person with a leap card containing incriminating evidence of a history of fare evasion can keep it hidden and only suffer 1 penalty fare?

Correct.

goingnowhere

1 penalty fare yes

Nothing in law stopping civil proceedings for fares unpaid

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I got a fine for going over the speed limit recently, i didnt mean to but i still got fined. Should i appeal based on the fact that i didnt mean to go over the limit.?

Was the speed limit clearly indicated? If not then I would say you have grounds for an appeal.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

Was the speed limit clearly indicated? If not then I would say you have grounds for an appeal.

Have seen it tried unsuccessfully here.

Whilst motorists in the UK have had similar results.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/motorist_loses_dereham_road_camera_battle_1_1989651

There was a UK High Court case on the issue in 2006 which didn't address the issue properly though.

n97 mini

GM228 wrote: »

Have seen it tried unsuccessfully here.

Whilst motorists in the UK have had similar results.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/motorist_loses_dereham_road_camera_battle_1_1989651

There was a UK High Court case on the issue in 2006 which didn't address the issue properly though.

District Judge Peter Veits agreed that the signs were covered by foliage but he questioned why the driver did not see a 30mph sign on the right-hand side of the city-bound road which was not covered by bushes and trees.

Clearly indicated.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

Clearly indicated.

Fair enough, I assumed you were raising the defence of simply not seeing the sign rather than poor position/viewing etc, but again this is something I have never seen successfully tested in an Irish court and also an area where UK and Irish law for example divert.

In the UK for example you can successfully apply that defence because statute requires a prosecution for speeding to fail where the Council have not adequately maintained a sign. But no such defence is provided for in Irish law.

I would imagine it would be difficult if not impossible to apply such a defence to speeding especially when you consider speeding to be a strict liability offence, no mental element is required, you don't need to know you have done wrong or acted wilfully to be guilty so the provision of a sign or not could be irrelevant.

Add to that the fact that speed limits are set either by an act of the Oireachtas in the case of ordinary speed limits, bye-laws for special speed limits and road work speed limit orders for roadworks speed limits - this would prevent a valid defence of a poorly indicated sign under the principles of ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Would make a very interesting test case in the High Court though.

That said however statute does provide a defence of the wrong speed limit sign being applied.

n97 mini

My sister used the same defence about 2 years ago. All signs were obscured by foliage, both sides of the road. It worked for her, but her argument admittedly was with the garda that that caught her. She told him she was willing to contest in court and took photos to support her argument.

Hilly Bill

Here is the clincher, the OP told the job that they would be travelling from maynooth since that's where they had moved to so was given a card / ticket based on the info they were given. The op then decided to drive to a station further away from maynooth just because the parking was better and it wasn't manned and they wouldn't be challenged.
It doesn't sound like an honest mistake to me as the op knew that they were travelling outside the limit of the ticket that they were given.

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Here is the clincher, the OP told the job that they would be travelling from maynooth since that's where they had moved to so was given a card / ticket based on the info they were given. The op then decided to drive to a station further away from maynooth just because the parking was better and it wasn't manned and they wouldn't be challenged.
It doesn't sound like an honest mistake to me as the op knew that they were travelling outside the limit of the ticket that they were given.

Have you considered applying to the bar association?

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

Have you considered applying to the bar association?

I've been in many bars :-). You don't need to be a legal wizz here, just the ability to read what the op posted in the first post.

Laura4193

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Here is the clincher, the OP told the job that they would be travelling from maynooth since that's where they had moved to so was given a card / ticket based on the info they were given. The op then decided to drive to a station further away from maynooth just because the parking was better and it wasn't manned and they wouldn't be challenged.
It doesn't sound like an honest mistake to me as the op knew that they were travelling outside the limit of the ticket that they were given.

Hilly Bill, I had no idea what exact ticket I was given, I was told "Bus and Rail" that was it. Yes I told work Maynooth because that's my address but I'm not aware of the Short Hop Zone out that way as i've only moved and I certainly wasn't aware of my ticket being a "Short Hop Zone" ticket.

I had thought "TaxSaver" was done differently, it was my first time getting transport paid for me and public transport tickets for work, I had always driven in previous jobs.

Laura4193

Okay since all this happened I've been keeping an eye on their Fixed Payment Notice website to see the figure they were going to charge (the original fine and the "unpaid fares") and the system has always told me that my fine wasn't on record yet.
Assuming this meant the fares hadn't been calculated.

Then last Wednesday it finally showed up for €108.10. I called them the day after just to be sure and they only charged me €108.10 and told me my pass would be posted back out to me.
That was on the 16th March.

Since then I received a letter dated 14th March saying I actually owed €696.60 plus the fine and fare of €108.10.
Apparently they had calculated that I had used the train 86 times, which I couldn't even admit to if I wanted to because there's been plenty of times I may have gone through a gate at Maynooth that was open or anything!

Would I have more of a chance now that I've paid the original fare, I was told by staff I was paid up and their penalty online system tells me I'm paid too?

GM228

Laura4193 wrote: »

Okay since all this happened I've been keeping an eye on their Fixed Payment Notice website to see the figure they were going to charge (the original fine and the "unpaid fares") and the system has always told me that my fine wasn't on record yet.
Assuming this meant the fares hadn't been calculated.

Then last Wednesday it finally showed up for €108.10. I called them the day after just to be sure and they only charged me €108.10 and told me my pass would be posted back out to me.
That was on the 16th March.

Since then I received a letter dated 14th March saying I actually owed €696.60 plus the fine and fare of €108.10.
Apparently they had calculated that I had used the train 86 times, which I couldn't even admit to if I wanted to because there's been plenty of times I may have gone through a gate at Maynooth that was open or anything!

Would I have more of a chance now that I've paid the original fare, I was told by staff I was paid up and their penalty online system tells me I'm paid too?

The reason why the system says you are paid up is because it's for the original fine and fare for which you received the penalty notice for under the Railway Safety Act.

The new figure is a seperate issue to the fixed penalty and can't be shown on the system as it's a civil issue, only the fine and appropriate fare as per the penalty notice can be shown on the system.

Laura4193

GM228 wrote: »

The reason why the system says you are paid up is because it's for the original fine and fare for which you received the penalty notice for under the Railway Safety Act.

The new figure is a seperate issue to the fixed penalty and can't be shown on the system as it's a civil issue, only the fine and appropriate fare as per the penalty notice can be shown on the system.

Okay but what I don't understand is the letter puts the two together, i.e. the "unpaid fares" and the fine and tells me that I can call their number and pay over the phone the total amount.

Which, two days after the letter was written I did and I was only quoted for the €108.10??

n97 mini

The 2nd one is for 86 times €8.10, but you're already covered for Maynooth to Connolly so surely that should be 86 x €5.95?

Laura4193

n97 mini wrote: »

The 2nd one is for 86 times €8.10, but you're already covered for Maynooth to Connolly so surely that should be 86 x €5.95?

It should technically yes but I've heard if you argue it that they threaten to charge the €100 fine per trip, so 86 x €100

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hilly Bill

Laura4193 wrote: »

Hilly Bill, I had no idea what exact ticket I was given, I was told "Bus and Rail" that was it. Yes I told work Maynooth because that's my address but I'm not aware of the Short Hop Zone out that way as i've only moved and I certainly wasn't aware of my ticket being a "Short Hop Zone" ticket.

I had thought "TaxSaver" was done differently, it was my first time getting transport paid for me and public transport tickets for work, I had always driven in previous jobs.

That's fair enough, and i sympathy with you but the main word there is Maynooth and you drove to a station in the opposite direction. Hope you get sorted.

Hilly Bill

Laura4193 wrote: »

Okay since all this happened I've been keeping an eye on their Fixed Payment Notice website to see the figure they were going to charge (the original fine and the "unpaid fares") and the system has always told me that my fine wasn't on record yet.
Assuming this meant the fares hadn't been calculated.

Then last Wednesday it finally showed up for €108.10. I called them the day after just to be sure and they only charged me €108.10 and told me my pass would be posted back out to me.
That was on the 16th March.

Since then I received a letter dated 14th March saying I actually owed €696.60 plus the fine and fare of €108.10.
Apparently they had calculated that I had used the train 86 times, which I couldn't even admit to if I wanted to because there's been plenty of times I may have gone through a gate at Maynooth that was open or anything!

Would I have more of a chance now that I've paid the original fare, I was told by staff I was paid up and their penalty online system tells me I'm paid too?

I'd appeal the second one and ask them how they came up with 86 and on what date and time They caught you once and you have paid it so I can't see how they can prove that you have travelled before from kilcock when you didn't tag on there unless they checked cctv.

punisher5112

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I'd appeal the second one and ask them how they came up with 86 and on what date and time They caught you once and you have paid it so I can't see how they can prove that you have travelled before from kilcock when you didn't tag on there unless they checked cctv.

They will look at leap card transaction and see only tagged at one end.

Isambard

punisher5112 wrote: »

They will look at leap card transaction and see only tagged at one end.

that's a reasonable assumption, being as it has already been admitted that this occurred.

MOH

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I've been in many bars :-). You don't need to be a legal wizz here, just the ability to read what the op posted in the first post.

... And pick and choose which parts to believe

Hilly Bill

MOH wrote: »

... And pick and choose which parts to believe

That's what you do on a discussion forum or do you believe it all?

devnull

Hilly Bill wrote: »

That's what you do on a discussion forum or do you believe it all?

It's rare that I would agree with someone in relation to Irish Rail and even less that I would agree with you, but on this occasion I think you are pretty much spot on,

OP - the lads and lasses who will dish out the fines and catch you have heard all the excuses before, pretty much everyone who evades has an excuse to fit the circumstances.

However you should also feed this back to HR and get them to make it clear to their employees the travel area that the pass covers, because if what you say is true they didn't help you.

alig123aileen

I have empathy for the situation you find yourself in . You clearly did not mean to cheat the system. Since when did Irish rail inspectors and managers on your train turn into moral police and threaten you with back payment of 1k. Sorry but their reaction is ridiculous and implies there are thousands of people travelling the maynooth to kilcock train each day free just to swindle irish rail out of millions.I'd complain in writing to their head office especially regarding the way the manager and inspector dealt with you as no matter what you did you should have been treated with dignity and respect and I'd ask for a copy of their terms and conditions of the short hop fare and of the ticket you bought. Threaten to write to Shane Ross the transport minister or the national transport authority. I don't expect you will get very far with irish rail head office but it's worth a try. You didn't realise, you owned up, you offered to pay, you are a reasonable honest individual and still they intimated you had to pay back money of 1000. You may be liable to pay a nominal fine but please put up a spirited defence. This sort of nonsense has to stop. Just my humble opinion From me the minister of common sense:)

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

That's what you do on a discussion forum or do you believe it all?

On this forum the high horses are very quick to come out in fairness. Stupidity should be punished, or similar.

When people post here I prefer to take them at face value, not immediately suspect them of trying to cheat the system. If anyone had a spot of trouble and asked me should the post here looking for advice or similar experience, my recommendation would be a resounding "no".

magicbastarder

alig123aileen wrote: »

Threaten to write to Shane Ross the transport minister

is there any history of transport ministers intervening in fare & fine disputes?

Hilly Bill

alig123aileen wrote: »

I have empathy for the situation you find yourself in . You clearly did not mean to cheat the system. Since when did Irish rail inspectors and managers on your train turn into moral police and threaten you with back payment of 1k. Sorry but their reaction is ridiculous and implies there are thousands of people travelling the maynooth to kilcock train each day free just to swindle irish rail out of millions.I'd complain in writing to their head office especially regarding the way the manager and inspector dealt with you as no matter what you did you should have been treated with dignity and respect and I'd ask for a copy of their terms and conditions of the short hop fare and of the ticket you bought. Threaten to write to Shane Ross the transport minister or the national transport authority. I don't expect you will get very far with irish rail head office but it's worth a try. You didn't realise, you owned up, you offered to pay, you are a reasonable honest individual and still they intimated you had to pay back money of 1000. You may be liable to pay a nominal fine but please put up a spirited defence. This sort of nonsense has to stop. Just my humble opinion From me the minister of common sense:)

You forgot Joe Duffy. Writing to head office won't get you anywhere as it's the ceo's decision to apply a zero tolerance approach to fare evading be it intentionally or otherwise. The minister or the NTA won't have any interest either. If the op felt they wasn't treated fairly or in a dignified manner then let the revenue crowd know when they are disputing the back payment.

alig123aileen

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You forgot Joe Duffy. Writing to head office won't get you anywhere as it's the ceo's decision to apply a zero tolerance approach to fare evading be it intentionally or otherwise. The minister or the NTA won't have any interest either. If the op felt they wasn't treated fairly or in a dignified manner then let the revenue crowd know when they are disputing the back payment.

The minister or NTA will of course investigate a complaint and while you might get the same outcome at least you will have pursued all channels. The sooner we get a minister for common sense the better. You might also be able to bring them to the ombusdsman (civil service/state ombudsman).

Hilly Bill

alig123aileen wrote: »

The minister or NTA will of course investigate a complaint and while you might get the same outcome at least you will have pursued all channels. The sooner we get a minister for common sense the better. You might also be able to bring them to the ombusdsman (civil service/state ombudsman).

Time and effort can be saved by being realistic. Do you honestly think the minister or the NTA will entertain you if you tell them that you got fined because you made a mistake?

magicbastarder

alig123aileen wrote: »

The minister or NTA will of course investigate a complaint

what makes you say this? it's not the minister's job to intervene in ongoing issues like this.

MOH

Hilly Bill wrote: »

That's what you do on a discussion forum or do you believe it all?

If the OP posts something saying they've made a genuine mistake and asking for advice, I'll take that at face value unless it's something completely unreasonable. Otherwise what's the point?
Especially when there's a long history of people unfamiliar with IR being penalised for being honest.

Hilly Bill

It's always a mistake after a fine is issued. If the op tells me they made a mistake then I'll take their word for it.