Luas Fine - Appeal Failed

Squall

So another luas fine thread! Just looking for opinions here. I tagged on at Stephens green last Friday at 16:50. Inspectors jumped on at Cowper and started checking tickets. I gave him my leap card but his scanner wouldn't read it. We noticed the card had a crack on it. He gave me a SFN which I accepted as I knew I was tagged on and my Leap card is registered so I can review my transactions. A few day later the transaction appeared on my Leap card history and I appealed the fine and provided screenshot of the transaction history including the tag on. They have now come back and said my appeal had failed. So I was travelling on a valid ticket but am still being asked to pay a fine. Any thoughts?

I plan to call then and ask exactly which piece of the bye law they feel I was in breach of. Will see how that goes!

billybonkers

Chancers!

You sent them a screen shot of the tag on, they would also have this on their system and be able to access it.

Just call them and explain that to them.

liger

Squall wrote: »

So another luas fine thread! Just looking for opinions here.

Any thoughts?

I plan to call then and ask exactly which piece of the bye law they feel I was in breach of. Will see how that goes!

Did you produce a valid ticket for inspection ? no your card was damaged and unreadable so you got a r
standard fare... failure to produce a valid ticket is the bus law you breached.

Why did they reject your appeal when you could prove you had tagged on. Proving after the fact doesn't make you compliant with bye laws. But common sense should have prevailed.

Let it go to court if they want, bring your card print off, their response to the appeal and ask them to provide proof the inspectors card reader was in perfect working order on the day and It'll be either withdrawn by luas or thrown out by a judge.

Squall

liger wrote: »

Did you produce a valid ticket for inspection ? no your card was damaged and unreadable so you got a r
standard fare... failure to produce a valid ticket is the bus law you breached.

Why did they reject your appeal when you could prove you had tagged on. Proving after the fact doesn't make you compliant with bye laws. But common sense should have prevailed.

Let it go to court if they want, bring your card print off, their response to the appeal and ask them to provide proof the inspectors card reader was in perfect working order on the day and It'll be either withdrawn by luas or thrown out by a judge.

That's my thinking too. I have no intention of paying this fine so will be going to court if necessary. Just feels like a total waste of time

devnull

How long was the difference between tagging on and being inspected?

ebbsy

Squall wrote: »

That's my thinking too. I have no intention of paying this fine so will be going to court if necessary. Just feels like a total waste of time

Do that.

Pelvis

devnull wrote: »

How long was the difference between tagging on and being inspected?

Stephen's Green to Cowper is only 4 stops or so.

devnull

Pelvis wrote: »

Stephen's Green to Cowper is only 4 stops or so.

I'm talking about time in this particular case because it's one of the things that are taken into consideration with appeals like this.

Pkiernan

By the way there is no need to mention that your card was damaged.
More like the inspectors scanner was not up to the job, as your card was read by the card reader when you tagged on.
Not your job to prove you're card is fully operational, only to prove that you paid.

goingnowhere

They have no case here

You had a valid ticket, you did tag on and the records prove this. That's the bye law requirement, to present a valid ticket or other authorisation for travel

Shoddy equipment and poor training are not your fault.

You should have been asked to step off the tram and tag off or place the card in the ticket machine to validate.

I'd put everything in writing restating clearly that you have described above, ensure you include a full print out of the transaction history which shows the card number and photo of said card (unless they retained it)

Be very clear that you will seek full costs against Transdev for all costs you incur from this point forward in resolving the matter

Squall

devnull wrote: »

I'm talking about time in this particular case because it's one of the things that are taken into consideration with appeals like this.

I tagged on at 16:50 and the SFN was issued at 17:04. Well within the luas travel time

I called them earlier and asked why my appeal had been denied. Their answer was I wasn't tagged on. I pointed out I was, again, and that my transaction history proves I was. They're now reviewing it further. It's not really rocket science!

Will be taking some of the advice here if they continue to try and make me pay. Ridiculous

markpb

Squall wrote: »

I called them earlier and asked why my appeal had been denied.

The only problem I can see is that there's no proof that the card scanned by the inspector is the card that you're showing the screenshot of. What details did the inspector record on the fine notice, was the Leapcard number on it? Is it a personalised card with your photo on it?

Dravokivich

markpb wrote: »

The only problem I can see is that there's no proof that the card scanned by the inspector is the card that you're showing the screenshot of. What details did the inspector record on the fine notice, was the Leapcard number on it? Is it a personalised card with your photo on it?

But if that's the case, OP would have to find someone else's card to use that was tagged on within that time frame, long after the fact. Which is rather unlikely.

magicbastarder

there's also an argument that the inspector should have taken the serial number of the card scanned, to preclude that possibility. otherwise the burden of proof then falls on the accused, rather than the accuser.

Squall

markpb wrote: »

The only problem I can see is that there's no proof that the card scanned by the inspector is the card that you're showing the screenshot of. What details did the inspector record on the fine notice, was the Leapcard number on it? Is it a personalised card with your photo on it?

The inspector included the leap card number on the SFN form. I pointed out that the number shown in the screenshot matched the number on the form when I submitted it. It's possible they were thinking the same but I should be covered there too I think

heretothere

Print off your transaction history, have it on actual paper. If they feel embarrassed about a silly mistake could a transaction history listing disappear? Try to have the website tag and the date/ time on the print out too.
Hopefully they come to their senses though

Squall

heretothere wrote: »

Print off your transaction history, have it on actual paper. If they feel embarrassed about a silly mistake could a transaction history listing disappear? Try to have the website tag and the date/ time on the print out too.
Hopefully they come to their senses though

Well to be be fair leap cards aren't provided by Transdev. They're their own company so if that were to happen it would point at serious wrong doing on both their parts. But I do have a hard copy just in case!

namloc1980

They are just chancing their arm. Definitely tell them you'll be seeking all costs.

ANXIOUS

Do they not confiscate the leap card? I think Irish rail do.

Squall

Right so after 3 phone calls I got the fine cancelled. Got someone with a bit of common sense!

Stephen15

Squall wrote: »

Right so after 3 phone calls I got the fine cancelled. Got someone with a bit of common sense!

I was going to suggest a defamation case but probably not worth the hassle if the fine was cancelled

magicbastarder

Stephen15 wrote: »

I was going to suggest a defamation case

Grab All Association

I seen the exact same happen to a DSP PSC. IÉ inspector waved on the person regardless because he had common sense. A fine should be issued conditionally in situations like the OP but should be quickly removed when evidence is presented. The system can work. It's just poor customer care is all.

Victor

Replace the card if it is cracked and difficult to read.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I was going to suggest a defamation case but probably not worth the hassle if the fine was cancelled

Defamation needs publication. Who was this publicised to?

Stephen15

Victor wrote: »

Defamation needs publication.

Who was this publicised to?

Well you hear regularly of cases of people trying it on trying to sue Dublin Bus regularly because drivers called them names. I remember there was a case there recently where a man successfully sued a Centra shop there recently because he was falsely accused of not paying for a purchase. Would the OP have not been falsely accused of fare dodging.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-falsely-accused-of-stealing-2-pastry-from-centra-awarded-20000-35571978.html

liger

markpb wrote: »

The only problem I can see is that there's no proof that the card scanned by the inspector is the card that you're showing the screenshot of. What details did the inspector record on the fine notice, was the Leapcard number on it? Is it a personalised card with your photo on it?

Just to clarify this... The leap card has a card number on it and this should show on the transaction history also. So the Op would be able to prove it was his card used.

Glad to see that common sense prevailed and you got it cancelled.

devnull

liger wrote: »

Just to clarify this... The leap card has a card number on it and this should show on the transaction history also. So the Op would be able to prove it was his card used.

Unfortunately whilst the OP was an honest fellow and rightfully got his fine cancelled, those screenshots are easy to fake and sadly I have heard examples where they have been faked in order to try and get out of a fine.

magicbastarder

Victor wrote: »

Defamation needs publication.

not so sure - libel implies publication; defamation not so, but would be commonly referred to slander in verbal interactions. however, i may not know what i am talking about.

Victor

magicbastarder wrote: »

not so sure - libel implies publication; defamation not so, but would be commonly referred to slander in verbal interactions. however, i may not know what i am talking about.

"Publication" is rendering something public, it need not be in print.

Defamation replaced libel and slander in the Defamation 2009 Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/6/enacted/en/html

6.— (1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—

(a) shall cease to be so described, and

(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the “ tort of defamation ”.

(2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

AlekSmart

Victor wrote: »

"Publication" is rendering something public, it need not be in print.

Defamation replaced libel and slander in the Defamation 2009 Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/section/6/enacted/en/html

Is like..."I defame you,I defame you,I defame you " ?

antoinolachtnai

There is a software issue here as I understand it. The ticket checking device does not actually read whether there is a valid ticket on the card. It reads another variable which is set on the card. The purpose of that variable is solely to ensure compatitibility with the ticket checking device. The variable is not the same as the ticket and is not definitive proof that there is no ticket. It is not very likely that there would be a ticket on the card but this variable was not set, but it is possible.

It is also possible in the OP's case that the card was damaged in a way such that it scanned fine on the 'official' leap reader that is used in the tag-on/tag-off devices and on the ticket machines but would not scan on the ticket checking device.

Re the legalities, if you had not resolved the issue at the appeal stage as you did, the next stage would appear to be judicial review proceedings at the High Court. In strict legal terms, you cannot go down to the District Court and make your case about Transdev having made a mistake in giving you a penalty. You would be brought to court for failing to pay the administrative penalty, not for failing to have a ticket. The facts of the fare evasion charge would not arise in the District Court.

plodder

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Re the legalities, if you had not resolved the issue at the appeal stage as you did, the next stage would appear to be judicial review proceedings at the High Court. In strict legal terms, you cannot go down to the District Court and make your case about Transdev having made a mistake in giving you a penalty. You would be brought to court for failing to pay the administrative penalty, not for failing to have a ticket. The facts of the fare evasion charge would not arise in the District Court.

That doesn't sound right to me. Why couldn't you challenge the facts in the District Court? The validity of the penalty can't just be assumed by the DC.

Dravokivich

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is a software issue here as I understand it. The ticket checking device does not actually read whether there is a valid ticket on the card. It reads another variable which is set on the card. The purpose of that variable is solely to ensure compatitibility with the ticket checking device. The variable is not the same as the ticket and is not definitive proof that there is no ticket. It is not very likely that there would be a ticket on the card but this variable was not set, but it is possible.

It is also possible in the OP's case that the card was damaged in a way such that it scanned fine on the 'official' leap reader that is used in the tag-on/tag-off devices and on the ticket machines but would not scan on the ticket checking device.

Re the legalities, if you had not resolved the issue at the appeal stage as you did, the next stage would appear to be judicial review proceedings at the High Court. In strict legal terms, you cannot go down to the District Court and make your case about Transdev having made a mistake in giving you a penalty. You would be brought to court for failing to pay the administrative penalty, not for failing to have a ticket. The facts of the fare evasion charge would not arise in the District Court.

They just read the card status, looking to see it's been tagged on. Otherwise an inspector can view the last 5 actions of the card. So even if the status is incorrect (for whatever reason) they can check it's been tagged on.

plodder

devnull wrote: »

Unfortunately whilst the OP was an honest fellow and rightfully got his fine cancelled, those screenshots are easy to fake and sadly I have heard examples where they have been faked in order to try and get out of a fine.

Wouldn't surprise me if someone would try that, but surely each tag on is recorded in their logs too, and that is what they should have checked at the initial appeal?

On the "defamation" question, I think people have sued over similar cases before. The "publication" is the act of issuing the penalty, which is asserting to the traveling public (on that luas at least) that the OP might not be such an honest fellow after all. It's fairly tenuous, but there definitely has been cases.

antoinolachtnai

plodder wrote: »

That doesn't sound right to me. Why couldn't you challenge the facts in the District Court? The validity of the penalty can't just be assumed by the DC.

It is counterintuitive, and it is a pretty technical legal thing. The standard fare is an administrative penalty. You are assuming that the District Court is an avenue of appeal. It isn't.

If you were brought to the District Court, the issue of why you were required to pay the standard fare would not arise. They would be prosecuting you for failing to pay. The Transdev inspector would not be required to prove his case to the Judge that you had not paid the penalty fare. He doesn't have to prove anything about you not having a ticket.

You might well get a hearing in the District Court, and the judge might decide not to convict you, but this is by no means guaranteed.

antoinolachtnai

Dravokivich wrote: »

They just read the card status, looking to see it's been tagged on. Otherwise an inspector can view the last 5 actions of the card. So even if the status is incorrect (for whatever reason) they can check it's been tagged on.

The variable I am talking about is that, whether it has been tagged on or tagged off and any history that is recorded. But the tagged-on / tagged-off information is not itself the ticket, it is a copy of some of the information in the ticket.

This is a pretty technical point, for sure.

plodder

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is counterintuitive, and it is a pretty technical legal thing. The standard fare is an administrative penalty. You are assuming that the District Court is an avenue of appeal. It isn't.

If you were brought to the District Court, the issue of why you were required to pay the standard fare would not arise. They would be prosecuting you for failing to pay. The Transdev inspector would not be required to prove his case to the Judge that you had not paid the penalty fare. He doesn't have to prove anything about you not having a ticket.

You might well get a hearing in the District Court, and the judge might decide not to convict you, but this is by no means guaranteed.

I understand the point. I just don't believe it.

You seem to be saying that Transdev can issue a penalty in literally anyone's name and then take that person to court for failing to pay, but the person can't challenge the validity of the penalty outside the High Court. That doesn't make sense.

Maybe the problem is the word "appeal". The appeal to Transdev is not a judicial appeal. They aren't a court of law. When it arrives at the District Court, it is just a dispute. Or maybe it's a matter of legal procedure. They might be trying to prosecute you for failing to pay their penalty. But, you would be at the same time challenging the penalty.

antoinolachtnai

plodder wrote: »

I understand the point. I just don't believe it.

You seem to be saying that Transdev can issue a penalty in literally anyone's name and then take that person to court for failing to pay, but the person can't challenge the validity of the penalty outside the High Court. That doesn't make sense.

Maybe the problem is the word "appeal". The appeal to Transdev is not a judicial appeal. They aren't a court of law. When it arrives at the District Court, it is just a dispute. Or maybe it's a matter of legal procedure. They might be trying to prosecute you for failing to pay their penalty. But, you would be at the same time challenging the penalty.

It isn't 'just a dispute' when it reaches the District Court. You are being charged with an offence. The inspector is in court as your accuser and will have all his proofs ready. He will accuse you of not paying the standard fare and will have the proofs for that. Transdev won't have experts in court who know about the ticketing system, so you won't really be able to cross examine anybody about what went wrong.

In the OP's case, he has already appealed the application of the penalty fare through the Transdev process. If he had ultimately failed in his appeal this then this would no doubt be stated in Court.

plodder

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It isn't 'just a dispute' when it reaches the District Court. You are being charged with an offence. The inspector is in court as your accuser and will have all his proofs ready. He will accuse you of not paying the standard fare and will have the proofs for that. Transdev won't have experts in court who know about the ticketing system, so you won't really be able to cross examine anybody about what went wrong.

In the OP's case, he has already appealed the application of the penalty fare through the Transdev process. If he had ultimately failed in his appeal this then this would no doubt be stated in Court.

Not a lawyer, and not familiar with the relevant laws either but assuming you're being charged with an offence, you are allowed to defend yourself in court, by producing evidence and requesting the person prosecuting to do the same. I'm struggling to see why the normal principles of "innocent until proven guity" and the general burden being on the prosecution to prove their case, wouldn't apply here.

If it happened to me, I would bring along a print out showing my transaction history. You could cross-examine the inspector using that. By rights, they could bring their own records of the same information and you would be able to examine those. If they don't have that information to hand, then I would expect a judge to throw the case out.

antoinolachtnai

If you don't pay the standard fare you have committed an offence, plain and simple.

The printouts have nothing to do with it. You were charged a standard fare and you deliberately didn't pay it.

You want to bring the argument that the standard fare was applied in error. That may well be the case, but you really should have taken that up with Transdev or the RPA or the NTA or whomever. It has nothing to do with what you are being tried for.

The inspectors aren't technical people. They most likely won't answer questions about your printouts. Your printouts are not really useful evidence in the context of criminal proceedings anyway - they haven't been verified by anybody -. The inspectors (there will likely be two of them and one of you) will just say they followed their procedures and issued you a standard fare ticket in accordance with their procedures, which you then failed to pay. They will no doubt say that you had the opportunity to take the matter up through their appeals process, that you were given a fair hearing and that your appeal was rejected. You had the opportunity to challenge the procedure, but didn't bother to.

I am not saying it is just, but that is what would happen. The way the law is set up is very tough for the defendant in terms of procedure. That's why they have the standard fare system.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Re the legalities, if you had not resolved the issue at the appeal stage as you did, the next stage would appear to be judicial review proceedings at the High Court. In strict legal terms, you cannot go down to the District Court and make your case about Transdev having made a mistake in giving you a penalty. You would be brought to court for failing to pay the administrative penalty, not for failing to have a ticket. The facts of the fare evasion charge would not arise in the District Court.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You are assuming that the District Court is an avenue of appeal. It isn't.

If you were brought to the District Court, the issue of why you were required to pay the standard fare would not arise. They would be prosecuting you for failing to pay. The Transdev inspector would not be required to prove his case to the Judge that you had not paid the penalty fare. He doesn't have to prove anything about you not having a ticket.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It isn't 'just a dispute' when it reaches the District Court. You are being charged with an offence. The inspector is in court as your accuser and will have all his proofs ready. He will accuse you of not paying the standard fare and will have the proofs for that. Transdev won't have experts in court who know about the ticketing system, so you won't really be able to cross examine anybody about what went wrong.

In the OP's case, he has already appealed the application of the penalty fare through the Transdev process. If he had ultimately failed in his appeal this then this would no doubt be stated in Court.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You want to bring the argument that the standard fare was applied in error. That may well be the case, but you really should have taken that up with Transdev or the RPA or the NTA or whomever. It has nothing to do with what you are being tried for.

The inspectors aren't technical people. They most likely won't answer questions about your printouts. Your printouts are not really useful evidence in the context of criminal proceedings anyway - they haven't been verified by anybody -. The inspectors (there will likely be two of them and one of you) will just say they followed their procedures and issued you a standard fare ticket in accordance with their procedures, which you then failed to pay. They will no doubt say that you had the opportunity to take the matter up through their appeals process, that you were given a fair hearing and that your appeal was rejected. You had the opportunity to challenge the procedure, but didn't bother to.

I am not saying it is just, but that is what would happen. The way the law is set up is very tough for the defendant in terms of procedure. That's why they have the standard fare system.

You have all of that completely wrong and obviously no idea about how the DC works in relation to this or when a judicial review is appropriate, nor do you seem to understand the principle of nemo iudex in causa sua - no-one should be a judge in his own cause, the DC is the appeal to the standard fare and the accusation of criminal wrongdoing, the onus of proof in every aspect belongs with the prosecutor (Transdev).

If you state you didn't pay the fare because you had a valid ticket in the first place you are making your defence and the prosecutor must rebut your defence.

plodder

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you don't pay the standard fare you have committed an offence, plain and simple.

What if you weren't in the country at the time, and they have the wrong person?

Are you seriously saying you can't challenge that in the district court?

The printouts have nothing to do with it. You were charged a standard fare and you deliberately didn't pay it.

You want to bring the argument that the standard fare was applied in error. That may well be the case, but you really should have taken that up with Transdev or the RPA or the NTA or whomever. It has nothing to do with what you are being tried for.

I suspect it wouldn't help your case if you didn't appeal it through the administrative system first. But, the point of this thread is a case where that happened and they didn't play ball initially at least. The whole point of a justice system is that well trained professionals, (judges) can review incidents like this objectively and with all relevant information considered. There is no way that a judge would ignore relevant exculpatory evidence.

The inspectors aren't technical people. They most likely won't answer questions about your printouts. Your printouts are not really useful evidence in the context of criminal proceedings anyway - they haven't been verified by anybody -. The inspectors (there will likely be two of them and one of you) will just say they followed their procedures and issued you a standard fare ticket in accordance with their procedures, which you then failed to pay. They will no doubt say that you had the opportunity to take the matter up through their appeals process, that you were given a fair hearing and that your appeal was rejected. You had the opportunity to challenge the procedure, but didn't bother to.

I am not saying it is just, but that is what would happen. The way the law is set up is very tough for the defendant in terms of procedure. That's why they have the standard fare system.

It's true that printouts brought by the "accused" aren't irrefutable evidence, but they are evidence. And if the inspector isn't willing to produce evidence to rebut it then I'd expect the judge to throw the case out. They might adjourn the case to allow the prosecution to produce it, but there is absolutely no way that a judge would convict someone without just cause and significant evidence.

antoinolachtnai

plodder wrote: »

What if you weren't in the country at the time, and they have the wrong person?

Are you seriously saying you can't challenge that in the district court?

Sure, you could challenge that. There are plenty of bases on which you could challenge that.

But the one the OP is talking about, there would be no entitlement.

I suspect it wouldn't help your case if you didn't appeal it through the administrative system first. But, the point of this thread is a case where that happened and they didn't play ball initially at least. The whole point of a justice system is that well trained professionals, (judges) can review incidents like this objectively and with all relevant information considered. There is no way that a judge would ignore relevant exculpatory evidence.

Lots of minor offences are dealt with in a fairly summary fashion.

It's true that printouts brought by the "accused" aren't irrefutable evidence, but they are evidence. And if the inspector isn't willing to produce evidence to rebut it then I'd expect the judge to throw the case out. They might adjourn the case to allow the prosecution to produce it, but there is absolutely no way that a judge would convict someone without just cause and significant evidence.

The problem is that the evidence that the accused would be bringing would not be exculpatory, because it has no direct relationship to do with the alleged offence. The alleged offence would be failure to pay the standard fare. The exculpatory evidence would relate to the failure to pay the correct fare. The issue of whether the correct fare was paid in the first instance was an issue that was already resolved (though not to the accused's satisfaction) through the Transdev process.

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

You have all of that completely wrong and obviously no idea about how the DC works in relation to this or when a judicial review is appropriate, nor do you seem to understand the principle of nemo iudex in causa sua - no-one should be a judge in his own cause, the DC is the appeal to the standard fare and the accusation of criminal wrongdoing, the onus of proof in every aspect belongs with the prosecutor (Transdev).

If you state you didn't pay the fare because you had a valid ticket in the first place you are making your defence and the prosecutor must rebut your defence.

prima facie the (hypothetical) person didn't have a ticket. Firstly,as far as the inspector was concerned, the person didn't have a valid ticket. The inspector followed all the procedures and found this to be the case.

More importantly, I don't see how the DC is the forum of appeal to the standard fare. The DC doesn't hear appeals in relation to the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 because there is no provision for it in law. The standard fare is not like being fined or sent to prison. It is a fare applied because the accused didn't produce a ticket. It is nothing more or less than that. It certainly isn't a finding of guilt.

There is certainly a problem of natural/constitutional justice in relation to the decision to impose the standard fare. I agree with you on that. However, the question is what the correct procedure would be for dealing with that. The person would have plenty of avenues for bringing his complaint forward and getting justice, between the NTA, the RPA and the courts. It seems to me that the right thing to do would be to exhaust these possibilities. This is the place to bring out all the printouts, to get information from authorities and to cross-examine witnesses from the other side in relation to the decision.

But when that procedure is over and done with, when a decision has been made in accordance with law and when the decision has not been further appealed or review sought by the effected person then it has some finality and deserves some respect. The fact that you are aggrieved by something the tram company did doesn't give you the right not to pay the fare. It may not seem just, but what can the judge in the District Court do but accept that decision?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

plodder

Sure, you could challenge that. There are plenty of bases on which you could challenge that.

So, you don't have to go to the High court then as you said originally.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Lots of minor offences are dealt with in a fairly summary fashion.

I think you might be confusing this with the popular notion of "summary justice", which isn't justice at all. The DC is summary only in the sense of simplified procedures, but the basic principles are the same. And the most basic principle is the idea that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. You're basically saying they don't have to prove it at all. They just have to make the accusation.

The every day reality is that people often don't contest these cases. If you don't turn up to defend yourself, then it's likely you'll be dealt with in "summary fashion". It's an important point. A lot of people believe the justice system is stacked against them. It really isn't. If you put up a robust defence in the district court, the prosecution has to have all their homework done, and have strong evidence to show to get a conviction.

The problem is that the evidence that the accused would be bringing would not be exculpatory, because it has no direct relationship to do with the alleged offence. The alleged offence would be failure to pay the standard fare. The exculpatory evidence would relate to the failure to pay the correct fare. The issue of whether the correct fare was paid in the first instance was an issue that was already resolved (though not to the accused's satisfaction) through the Transdev process.

This is the crux of the point you're missing, that the court will also consider the question of whether the standard fare (in reality a penalty) was imposed validly. The most basic concept of justice demands that.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Captain Obvious

What Fred said. Where is this coming from that a private company can just issue you a fine and it is not disputable? What legislation are you basing this on? It doesn't work that way for tolls, for parking or for speeding.

Victor

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What Fred said. Where is this coming from that a private company can just issue you a fine and it is not disputable? What legislation are you basing this on? It doesn't work that way for tolls, for parking or for speeding.

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 authorises this. Most likely, Transdev take the prosecution in the name of TII / NTA and provide the resources / witnesses to do so.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/55/enacted/en/print#sec68

68.—Proceedings for an offence under this Part may be brought and prosecuted by the Agency, CIÉ, or railway undertaking operating the railway to which the offence relates.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/55/enacted/en/print#sec2

“railway undertaking” means any person who has been granted a railway order or another person with whom that person has made arrangements under section 43 (6);

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/55/enacted/en/print#sec43

(6) A person who has been granted a railway order may, with the consent of the Minister, make arrangements with another person to construct, maintain, improve or operate the railway or the railway works to which the order relates.

Also note http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/322/made/en/pdf

Victor

Antoin, while you added the caveat that what you say might be what happens, I'm not seeing it as supported by the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 or the Light Railway (Regulation of Travel and Use) Bye-laws 2015. A passenger in the OP's situation has a valid ticket and presents a valid ticket (that the scanner can't read it is another matter, not the responsibility of the passenger), so they haven't broken the bye-laws and therefore haven't broken the act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/55/enacted/en/print#sec66

66.—(1) The Minister, the Agency or a railway undertaking, with the consent of the Agency, may make bye-laws for the management, control, operation and the regulation of a railway, that has been built pursuant to a railway order, and in relation to the repair, improvement, extension and development thereof and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to any one or more of the following matters—

(a) the regulation of the times of arrival and departure of railway vehicles,

(b) the prevention of the commission of nuisances in or upon railway vehicles,

(c) the prevention of damage to railway vehicles,

(d) the removal from or the prohibition of the use on a railway line of any vehicle or thing which is or may become a danger to life, health, the operation or maintenance of a railway or would otherwise interfere with the proper operation of a railway,

(e) the fixing, altering, charging and recovery of fares, fees, tolls and charges in respect of the travelling upon or use of railway vehicles,

(f) the general regulation, subject to any statutory provisions in that behalf, of the travelling upon or use of railway vehicles and the working of railway transport services by a railway undertaking,

(g) the safe custody and redelivery or disposal of any property found on or in any railway vehicle of a railway undertaking and the fixing of charges in respect thereof.

(2) Bye-laws under this section may contain such incidental, subsidiary and ancillary provisions as the Minister or the Agency, as the case may be, considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the bye-laws.

(3) A person who contravenes a bye-law under this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €600 (£472.54).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/si/322/made/en/print

Standard fare

4. (1) A passenger, on entering a light rail vehicle, who is not in possession of a valid ticket, is liable to pay the standard fare.

(2) Where an authorised person observes an individual alighting from a light rail vehicle they may request that the individual produces a valid ticket for inspection on the stop platform.

(3) A passenger alighting from a light rail vehicle, who is not in possession of a valid ticket, is liable to pay the standard fare.

(4) An individual at a stop platform is not taken to be travelling on a tram service unless they came there by alighting from a tram.

(5) A passenger who is on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or, at the discretion of the authorised person and where the authorised person is satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger, within a period of 14 days of having so entered the light rail vehicle, to the operator concerned.

(6) An authorised person shall issue the relevant ticket to a passenger who has paid the standard fare and such a ticket entitles the passenger to travel to the next terminus.

(7) Where a passenger is found on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket by an authorised person and the passenger refuses to pay the standard fare immediately, the authorised person may request the passenger to leave the light rail vehicle at the next stop and the passenger shall comply with such a request.

(8) In these Bye-laws “standard fare” means a fare payable pursuant to Bye Law 4, fixed by the Railway Procurement Agency and published from time to time by the operator.

“ticket” means any ticket or document or electronic method of storing travel value issued by or on behalf of an operator for the conveyance of any person on a light rail vehicle and includes any season ticket, commuter ticket, free pass, privilege ticket, or any warrant, identity card, voucher or other similar authority in exchange for or on production of which any ticket for the conveyance of any person may be issued;

“valid ticket” means a ticket for which the correct fare has been paid for the journey being undertaken and which is in force when the journey is being undertaken;

antoinolachtnai

There are a few problems here.

Firstly, our passenger (hypothetical since the OP had the issue resolved) won't be charged in relation to section 4(1) of the byelaws. They'll be charged in relation to section 4(5).

Secondly, the passenger didn't have a valid ticket in the view of the inspector or in the view of Transdev.

I don't even think that the matter of whether the ticket is right or wrong is something that necessarily has to be considered for the district court to convict our hypothetical friend. But let's say I am wrong, or that the judge decides to give a hearing to the idea that Transdev are acting unfairly.

We are agreed that the inspector and Transdev are wrong, but how is the hypothetical passenger going to convince the court that she had a valid ticket or even that it is a plausible possibility that she had a ticket? A printout isn't going to do much good. The inspectors will say that as far as they are concerned the person didn't have a ticket. At a minimum the passenger is going to need an expert who can explain the workings of the integrated ticketing system. She will also need a skilled person to cross-examine the inspector and the expert.