"tim....." wrote in message
...

IANAL but... The penalty fare scheme was brought in because in UK, fare
evasion is prosecuted under the theft act, which requires a certain level
of
proof of intent, therefore anyone offering to pay when challenged could
not
realistically be taken to court for theft.

That is incorrect analysis.

Offering to pay when challenged can easily be proof of guilt.
A genuine reason for not having a ticket is required for there
to be no chance of a prosecution and offering to pay when
challenged suggest that the passenger knows that they
didn't have an appropriate excuse.


It may have been mistaken re the Theft Act, but here is a section of the
DfT's background reasoning:

A penalty fares system was first developed in the late 1980s by the Network
SouthEast sector of British Rail (BR), as a way to protect revenue in its
particular circumstances. As well as reducing the expense of inspecting
tickets at ticket barriers, BR also wanted to reduce the number of cases
that were referred to the courts. Before penalty fares were introduced, the
only way to deter people from travelling without a ticket was to prosecute
them under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This was time-consuming,
costly and often ineffective. For a prosecution to be successful, it had to
be proved that the passenger intended to avoid paying. This was often
difficult as most passengers without tickets were willing to pay if they
were challenged, but did not pay if they were not challenged.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legis...policya?page=2

Paul