Revenue Protection Inspectors
 

Richard J. wrote:
traveller wrote:
Michael Hoffman Wrote:
Traveling on a bus without paying is a strict liability offence. So
deliberate fare evasion need not be proven, only that the fare was
not paid.
--
Michael Hoffman

10. Suspected fare evasion and prosecutions

10.1. If you are travelling on any of our services without either:

• a ticket that is valid and available for the journey you are
making
• an Oyster card containing a valid season ticket
• an Oyster card, when you are paying as you go, showing a record of
the start of your trip
or
• a valid 14-15 Oyster photocard if you are aged 14 or 15 and are
travelling free on a bus
• a valid 16-17 Oyster photocard if you are aged 16 or 17 and are
travelling free on a bus

AND we believe that you are trying to avoid paying the correct fare,
you may be prosecuted.

So in addition to travelling without the appropriate ticket it seems
that it is also neccessary to establish a that the passenger is
'trying to avoid paying the correct fare'. Surely this involves
some proof that the passenger hasn't simply made a mistake?

All that TfL are saying is that they will prosecute if they *believe*
that avoidance was deliberate. But the act under which they take you to
court is, I think (for buses), the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981,
section 25(3). That basically says that travelling without paying the
fare is an offence, without any mention of intent.

HOWEVER, it is subject to section 68(1), which says "It shall be a
defence for a person charged with an offence ... to prove that there was
a reasonable excuse for the act or omission in respect of which he is
charged."

So IF you can persuade the magistrate that you couldn't hear the reject
bleep AND you didn't see or understand the red light AND you didn't read
the text on the screen, even though you've been using Oyster on buses
for the last x years, AND you thought that you had enough credit on your
card, then you might be able to escape conviction.

Of course this means the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than
TfL.
--
Michael Hoffman

I have a question for you. Have you ever made a mistake?

But i always thought that a defendant was innocent until proven guilty!

It also begs the question, why do TFL seem to be pursuing prosecutions in an overwhelming number of cases now, rather than simply issuing penalty fares, as they have for the best part of the twenty five years that these laws have been in existance?

Let's try to explain this simply if I can.

The structure of an offense is as follows

1. The fact of the offence being alleged have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt

2. Any legal defence has to proved by the defence on the balance of probabilities.

That structure applies for all offences.

So if someone is occused of murder the prosecution has to prove:

1. That the occused killed the victim.
2. That occused intended to either kill the victim or do GBH to them.
This would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.


If the defence then with to claim a defence (e.g. self-defence) They would have to prove that defence on the balance of probabilities.

Nobody, including the prosecution can be required to prove a negative.

Paula

Revenue Protection Inspectors
 

traveller wrote:
Richard J. Wrote:
So IF you can persuade the magistrate that you couldn't hear the
reject bleep AND you didn't see or understand the red light AND
you didn't read the text on the screen, even though you've been
using Oyster on buses for the last x years, AND you thought that
you had enough credit on your card, then you might be able to
escape conviction.

I have a question for you. Have you ever made a mistake?

Yes, of course.

By the way, my last post was meant to be helpful in explaining a
possible escape route for you if TfL take you to court.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)