criminal-law england-and-wales criminal-procedure criminal-record fines
Can BTP officers issue penalty fares in London tube stations?
<p>Bob double shuffled through the tube barriers while holding his Oyster card, bank card, and passport. Looking down at his phone, upon going through, he inadvertently walked into a BTP officer who asked to validate his ticket or pass. He scanned his Oyster card which obviously did not successfully validate, and the officer told him that he would have to pay a fine that was £80 but if he paid it on the spot then it would be reduced to £40. Bob agreed to withdraw £40 from a cash point and return with it to pay the fine to the officer.</p>
<p>The officer held Bob's passport while he withdrew the cash, and returned it upon Bob's paying him the £40 fine.</p>
<p>What offence was Bob fined for, does his payment of the fine imply a concession of guilty of that offence, what records likely now exist of Bob's alleged offence and the ensuing fine, and what prevented the officer from pocketing the £40 cash for himself?</p>
<p>What could this have been, if not a TfL penalty fare, and what paperwork records would a TfL penalty fare have generated?</p>

<h2>What offence was Bob fined for?</h2>
<p>Bob likely committed the offence of entering a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket contrary to clause 17(1) of the <a href="https://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Transport for London Railway Byelaws</a> which were made by Transport for London under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 by the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 September 2011.</p>
<p>The nature of the compulsory ticket area is evidenced by the fact that Bob had to pass through a ticket barrier to enter the area. There will likely also have been a a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket. However, if there is no notice then it was not a compulsory ticket area and so no offence was committed.</p>
<h2>Does his payment of the fine imply a concession of guilty of that offence?</h2>
<p>Yes. Clause 23 of the Byelaws states that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any person who breaches any of the Byelaws commits an offence and may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Intent is irrelevant for a clause 17 breach (it is a strict liability offence) and payment is admission of guilt.</p>
<h2>What records likely now exist of Bob's alleged offence and the ensuing fine?</h2>
<p>Probably just a local record of the offence on TfL and BTP systems. Potentially an upload to the Police National Computer, depending on how BTP systems work.</p>
<h2>What prevented the officer from pocketing the £40 cash for himself?</h2>
<p>The existence of the offence record and the fact that a receipt of fine payment is not associated with the record. Presumably the officer could do it once or twice and not get caught, but not regularly.</p>
<h2>What could this have been, if not a TfL penalty fare?</h2>
<p>It could be an offence of avoiding payment of fare contrary to <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 section 5(3)(a)</a> with a penalty of three months prison or a Level 3 (standard scale) fine. Intent is required to be proven, but it does not have to be <em>dishonest</em> intent, just an intent to avoid payment of the sum due per <em>Browning v Floyd</em> [1946] 2 All E.R. 367.</p>
<p>Alternatively, a charge of making off without payment contrary to <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/31/section/3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">S3 Theft Act 1978</a> could be used, but would require dishonest intent to be proven. Punishment (on summary indictment) could result in a six month prison sentence or a fine not exceeding £1,000 or the relevant amount under S4(3)(b) of the Theft Act 1978.</p>
<p>It would probably be difficult for the prosecution to prove either alternative charge. A clause 17 Byelaw offence is probably the most appropriate charge to bring, and the punishment is also more affordable (a £40 on-the-spot fine) compared to those other potential punishments.</p>
