Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

JayMac

Data Manager
Hero Member

Posts: 19304

Re: Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2015, 00:16:41 »

I'd like to know what action, if any, the Bar Standards Board have taken.

His punishment in court seems about right taking into account what appears to be excellent advocacy in defence. That's my assessment based on the legal process, not what I think he should have got by way of sentence.

The greater long term punishment though should be meted out by the Bar Standards Board. A barrister with a criminal conviction...?


	Logged

"Good news for regular users of Euston Station in London! One day they will die. Then they won't have to go to Euston Station ever again." - David Mitchell

ChrisB

Transport Scholar
Hero Member

Posts: 13322

Re: Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2015, 08:09:52 »

Now sentence has been passed, I'm sure they will now call him for a hearing


	Logged

ChrisB

Transport Scholar
Hero Member

Posts: 13322

Re: Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2015, 08:35:10 »

More in the Telegraph....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11901663/Britains-biggest-fare-dodger-asks-to-pay-back-a-third-of-penalty.html

Seems as though the judge/Recorder has struck out the NRCoC^▸ rule of the way the daily penalty is the single fare for each day you scive the fare. Season costs are considered to be the actual loss going forward


	Logged

Tim

Hero Member

Posts: 2738

Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2015, 09:17:47 »

Quote from: John R on April 11, 2015, 15:22:05

Quote from: ChrisB on April 11, 2015, 11:20:54

He will have dodged weekly (or longer) seasons, so that is the calculation they need to do - with a fine on top. That current calculation is based on the daily dodge, which of course he is unlikely to have purchased in paying his way.

The prosecution's view is that an offence is committed each time and that the cost of a ticket each day is the loss to the TOC^▸ . That seems reasonable to me. The fact is he chose not to purchase a season ticket offering a discount over the daily rate, so on each day he travelled the TOC's loss was the difference between the fare paid and the full fare payable.

He was ordered to pay back the lower ^6000 amount (ie the cost of weekly seasons) because the Judge held that that was most likely the real loss to the railway. That to me seems perfectly reasonable. The order to pay compensation is not intended to be punishment (that is what his sentence addressed. The ^6000 was not a fine but an order for compensation) but to put the parties back on the footing that they would have been on had the offences not been committed.


	Logged

John R

Hero Member

Posts: 4416

Re: Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2015, 13:31:58 »

Yes, I noticed that, and it's in contrast to the previous well documented case, although that of course didn't go to court.


	Logged

TaplowGreen

Transport Scholar
Hero Member

Posts: 8612

Re: Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2015, 14:19:08 »

Quote from: ChrisB on October 01, 2015, 08:09:52

Now sentence has been passed, I'm sure they will now call him for a hearing

......do you think he will travel to it by train? Wink


	Logged

Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »