How (possible) fare evaders are dealt with north of the border.

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.

I think speculating about the possible outcome of this particular incident could put us on rather more dodgy ground, so I'd prefer to avoid that, if it's alright with everyone?

Thanks!  CfN.

[TerminalJunkie]

I think speculating about the possible outcome of this particular incident could put us on rather more dodgy ground

Are we permitted to speculate on the sort of dodgy ground you would be on if we continued to speculate about it?

[lordgoata]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16288101

Man (assumed to be Alan), charged with assault.

[Btline]

Not only did Sam Main shout abuse at staff, but he also TRESPASSED on the line! Yet he hasn't been charged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077080/Big-Man-threw-alleged-fare-dodger-train-hit-internet-video-charged-assault.html

[JayMac]

Btline, that is what the Daily Mail are saying. It's equally possible that he is being reported for trespass after failing to comply with the request from an officer of the railway to get off the train. After such a request is ignored then you are trespassing.

Section 16 Railway Regulation Act 1840: It is an offence to wilfully trespass on any railway or premises connected therewith and to refuse to leave when asked to do so by any officer or agent of the railway company. 'Wilfulness' can be proved by the refusal to leave.


And please, enough of the capital letters. Not necessary. 

[ellendune]

According to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16288101

The Big Man has been charged with assault.

And the student...

...has also been reported to the procurator fiscal service, which decides whether to prosecute alleged crimes in Scotland. He has been reported under Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act Scotland, and in connection with an allegation of trespass.

Just like Btline said

I bet EVERYONE involved wished it wasn't on YouTube. Has it done anyone any good?

[Btline]

Btline, that is what the Daily Mail are saying.

Umm exactly... hence I included a link to the DM story! The capital letter are to highlight new information - otherwise there would be nothing to add to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) article already posted.

So it turns out that the vid has not helped anyone. It will be interesting to see whether ScotRail defend their guard.

Surely this opens a can of worms. We're going to have fare dodgers up and down the country refusing to get off. No guard will risk chucking someone off anymore. IMO^▸ (in my opinion), it is wrong to charge Big Man for assault. This attitude is why we had the Summer riots!

[JayMac]

Umm exactly... hence I included a link to the DM story! The capital letter are to highlight new information - otherwise there would be nothing to add to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) article already posted.

Indeed, nothing to add as the BBC already mentioned trespass. The Daily Mail went further with their supposition that this trespass was on the line. So you are not highlighting new information, you are merely drawing attention to poor journalism.

We're going to have fare dodgers up and down the country refusing to get off. No guard will risk chucking someone off anymore. IMO^▸ (in my opinion), it is wrong to charge Big Man for assault. This attitude is why we had the Summer riots!

And each and everyone of those fare dodgers that refuse to get off, after being asked by an officer of the railway, can be charged with trespass under Section 16 of the Railway Regulation Act as well as any fare related offences.

Officers of the railway have the right to detain someone who doesn't have a valid ticket for their journey. Better to detain - which doesn't have to be physical, a moving train is a pretty secure environment - and continue running the service. At least then there is a better chance that BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) can attend or further staff back up is available.

And also then you won't have passengers hearing the guard saying "I'm getting paid, I can sit here all night pal" and wondering to themselves, if I don't do something this guard could well delay my journey. Step forward one passenger who takes the law into their own hands. Just take a look again at how violently Sam Main is thrown to the ground. That's how you want justice to be served is it?

Oh, and I'm fairly sure that guards are not trained or encouraged to chuck someone off. So they aren't risking anything as it is not something they currently do.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the British Transport Police press release:

INCIDENT ON-BOARD EDINBURGH TO PERTH SERVICE - FRIDAY 9 DECEMBER 2011 - REPORTS SENT TO PROCURATOR FISCAL

*** The following text has been approved by the Procurator Fiscal ***

British Transport Police can now confirm that a 35-year-old man from Stirling and a 19-year-old man from Falkirk are the subject of a report to the local Procurator Fiscal in connection with an incident on-board the 21:33 Edinburgh Waverley to Perth service, at Linlithgow on Friday 9 December 2011.

Any further update should be obtained from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Notes to Editors:

Representatives are reminded that proceedings are now considered ^active^ under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Edit note: My highlighting, to answer TerminalJunkie's earlier post.  CfN. 

[Oxman]

As I recall, there is a provision in the railway bye-laws for the use of reasonable force to remove anyone who has breached a bye-law from railway premises. Well, I hope I'm right, because I certainly used this on a number of occasions!

The critical passage would thus be where the big man has a brief conversation with the conductor (who is the railway official in the case), who apparently authorises the removal of the person who appears not to have a valid ticket and is therefore in breach of the bye-laws.

The question might therefore be "was the force used reasonable?".

[Chris from Nailsea]

That is an excellent summary of the case, Oxman - and is exactly what the Procurator Fiscal will be considering. 

[JayMac]

Does that one word from the guard, "Yes", confer the status of agent onto the big man? That is something the Procurator Fiscal may also be considering.

Along with a lot more evidence than we are privy to, as well as victim/accused/witness statements.

[EBrown]

"Big Man" is not being charged. BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page).

[JayMac]

Hmm, I've vacillated over this saga.

Sam Main should not have got so lippy. Alan Pollock should not have intervened with what was, to my mind, unreasonable force. And the guard should really not have let a member of the public forcibly throw someone off a train or have escalated the situation by announcing to all in earshot that he was quite happy to 'sit here all night'.

I think, on balance, the Procurator Fiscal's decision not to continue prosecution of Sam Main and Alan Pollock is probably the right one. One hopes that all parties have learned something from this incident.....

Of course, ScotRail could still initiate proceedings against Sam Main for Railway Byelaw or RRA offences....

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Hopefully the little scroat gets in trouble over his open drug habit ( quite blatant on his Facebook)