| Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by grahame at 15:11, 10th March 2025 |     |
From the BBC
A couple who discovered a migrant had clung to the back of their vehicle all the way home from France have been issued a £1,500 fine.
Adrian and Joanne Fenton said they called police when they found the person zipped inside the cover of a bike rack at their home in Heybridge, Essex, in October.
They later received a fine from the Home Office for failing to "check that no clandestine entrant was concealed" in the motorhome. The pair said they were drafting an appeal.
Adrian and Joanne Fenton said they called police when they found the person zipped inside the cover of a bike rack at their home in Heybridge, Essex, in October.
They later received a fine from the Home Office for failing to "check that no clandestine entrant was concealed" in the motorhome. The pair said they were drafting an appeal.
I have heard comment before that if someone who is being pursued by the police jumps on a train just as the doors close, and the train then pulls out, the train driver is not guilty of aiding and abetting. That makes sense - but how far does that release go if you (the driver) is not aware of the extra passenger, or has not checked that all his passengers are travelling for legitimate reasons?
How does this apply to a bus driver? To the driver of a community bus? To a taxi driver?
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by Witham Bobby at 15:48, 10th March 2025 | |
Truck drivers and their employers have been subject to these fines for several years now. It's an utter menace
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by eightonedee at 17:10, 10th March 2025 | |
I am afraid you have either Jack Straw or David Blunkett to blame for this. At one time, a bounty was offered (I think it was £1000) to any lorry driver who reported an illegal migrant on their truck. During the tenure of one of them as Home Secretary (possibly under advice from the Home Office officials) this changed to imposing fines on anyone found with an illegal immigrant on their vehicle.
I remember hearing this on the car radio, in busy traffic, and noting what a large proportion of the trucks were "curtainside" vehicles, with fabric sides that are tied down and rolled up to facilitate the loading and unloading of palleted goods by forklift trucks, realising how difficult these are to secure and how important they are for the efficient delivery of goods, and despairing at the poor quality of policy making sometimes shown by our governments and their advisers.
And of course, in the interest of balance, the supremely incompetent Robert Jenrick increased the fines from £2000 to £10,000 in 2023.....
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 14:59, 16th March 2025 | |
An update, from the BBC:
Fine cancelled for motorhome couple who found migrant
A couple who were fined £1,500 after they reported a migrant had clung to a bike rack on their motorhome have been told the penalty has been cancelled.
The Home Office had ordered Adrian and Joanne Fenton, from Heybridge in Essex, to pay the fine for "failing to check that no clandestine entrant was concealed" in the vehicle as they crossed the English Channel.
Mr Fenton said Border Force had now told him it had taken his objection to liability into consideration and reduced the fine to £0.
The couple originally highlighted the case on BBC Three Counties Radio, and Mrs Fenton said she was "ecstatic" about the Home Office's change of heart.
The couple say the stowaway was found under a bicycle rack cover
Mr Fenton, 57, had boarded Le Shuttle from Calais to Folkestone in Kent on the evening of 15 October, after they had been travelling around France.
Mrs Fenton, 55, told the JVS show on BBC Three Counties Radio that, after a six-hour drive, her husband had unzipped the cover of the bicycle rack and found the migrant inside.
Mrs Fenton said the migrant told police he was 16 and from Sudan
The couple said they called the police to tell them they had found the stowaway. Mrs Fenton said the boy later informed the police he was 16 years old and from Sudan. They then received an email saying they were being fined.
Mrs Fenton argued that the man had been clinging to the outside of the motorhome rather than being inside it. Mr Felton said he had thought he had done the right thing by calling the police. The couple have now received an email from Border Force, which is part of the Home Office, reducing the fine to £0.
Mrs Fenton said: "It's about motorhomes and caravaners coming through the borders - how many more people are going to get caught out exactly the same?"
Her husband added: "We don't want anyone else to go through what we've gone through. If someone does call the police because they've got someone discovered in their motorhome, Border Force shouldn't even be considering fining them because everyone's doing the moral and the right thing." He said the Home Office should "be looking at their policy and make sure that it's fit for purpose and not targeting holidaymakers".
Mrs Fenton said the couple would still take their motorhome abroad but would be "ultra careful - there'll be no covers over the bike rack".
A couple who were fined £1,500 after they reported a migrant had clung to a bike rack on their motorhome have been told the penalty has been cancelled.
The Home Office had ordered Adrian and Joanne Fenton, from Heybridge in Essex, to pay the fine for "failing to check that no clandestine entrant was concealed" in the vehicle as they crossed the English Channel.
Mr Fenton said Border Force had now told him it had taken his objection to liability into consideration and reduced the fine to £0.
The couple originally highlighted the case on BBC Three Counties Radio, and Mrs Fenton said she was "ecstatic" about the Home Office's change of heart.
The couple say the stowaway was found under a bicycle rack cover
Mr Fenton, 57, had boarded Le Shuttle from Calais to Folkestone in Kent on the evening of 15 October, after they had been travelling around France.
Mrs Fenton, 55, told the JVS show on BBC Three Counties Radio that, after a six-hour drive, her husband had unzipped the cover of the bicycle rack and found the migrant inside.
Mrs Fenton said the migrant told police he was 16 and from Sudan
The couple said they called the police to tell them they had found the stowaway. Mrs Fenton said the boy later informed the police he was 16 years old and from Sudan. They then received an email saying they were being fined.
Mrs Fenton argued that the man had been clinging to the outside of the motorhome rather than being inside it. Mr Felton said he had thought he had done the right thing by calling the police. The couple have now received an email from Border Force, which is part of the Home Office, reducing the fine to £0.
Mrs Fenton said: "It's about motorhomes and caravaners coming through the borders - how many more people are going to get caught out exactly the same?"
Her husband added: "We don't want anyone else to go through what we've gone through. If someone does call the police because they've got someone discovered in their motorhome, Border Force shouldn't even be considering fining them because everyone's doing the moral and the right thing." He said the Home Office should "be looking at their policy and make sure that it's fit for purpose and not targeting holidaymakers".
Mrs Fenton said the couple would still take their motorhome abroad but would be "ultra careful - there'll be no covers over the bike rack".
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by PhilWakely at 16:16, 16th March 2025 | |
Not fully understanding how fines and convictions work in this case.... I guess there is a distinction between 'reducing the fine to £0' and dropping the case altogether?
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by ChrisB at 17:31, 16th March 2025 | |
They aren't innocent are they? A stowaway was found hiding in their vehicle, as admitted by the owner.
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 17:55, 16th March 2025 | |
No: he was found clinging to the outside of their vehicle. The article makes that clear.
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by grahame at 20:14, 16th March 2025 | |
Had me thinking of this
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 20:22, 16th March 2025 | |
Railway staff, lineside, with mains water hydrant hoses: problem solved.
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by stuving at 20:31, 16th March 2025 | |
Not fully understanding how fines and convictions work in this case.... I guess there is a distinction between 'reducing the fine to £0' and dropping the case altogether?
This was a civil penalty notice under the Carriers' Liability Regulations 2002 (as amended). The offence was defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The explanation, with leaflets etc, is here.
Most of the words are about goods vehicles, of course. This looks like the relevant offence for this case:
32 Penalty for carrying clandestine entrants.
(1)A person is a clandestine entrant if—
(a)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a vehicle, ship or aircraft,
(aa)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a rail freight wagon,
(b)he passes, or attempts to pass, through immigration control concealed in a vehicle, or
(c)he arrives in the United Kingdom on a ship or aircraft, having embarked—
(i)concealed in a vehicle; and
(ii)at a time when the ship or aircraft was outside the United Kingdom,
and claims, or indicates that he intends to seek, asylum in the United Kingdom or evades, or attempts to evade, immigration control.
(1)A person is a clandestine entrant if—
(a)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a vehicle, ship or aircraft,
(aa)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a rail freight wagon,
(b)he passes, or attempts to pass, through immigration control concealed in a vehicle, or
(c)he arrives in the United Kingdom on a ship or aircraft, having embarked—
(i)concealed in a vehicle; and
(ii)at a time when the ship or aircraft was outside the United Kingdom,
and claims, or indicates that he intends to seek, asylum in the United Kingdom or evades, or attempts to evade, immigration control.
The law and regulations define the maximum penalty; the Secretary of State decides the amount in each case - there are guidelines about how much.
And in case you were wondering:
10.—(1) A notice may be served on a person under regulation 9(3) by:
(a)delivering it to that person;
(b)leaving it at his proper address;
(c)sending it to his proper address by first class post in a prepaid registered envelope or by the recorded delivery service;
(d)facsimile, sent to his usual or last known business facsimile number;
(e)electronic mail, sent to his usual or last known business electronic mail address.
(a)delivering it to that person;
(b)leaving it at his proper address;
(c)sending it to his proper address by first class post in a prepaid registered envelope or by the recorded delivery service;
(d)facsimile, sent to his usual or last known business facsimile number;
(e)electronic mail, sent to his usual or last known business electronic mail address.
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 20:44, 16th March 2025 | |
I repeat:
No: he was found clinging to the outside of their vehicle. The article makes that clear.
That is why the 'civil penalty notice' was overturned.
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by ChrisB at 20:55, 16th March 2025 | |
But it wasn't (overturned)
The question from the OP was why was the penalty reduced to zero, rather than the penalty cancelled/overturned.
| Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not Posted by grahame at 21:22, 16th March 2025 | |
But it wasn't (overturned)
The question from the OP was why was the penalty reduced to zero, rather than the penalty cancelled/overturned.
The question from the OP was why was the penalty reduced to zero, rather than the penalty cancelled/overturned.
I would suspect it was zeroed rather than removed to avoid setting a legal precedent. It means that someone coming over with an undocumented passenger in the well of (but not inside) a flatbed pickup can't point at the Fenton case and say "but you said on appeal they had not done wrong".
