Inspector asks where you're going?

timbo58

There may well be an element of settling OOC if they are not absolutely sure of a conviction, that's true IME, however as GT has said, in his inimitable way, most professional RPIs will have already gained sufficient evidence by their questioning in 95% of cases to convince a bench of the intent (or liability in the case of a strict liability offence) of the person being prosecuted.

The benefits to a TOC of settling are:

a) to deal with those cases which are less than 100% certain of court success
b) to clear a backlog where the TOC simply doesn't have the number of experienced prosecutions staff to get a busy period complete (Reading Rock/Glasto being 2 that I remember distinctly.
c) to display a willingness to deal with someone without legal action where the TOC feel the offender is genuinely contrite, hasn't committed a more serious offence or aggravated the perceived evasion with further offences and who doesn't have previous warnings or convictions on file.
d) Where court costs in staff time may not be properly taken into account by the bench in the prosecution departments opinion (i.e. where witnesses amongst staff have to be taken from normal duties or/and travel long distances to attend the court.

There is one major disadvantage IMHO by settling OOC: there is no recorded conviction in such cases (obviously), this could mean that a repeat offender goes undetected if offences are settled by multiple TOCs who generally do not share such information.

geordie_taxi

i agree with wot u say about professional revenue blokes their pretty good at their job and with careful questioning will trick the majority of [STRIKE]passengers[/STRIKE] fare dodgers into a confession

timbo58 wrote: »

The benefits to a TOC of settling are:

ill go 4 option e) huge increase in company profits instead of the peanuts acquired by the court system

timbo58 wrote: »

There is one major disadvantage IMHO by settling OOC: there is no recorded conviction in such cases (obviously), this could mean that a repeat offender goes undetected if offences are settled by multiple TOCs who generally do not share such information.

IME most fare dodgers work on their own patch and r regularly lifted/well known by said revenue blokes.

but to answer ur question with the massive profits greedy train companies make. it wudnt b difficult to invest in a national database.

IMHO their quick enough to [STRIKE]set up[/STRIKE] prosecute a student who made a honest mistake with his compo claims and also his unsuspecting OAP mother for money laundering [STRIKE]putting the cheques in the bank[/STRIKE] then surely they have the skill implement this.

Altarf

timbo58 wrote: »

The benefits to a TOC of settling are:

a) to deal with those cases which are less than 100% certain of court success

Getting the innocent to pay them money. If they are not 100% sure, then they should walk away and it should not take a bribe to make them do so.

timbo58 wrote: »

The benefits to a TOC of settling are:

b) to clear a backlog where the TOC simply doesn't have the number of experienced prosecutions staff to get a busy period complete (Reading Rock/Glasto being 2 that I remember distinctly.

If they do not have sufficient prosecution staff then they should hand the job over to the CPS, and not simply take a bribe to walk away from those cases that they were not going to deal with anyway.

timbo58 wrote: »

The benefits to a TOC of settling are:

c) to display a willingness to deal with someone without legal action where the TOC feel the offender is genuinely contrite, hasn't committed a more serious offence or aggravated the perceived evasion with further offences and who doesn't have previous warnings or convictions on file.

It is the job of the magistrate or judge, not the prosecutor to set the sentence.

Or do you really mean that they are feeling guilty about some of their customers that they are trying to prosecute, when they know that the evidence from their poorly trained staff is, to say the least, a bit dodgy. So the easy way to salve their conscience is to take a bribe to make it go away?

timbo58 wrote: »

The benefits to a TOC of settling are:

d) Where court costs in staff time may not be properly taken into account by the bench in the prosecution departments opinion (i.e. where witnesses amongst staff have to be taken from normal duties or/and travel long distances to attend the court.

And now we get to the real answer. The train company can make more money by taking bribes, than it does by performing its role properly.