Irish Rail Fixed Penalty notice

cython

Phil.x wrote: »

Tell me this, (I don't know the area/stations) but why didn't the machine refuse his leap card or charge him extra at the end if his leap isn't for the kilcock station.

There are no validators in Kilcock at all, and zonal tickets can move freely through exit and entrance barriers where there are validators regardless of whether they tagged on at the start of the journey, or the end of the previous one. Similarly, zonal season tickets don't incur a per journey charge to levy extra, as they are pre-paid "full access" for that zone.

Hilly Bill

punisher5112 wrote: »

If you read back they have put up the fine as they have been found to have been doing it for a while. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

But if they can't tag on then how could it register the starting point. The Rpu need to know exactly how many times its been done previously before deciding on a figure.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

Ignorance is a defence. To be committing fraud you need to know you were doing it, ie it has to have been intentional.

Not paying a fine which is on solid legal ground is an offence. In this case if the op genuinely didn't realise they were doing wrong then the grounds for the fine are not secure.

The op still travelled outside the limits and got fined. Using the excuse of ah sure i didnt know is not really a solid defense.

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As its a 'civil' prosecution (by Irish Rail, not the Garda / DPP), does this apply?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

goingnowhere

Fare evasion is a criminal offence

Payment of the fare due is a civil matter

The leap card is retained in evidence to review travel patterns

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The op still travelled outside the limits and got fined. Using the excuse of ah sure i didnt know is not really a solid defense.

There has to be intent. This is basic stuff.

(b) having paid his or her fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid such payment, or

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/132/enacted/en/html

beauf

Sounds like an honest mistake. Not sure why people want to put the boot in.

magicbastarder

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

they're not - we don't specifically have miranda rights in ireland, and AFAIK we follow the 'judge's rules'; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Rules

the OP had also not been arrested at this point.

GM228

magicbastarder wrote: »

they're not - we don't specifically have miranda rights in ireland, and AFAIK we follow the 'judge's rules'; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Rules

the OP had also not been arrested at this point.

Yes we follow Judge's Rules which is only applicable to Gardaí. A caution must be issued under Rule 2, the wording of the caution comes under Rule 5 which is similar to the so called Miranda Right with the exception of no mention of a solicitor.

Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence

Obviously the above only apply to the Gardaí.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

There has to be intent. This is basic stuff.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/132/enacted/en/html

But there are two types of intent in criminal law, one where you specifically do something on purpose and one where you do something which brings about another result - i.e not checking the ticket was valid brought about the result of fare evasion. It is known as Oblique Intent. It is an established principle in law which has been dealth with under the general heading of "intent".

The problens with the word intent in Irish law is it isn't defined and has been divided into two types of intent as opposed to the one general meaning and it can be established in different ways.

The inference of intent is drawn from evidence. Foresight and recklessness for example can be evidence for intent. The OP could be considered recklessness for not checking the ticket was valid and should have foreseen the possible consequences of not checking.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

Ignorance is a defence. To be committing fraud you need to know you were doing it, ie it has to have been intentional.

Not paying a fine which is on solid legal ground is an offence. In this case if the op genuinely didn't realise they were doing wrong then the grounds for the fine are not secure.

Ignorance is not a defence.

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a principle first established in 1800 and still held today by the Supreme Court.

Dravokivich

goingnowhere wrote: »

Fare evasion is a criminal offence

Payment of the fare due is a civil matter

The leap card is retained in evidence to review travel patterns

You wont establish a pattern by holding the Leap Card. its activity history only has a record of the last 5 transactions.

L1011

Dravokivich wrote: »

You wont establish a pattern by holding the Leap Card. its activity history only has a record of the last 5 transactions.

The card itself has that.

The Leap systems, and Irish Rail systems, have a LOT more. Log on to your own account to see for starters.

n97 mini

GM228 wrote: »

But there are two types of intent in criminal law, one where you specifically do something on purpose and one where you do something which brings about another result

You've been on wikipedia! Oblique intent (aka indirect intent) is still a form of intent. The OP didn't do anything on purpose. They claim to have been completely unaware.

ED E

n97 mini wrote: »

You've been on wikipedia!

He's done a lot more than that.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

You've been on wikipedia! Oblique intent (aka indirect intent) is still a form of intent. The OP didn't do anything on purpose. They claim to have been completely unaware.

I stay away from the rubbish in Wikipedia. Instead I'm speaking from a settled Irish case involving intent.

Indirect intention is "where the defendant is acting for one purpose but brings about another". It does not have to be on purpose as you say.

This was tested in the DPP vs Douglas & Hayes [1985] ILRM 25 case where someone was convicted with intent to cause murder despite them not actually trying to kill someone on purpose. The intent came about from their recklessness and foresight.

Dravokivich

L1011 wrote: »

The card itself has that.

The Leap systems, and Irish Rail systems, have a LOT more. Log on to your own account to see for starters.

All you'll need is the card number. Not the card.

n97 mini

GM228 wrote: »

I stay away from the rubbish in Wikipedia. Instead I'm speaking from a settled Irish case involving intent.

An example:
Person drives car recklessly in an urban area and kills a pedestrian. Two intents, one direct, one indirect.
Person drives car safely and with due care in an urban area and kills a pedestrian.
Same outcome, but no-one goes to jail.

The term oblique and the example you've given are straight from internet searches.

I've bounced this case off a legal person who says that IE would have bit of a job trying to prove intent.

schemingbohemia

In this case are you suggesting that stupidity is a defence as in they never had any intent, oblique or otherwise, because they thought their LEAP card worked everywhere? Even in a place where there are no leap card validators?

n97 mini

Stupidity isn't a legal term.

Not having a validator is not an indication of anything. Kilcoole, which is in the SHZ, doesn't have one. Doesn't mean anything other than it doesn't have one.

GM228

n97 mini wrote: »

The term oblique and the example you've given are straight from internet searches.

I've bounced this case off a legal person who says that IE would have bit of a job trying to prove intent.

No they are examples of how intent is dealth with and one which anyone in the legal profession (criminal) is aware of and stem from the Hayes case in relation to Oblique intent.

It would be easy enough to prove intent when you take into consideration recklessness and foresight based on the test of objectiveness.

A reasonable person should forsee they may not have a valid ticket if they don't check it's validity, assumption is not enough. It is held that we intend the consequences of an act when a reasonable person foresees that it will probably happen, whether they desire that consequence or not. The OP failed to check that they had a valid ticket and a reasonable person would check if they had a valid ticket, in doing so they were also reckless. This in itself is evidence of intent as it's an objective test in this case.

People have been found guilty of murder using the same test to apply intent, there will be no problem applying it to fare evasion and it has been many times in the District Court, I have seen it many times where a judge will decide in similar cases against the accused based on what a reasonable person would do.

Sit in District Court No.8 on the third Thursday of each month and you will soon see that IE regularly have no problems proving intent when very similar cases appear, and they appear very regularly.

n97 mini wrote: »

They claim to have been completely unaware.

As per the above such cases are not based on what the accused believed or how they acted, but rather based on what a reasonable person would be expected to believe and how a reasonable person would be expected to act.

L1011

Dravokivich wrote: »

All you'll need is the card number. Not the card.

Card is held as evidence more than anything else.

XPS_Zero

Phil.x wrote: »

Since you didn't actually bother to reply it's hard to respond
Either make an argument or don't,
Posting just emojis as an argument makes you look like a 14 year old

When you refuse to pay a fine and it goes to court that's a criminal conviction
It stays beside your name on all those databases.
That's fact, so you can lol it like a tool all you like, but it's the way it is

XPS_Zero

...and don't listen to people who think not knowing is a defence

It's the exact opposite, it's a near famous saying "ignorance of the law is not a defence "

There is intent and action in a crime (yes it's a crime, not a civil thing it's a criminal offence) but recklessness can replace intent in the crime

If I didn't mean to knock you down with my car but I was doing twice the speed limit I'll still get charged with vehicular manslaughter in many countries due to recklessness.
You can't get out of something by saying "sure I didn't know". You should know that too, we're not 5 here were adults. When we use services we accept the rules of those services if we didn't bother reading the easily accessible rules that is our fault

The SHZ is prominently explained on tickets and on the IE website it's not hard to find info like it's not obscure rule 236 section 3B

Imagine if we let people off cos they claimed not to know the rules. Anyone could dodge a fare. A 21 year old could get a child ticket saying he didn't know what age it went up to, you could take your Belfast - Dublin ticket and use it on the whole DART line saying "assumed it was for all of Dublin"


You should also keep in mind bench warrants can be issued for fines once they get high enough, they do it for the TV license fines, I'm not sure if the new laws replacing custodial sentences for fines with the new system to attach pay are in yet, if not, then just ignoring it until you're stopped by the traffic corps one day might be embarrassing or at the airport on the way home

XPS_Zero

n97 mini wrote: »

An example:
Person drives car recklessly in an urban area and kills a pedestrian. Two intents, one direct, one indirect.
Person drives car safely and with due care in an urban area and kills a pedestrian.
Same outcome, but no-one goes to jail.

The term oblique and the example you've given are straight from internet searches.

I've bounced this case off a legal person who says that IE would have bit of a job trying to prove intent.

Judges would be aware of precedent setting

Allowing an intent defence here would mean anyone can get a ticket converting x to y but travel to z saving money then if caught saying they didn't know and boom - a legal way of evading fare

Intent isn't end all and be all there is a huge distinction between not intending to commit a crime and being careless
For example if I start a fight with you and you die cos your head struck the kerb, the state might have a near impossible time proving murder (they don't bother trying in Ireland in many obvious cases of intent to kill but that is another story) as I clearly didn't intend to kill you BUT they might get me for manslaughter instead of assault if I was careless by say shoving you hard to the ground each time you tried to get up and the third time you struck your head

People confuse google with research these days or watching law and order with knowing how the law works for example discussing the JFK assassination I always hear people smugly saying "x had motive and opportunity "...cos that phrase litters media legal dramas and movies but those two are utterly meaningless on their own there might be 6 people who have those you need some actual evidence linking that specific person to the crime

If our legal system required pure intent without taking carelessness or recklessness into account in every case it would be farcical

beauf

I think boards has outdone itself going from not paying the correct fare with Murder and JFK assassination.

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

There has to be intent. This is basic stuff.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/132/enacted/en/html

The intent is clear until you get caught and looking for a way out and then it turns to " I didn't mean it ".

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

You've been on wikipedia! Oblique intent (aka indirect intent) is still a form of intent. The OP didn't do anything on purpose. They claim to have been completely unaware.

I got a fine for going over the speed limit recently, i didnt mean to but i still got fined. Should i appeal based on the fact that i didnt mean to go over the limit.?