Burns v First Capital Connect

[2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
1 May 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Criminal Statutory interpretation
Keywords
Railway Byelaws Byelaw 18(2) invalid Oyster card ticket inspection case stated appeal quashing conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Byelaw 18(2) creates an offence only where a person fails to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity after being asked to do so by an authorised person. The provision does not criminalise possession of an invalid ticket by itself. Where the facts found by the magistrates do not satisfy those elements, a conviction under Byelaw 18(2) cannot stand, even if other byelaws might have addressed the invalidity of the ticket.

Factual background

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by the City of London Magistrates on 22 July 2011. He had handed over an Oyster card, but it had insufficient funds and was therefore invalid. The magistrates nevertheless convicted him under Byelaws 18(2) and 24, despite finding that he had not failed to hand over his ticket and had not been asked to do so by an authorised person.

The central issue was whether those facts could amount to an offence under Byelaw 18(2).

Held

  1. The appeal was allowed. The questions posed by the magistrates were answered “no” in relation to question A and “yes” in relation to question B.

  2. Byelaw 18(2) requires a person to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person. The appellant had handed over his Oyster card. The magistrates also found that no authorised person had asked him to hand it over. Those findings meant that the essential conditions of the byelaw were absent.

  3. An invalid ticket or insufficient funds might have engaged Byelaw 17(1) or Byelaw 18(1), which focused on valid tickets. However, the appellant had not been prosecuted under those provisions. A prosecution under Byelaw 18(2), on the facts found, was incapable of succeeding.

  4. The conviction, associated orders and costs order were quashed. A defendant’s costs order was made, with some reluctance.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from his conviction by the City of London Magistrates on 22 July 2011. The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and associated orders.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.