Fare Evasion as a Criminal Offence in UK Law

To most people, dodging a train fare feels like a minor administrative matter or a simple civil debt. Under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, criminal penalties apply when there is a demonstrated intent to avoid payment.

That principle is now drawing attention following the case of Charles Brohiri, whose 112 offences have moved the matter from a financial dispute to a criminal sentencing hearing.

The decision to consider custody does not determine the final sentence, the total restitution owed, or the outcome of separate outstanding fines.

What You Need to Know

Prosecution for rail fare evasion is governed by Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

Once the procedural trigger of "intent to avoid payment" is established through repeated offences, the court’s sentencing powers expand from fines to custodial sentences. Personal preference or reputational concern generally does not control the release of these records or the severity of the sentence.

What the Law Does Not Protect

• The assumption that fare evasion is exclusively a civil debt matter or a simple "penalty fare" issue.

• Challenges to prosecutions based on the use of lay prosecutors under Section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

• The right to access rail services while under bail conditions for repeat offences or pending sentencing.

From Ticket to Transport Prosecution

The process begins when a rail operator identifies a passenger traveling without a valid ticket. Under Section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the law allows operators to "lay information" to start a criminal prosecution.

Legally, this means the railway company acts as the prosecutor. This is distinct from a standard police-led prosecution; it is a private criminal proceeding initiated by a corporate entity.

In practice, courts generally allow "lay prosecutors"—employees who are not qualified solicitors or barristers—to initiate these proceedings. This is a long-standing industry standard designed to manage high-volume transit offences.

If every fare evasion charge required a qualified solicitor to file the initial paperwork, the transit system's enforcement arm would collapse under the administrative weight.

Who controls the escalation is the judiciary. Once the number of offences reaches a specific threshold, a District Judge gains the discretion to move beyond financial penalties.

When a defendant demonstrates a "prolific" pattern, the court views the behavior as a continuous contempt for statutory regulations rather than a series of isolated mistakes.

The Mechanism of Intent: Section 5(3) Breakdown

The core of the prosecution rests on the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, Section 5(3).

Unlike railway byelaws, which often impose "strict liability" (meaning you are guilty even if you simply forgot your ticket), Section 5 requires the prosecutor to prove the defendant intended to avoid payment.

In the case of 112 counts, the intent is inferred by the court through the sheer frequency of the conduct. Legally, this shifts the burden of strategy.

A single mistake can be defended as an oversight; a triple-digit history of non-payment is treated as a systematic attempt to defraud the revenue of the transport provider.

This distinction is critical because byelaw offences typically do not result in a criminal record that carries the same weight as a conviction under the 1889 Act.

When Repeated Fare Evasion Stops Being Treated as “Minor”

This case reinforces the legal validity of the private prosecution model used by UK transport authorities.

By permitting prosecutions initiated by non-lawyer employees under the Magistrates’ Courts Act framework, the courts ensure that rail operators can enforce fare compliance at scale. This procedural efficiency is deliberate and long-established in UK law.

However, that efficiency carries legal consequences for defendants. High-volume enforcement increases the number of proven offences, and once a pattern of repeated conduct is established, the court’s sentencing powers expand significantly.

What may appear to the public as a series of minor infractions can, in law, be treated as a single course of criminal conduct.

At that point, sentencing moves beyond isolated penalty fares and into the territory of aggregate seriousness, where custodial sentences become legally available.

Importantly, a judge’s reference to custody does not determine the final outcome. It is a statement of jurisdiction, not punishment.

Under the Sentencing Act 2020 and Sentencing Council guidelines, the court must assess whether the custody threshold has been crossed by considering intent, duration, frequency, and conduct while on bail.

In transit cases, single or sporadic offences almost never meet that threshold. Sustained offending over an extended period, particularly while subject to bail restrictions or exclusion orders, materially increases the likelihood that immediate custody will be considered.

UK law draws a clear distinction between accidental non-payment and systematic intent to avoid payment.

Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 treats repeated, deliberate fare evasion as theft-adjacent conduct rather than administrative error.

While this can feel disproportionate to non-lawyers, the courts characterise such behaviour as a sustained abuse of regulated services and a continuing contempt for statutory controls. In legal terms, the focus is not the ticket, but the pattern.

Fare Evasion, Prosecution, and Sentencing: Key Questions

Can you go to jail for fare evasion in the UK?

Yes. While most fare evasion cases result in fines, repeated offences involving proven intent to avoid payment can lead to imprisonment under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

When does fare evasion become a criminal offence?

Fare evasion becomes a criminal offence when prosecutors can show deliberate intent to avoid payment, particularly where the behaviour is repeated over time.

Can a rail company prosecute someone without using a lawyer?

Yes. UK law allows rail operators to bring private prosecutions using authorised employees, even if they are not qualified solicitors or barristers.

Does a judge warning about prison mean custody is certain?

No. A warning indicates that custody is legally available. The final sentence depends on mitigation, seriousness, and sentencing guidelines.

Can courts ban someone from trains before sentencing?

Yes. Courts can impose travel bans as bail conditions to prevent further offences while a case is ongoing.

What is the difference between a penalty fare and a criminal charge?

A penalty fare is a civil matter. A criminal charge under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 involves an allegation of dishonesty and can carry a criminal record and custodial risk.