Great Western Coffee Shop

Barrister Peter Barnett 'may have cost Chiltern Railways ^23k in unpaid fares'

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82236000/jpg/_82236341_82231108.jpg)
Peter Barnett admits fraud, but says he did not con Chiltern Railways out of ^23,000

A barrister who avoided paying train tickets could have cost a rail company ^23,000 a court has heard.

It is claimed Peter Barnett, 43, boarded trains at Haddenham and Thame Parkway without a ticket and used an Oyster card to "tap out" at Marylebone.

Chiltern Railways claims it lost ^23,000. Barnett, who admits fraud, said it was ^10,000 once leave was taken into consideration.

The case at Westminster Magistrates' Court was adjourned until 27 July.

Chiltern Railways has been urged to calculate the exact loss to the company before the case can proceed.

The court was told Barnett, from Oxford, was stopped by a ticket inspector at Marylebone station and asked where he travelled from.

When he claimed to have travelled from Wembley, instead of Haddenham and Thame Parkway in Oxford, the inspector became suspicious and Barnett ran off.

He handed himself in later that day.

Barnett admits six counts of fraud by false representation between April 2012 and November last year.

He has been released on unconditional bail.

He will have dodged weekly (or longer) seasons, so that is the calculation they need to do - with a fine on top.

He will have dodged weekly (or longer) seasons, so that is the calculation they need to do - with a fine on top. That current calculation is based on the daily dodge, which of course he is unlikely to have purchased in paying his way.

And surely as a Barrister how can he continue working when he has committed fraud? Or is it just me that thinks that?

Barrister Peter Barnett sentenced for two-year fare dodge

(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/BAD9/production/_85833874_hi029369952.jpg)
Peter Barnett ran off when a member of station staff became suspicious about his story

A barrister who commuted by train for two years without paying has been given a suspended 16-week prison sentence.

Peter Barnett, 44, travelled from Haddenham and Thame Parkway to London Marylebone, but dodged the full fare by claiming his journey began at Wembley in north-west London.

Chiltern Railways had argued he should pay back nearly ^20,000 but the defence said the true value was ^6,000.

Barnett, from Oxford, admitted fraud by false representation.

Deputy District Judge Olalekan Omotosho said: "There is a need not just to punish you for the offences but also deter others from committing offences."

She added: "It remains unclear why you acted so badly. You let yourself down and your family down, particularly in light of your profession as a lawyer."

Barnett admitted six counts of fraud by false representation between April 2012 and November 2014 and was ordered to pay back nearly ^6,000.

City of London Magistrates' Court heard that Barnett - a former Oxford graduate and Rhodes scholar who also worked in the financial services sector - failed to pay for journeys on Chiltern Railways on 655 days between April 2012 and November 2014.

He was thought to have simply "tapped out" with an Oyster card, automatically being charged the maximum Transport for London fare.

Prosecutors had argued he should pay back ^19,689, the full value of the cost of daily returns for the trips he made.

However, the defence claimed the value was a penalty imposed by the railway company rather than the true value, because if Barnett had bought a ticket it would have been a weekly one - rather than paying a daily fare.

The court heard that Barnett ran off when a member of station staff became suspicious about his story and called a supervisor, but had a change of heart and later handed himself in.

During an interview with British Transport Police, he confessed that he had been carrying out the scam since April 2012.

Barnett was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work and be supervised for 12 months.

The prosecution's view is that an offence is committed each time and that the cost of a ticket each day is the loss to the TOC. That seems reasonable to me. The fact is he chose not to purchase a season ticket offering a discount over the daily rate, so on each day he travelled the TOC's loss was the difference between the fare paid and the full fare payable.

Now sentence has been passed, I'm sure they will now call him for a hearing