PFN Disputed - Summons Issued - False Witness Statements

[Clip]

I said the following at the end of my letter - I can paste it all if of help:

'I believe it would be in the best interests of justice and of all parties concerned if this prosecution were discontinued. If however you decide to proceed I will have no alternative but to report the criminal actions of *** and *** by way of making a complaint about their willfully making false statements amounting to perjury and perverting the course of justice.

It is very disconcerting and distressing to have received this Summons, and I am appalled that your witnesses have chosen to make false statements to the court. I have committed no offence whereas your two witnesses have committed many. I have no desire to attend a Magistrates' Court to defend the charge but if I am forced to do that by your refusal to withdraw your Summons I will do so vigorously. I hope that commonsense and the requirements of witnesses to make truthful statements will now prevail.'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


.

Good luck with that one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The $64,000 question is: have you actually paid for the ticket yet? Leave the Penalty Fare out of it.

If you have not paid for the ticket then you have committed an offence.

 

[Greenback]

Samsmoot, such a confrontational tone may be self defeating. I am sorry to say this, but emotive langauge such as that you have used, along with threats, rarely has the effect you desire In my experience, at least.

I would not be at all surprised if the company decided to test your vigourous defence in an identical manner, given that there is little doubt that you have committed an offence.

I am no expert in court proceeding, but I imagine it would be possible for the prosecution to submit new witness statements citing administrative, clerical and typographical errors, while maintiang that these do not materially affect the facts of the case in a major way.

I am happy to be correted, however, as my knowledge in this area is pretty thin.

 

[Llanigraham]

I said the following at the end of my letter - I can paste it all if of help:

'I believe it would be in the best interests of justice and of all parties concerned if this prosecution were discontinued. If however you decide to proceed I will have no alternative but to report the criminal actions of *** and *** by way of making a complaint about their willfully making false statements amounting to perjury and perverting the course of justice.

It is very disconcerting and distressing to have received this Summons, and I am appalled that your witnesses have chosen to make false statements to the court. I have committed no offence whereas your two witnesses have committed many. I have no desire to attend a Magistrates' Court to defend the charge but if I am forced to do that by your refusal to withdraw your Summons I will do so vigorously. I hope that commonsense and the requirements of witnesses to make truthful statements will now prevail.'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thanks. I should be aware of when exactly to throw in the towel - it's an enticing option. Seems a bit early to concede though. But a bit late too.

Sorry, but you have previously admitted you did commit an offence!

And as an ex Court Presenting Officer for a Government Dept, if I got that letter I would go straight to Proceedings, as it makes you sound like a upstart, conceited, barrack room lawyer.

 

[TheEdge]

I said the following at the end of my letter - I can paste it all if of help:

'I believe it would be in the best interests of justice and of all parties concerned if this prosecution were discontinued. If however you decide to proceed I will have no alternative but to report the criminal actions of *** and *** by way of making a complaint about their willfully making false statements amounting to perjury and perverting the course of justice.

It is very disconcerting and distressing to have received this Summons, and I am appalled that your witnesses have chosen to make false statements to the court. I have committed no offence whereas your two witnesses have committed many. I have no desire to attend a Magistrates' Court to defend the charge but if I am forced to do that by your refusal to withdraw your Summons I will do so vigorously. I hope that commonsense and the requirements of witnesses to make truthful statements will now prevail.'

It would have taken up far less paper and time to have just written; "Bring it on and take me to court with your fancy trained and experienced lawyers vs my 10 minute Google search"

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I couldn't resist. Not being local to the area, I had to look up the fare from Sandwell and Dudley to Longbridge, via Birmingham New Street.

samsmoot, you risked a criminal record, to avoid a train fare of just £4? hock:

Sorry, but it is time to grow up, admit your stupidity, and stop trying to maintain you have been done an injustice. You seem savvy enough to know the rules about travelling without a valid ticket (but ignorance of those would be no defence anyway).

Learn a life lesson. Admit your guilt and try to get an offer of an out of court settlement.

If I was the TOC, reading the belligerent tone of your letter, I would be more determined than ever to prosecute !

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I can't disagree with this opinion :

If I was the TOC, reading the belligerent tone of your letter, I would be more determined than ever to prosecute !

. . . and would be sure of success.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I could not obtain a ticket at the station where I began my journey...

But, having been lucky on the way to New Street, in not encountering an RPI, you could have purchased a ticket at New Street, to your destination. So, you actually risked a criminal record for the want of paying just £3.40! You must have spent more than that in the time taken to write emails and / or on the cost of stamps to write your various letters in your 'defence' :roll:

 

[samsmoot]

The $64,000 question is: have you actually paid for the ticket yet? Leave the Penalty Fare out of it.

If you have not paid for the ticket then you have committed an offence.

Good question and one I was going to ask about. I only just noticed that on the ticket it says that,

'The minimum amount you must pay at the time of issue is the full single fare for the journey made'.

Had I noticed this before I may have just bought a ticket at the desk. Don't know if that would have helped. The Revenue Inspector didn't offer to allow payment of the fare.

 

[Flamingo]

Samsmoot, do please let us all know what court and date you will be attending.

Dave, would the magistrate take a dim view of somebody sitting in the public gallery eating popcorn? If not, you are welcome to share mine, I'll bring a big bag.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would have taken up far less paper and time to have just written; "Bring it on and take me to court with your fancy trained and experienced lawyers vs my 10 minute Google search"

Succinct and to the point. I like it!

 

[DownSouth]

Dave, would the magistrate take a dim view of somebody sitting in the public gallery eating popcorn? If not, you are welcome to share mine, I'll bring a big bag.

I would go for yes. To have a bag of snack food and eat it in front of someone is extremely rude, and if you're going to be rude to somebody it's probably not good to pick a person who can issue custodial sentences.

To avoid this being an issue, simply make sure you offer to share some with the magistrate.

 

[samsmoot]

Samsmoot, such a confrontational tone may be self defeating. I am sorry to say this, but emotive langauge such as that you have used, along with threats, rarely has the effect you desire In my experience, at least.

I would not be at all surprised if the company decided to test your vigourous defence in an identical manner, given that there is little doubt that you have committed an offence.

I am no expert in court proceeding, but I imagine it would be possible for the prosecution to submit new witness statements citing administrative, clerical and typographical errors, while maintiang that these do not materially affect the facts of the case in a major way.

I am happy to be correted, however, as my knowledge in this area is pretty thin.

Confrontational - yes, I tend to be like that. It does often work quite well but I can understand how in this situation it might not have been the best way to go.

I helped someone a few years ago to avoid conviction for a similar offence due to a technicality. The Summons alleged travel from Longbridge to New Street, whereas it was vice-versa. The specific offence couldn't be shown to have happened and so I sent a letter on behalf of the accused threatening an action for malicious prosecution if the summons wasn't withdrawn. They sent a nice letter back saying they had dropped it.

So perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that a stroppy letter might make them back down. But really, it's not even that - it's that I initially thought I would probably plead guilty and accept the punishment - but after reading the false Statements I felt it not to be right to allow them to go unchallenged.

Of course I will do whatever I can to avoid more loss, or a conviction, and as I say, I may well change my plea. But that still doesn't detract from the false Statements which have been made by the Witness. If I am to be held responsible for my actions, so should they - but even more so, I would have thought.

The proper thing to do might be to plead guilty and simply include the letters and emails I sent to show that I genuinely had good reason to dispute the PFN and did in fact make representations in mitigation. and did not know that prosecution would result. I know not if this will help secure a lesser punishment.

And I can then choose or not to pursue a complaint against the Witness and/or LM. My plan would be to make the complaint to the appropriate authorities and if they act they act, if they don't they don't. As I said above, I don't see why the Witness decided to make an untrue statement and don't see it as being a just way to go about supporting a prosecution. If it was a genuine mistake, then fine - no problem - but someone in authority should decide that.

 

[Anvil1984]

When the guards at our company issue a Unpaid Fares Notice we have to submit a Witness Statement which is pretty much a cut and paste job, is this the same for Penalty Fares (can any RPIs enlighten me). It may not be the case the RPI has written something down but not crossed it out

I'm sorry but the attitude of "if I'm going down I'm taking others down with me" is poor. The fact you didn't take at least 2 opportunities to pay and the fact you refused to sign / pay what I believe to be a legitimate penalty fare (I've posted the penalty fare rules which state it's the relevant train you travelled on and not the TOC which you start the journey with which determines the action)

FYI rule about paying the amount for the journey would have helped you in this case. You could have paid the minimum amount but you'd have still had to pay the remainder of the £20 within 21 days

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Dave, would the magistrate take a dim view of somebody sitting in the public gallery eating popcorn? If not, you are welcome to share mine, I'll bring a big bag.

Chocolates, for me please, and why not bring enough for the Bench to enjoy too?

Confrontational - yes, I tend to be like that.

Yes, we get the idea, thanks.

I helped someone a few years ago to avoid conviction for a similar offence due to a technicality.
. . . . . so I sent a letter on behalf of the accused threatening an action for malicious prosecution if the summons wasn't withdrawn. They sent a nice letter back saying they had dropped it.

Yes, sometimes being difficult can contribute to things going away, and sometimes they would have gone away anyway. And sometimes being difficult (or 'confontational') makes them worse. Usually it makes them worse than they would have been anyway.
As I'm sure you realise, it doesn't mean you were, in any sense, 'right'.

Anyway, as I and others have made abundantly clear, all your bluster misses the point, the point being that you travelled without a valid ticket, and now that you're being given the opportunity to offer any defence or mitigation, your blazing with wild accusations against others in all directions and meanwhile persuading yourself that other people's failings are the subject of the matter. They're not. It's your failing that needs to be addressed, and nothing else.

 

[samsmoot]

When the guards at our company issue a Unpaid Fares Notice we have to submit a Witness Statement which is pretty much a cut and paste job, is this the same for Penalty Fares (can any RPIs enlighten me). It may not be the case the RPI has written something down but not crossed it out

I'm sorry but the attitude of "if I'm going down I'm taking others down with me" is poor. The fact you didn't take at least 2 opportunities to pay and the fact you refused to sign / pay what I believe to be a legitimate penalty fare (I've posted the penalty fare rules which state it's the relevant train you travelled on and not the TOC which you start the journey with which determines the action)

FYI rule about paying the amount for the journey would have helped you in this case. You could have paid the minimum amount but you'd have still had to pay the remainder of the £20 within 21 days

Thanks for that. If the fare was paid, then, could a prosecution ensue for the remainder?

 

[yorkie]

...what I believe to be a legitimate penalty fare ...

I'm not at all convinced that the PF was legitimate.

A Byelaw 18 prosecution for not purchasing at the origin may be a possible course of action, but it really depends on the details of the origin station, such what signs/notices are displayed when the ticket office is closed.

 

[samsmoot]

Chocolates, for me please, and why not bring enough for the Bench to enjoy too?


Yes, we get the idea, thanks.

Yes, sometimes being difficult can contribute to things going away, and sometimes they would have gone away anyway. And sometimes being difficult (or 'confontational') makes them worse. Usually it makes them worse than they would have been anyway.
As I'm sure you realise, it doesn't mean you were, in any sense, 'right'.

Anyway, as I and others have made abundantly clear, all your bluster misses the point, the point being that you travelled without a valid ticket, and now that you're being given the opportunity to offer any defence or mitigation, your blazing with wild accusations against others in all directions and meanwhile persuading yourself that other people's failings are the subject of the matter. They're not. It's your failing that needs to be addressed, and nothing else.

I get the point and will probably deal with the matter in a more conciliatory manner. I appreciate the advice given and have taken it on board and may act on it.

Pointing out that the Witness has made false statements, I would have thought, would be a pretty standard and necessary thing to do. To continue a prosecution in full knowledge of this fact seems a lot more wrong than failing to have bought a ticket, and two wrongs don't make a right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not at all convinced that the PF was legitimate.

A Byelaw 18 prosecution for not purchasing at the origin may be a possible course of action, but it really depends on the details of the origin station, such what signs/notices are displayed when the ticket office is closed.

Thanks for that - I will look into it. The last time there the office was closed but can't remember much else.

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm not at all convinced that the PF was legitimate.

A Byelaw 18 prosecution for not purchasing at the origin may be a possible course of action, but it really depends on the details of the origin station, such what signs/notices are displayed when the ticket office is closed.

I thought we had already proved that the originating station has a ticket machine and that it is opposite the ticket office!

Sam, if you stood up in front of the 3 Magistrates and said that the Railway Servant was a liar, who do you think they are going to believe, especially if you took the "attitude" that you have shown here? Sorry, but from my experience in Court you are on a hiding for nothing at the moment.

 

[Anvil1984]

I'm not at all convinced that the PF was legitimate.

A Byelaw 18 prosecution for not purchasing at the origin may be a possible course of action, but it really depends on the details of the origin station, such what signs/notices are displayed when the ticket office is closed.

As a trial run I've tried to purchase a ticket online and Sandwell and Dudley is on the list for collection so along with the other posters posts stating there is definitely one there. It depends if posters or signs are placed at Birmingham New Street and I'm sure there are

 

[samsmoot]

I thought we had already proved that the originating station has a ticket machine and that it is opposite the ticket office!

Sam, if you stood up in front of the 3 Magistrates and said that the Railway Servant was a liar, who do you think they are going to believe, especially if you took the "attitude" that you have shown here? Sorry, but from my experience in Court you are on a hiding for nothing at the moment.

They should believe the evidence - that the witness has signed to say I signed, and signed to say I didn't. That's not to say that I necessarily would disagree with the outcome being other than you suggest.

 

[bb21]

samsnoot, I am disappointed that after our PM conversation you have decided that you would take a militant approach. I would have hoped that you would appreciate the central issue in this whole saga is that you had committed a Byelaw 18 offence, which is the legislation under which this case is lodged under. All this talk about the prosecution presenting false evidence may not affect the central issue at all if there is other sufficient proof that you indeed committed this offence. It just serves to muddy the water and a magistrate may see through that quite easily and accept that an administrative error was made by the prosecution rather than a deliberate intention to mislead.

Of course how you wish to proceed with the matter is entirely your decision and your decision alone. But I would have thought that should you wish to point out to the prosecution the flaws in their evidence under such circumstances, a more reconciliatory tone and a touch of subtlety would be much more productive and much less likely to get their backs up. I would have supported a militant tone had you not committed the offence in the first place, but that is not the case here.

I can't help the feeling that your sense of injustice is clouding your judgement, and not in a good way.

 

[samsmoot]

As a trial run I've tried to purchase a ticket online and Sandwell and Dudley is on the list for collection so along with the other posters posts stating there is definitely one there. It depends if posters or signs are placed at Birmingham New Street and I'm sure there are

Most signs have been taken down during the refurbishment. I videotaped a similar journey and caught no signs from getting off the train to getting on another at the opposite end - no signs - but later I did notice a warning sign near the Fares To Pay counter - quite large but not easily seen. Along the whole one side of New Street, on both sides of the walkway and the platform entrances, there are no signs and barely any on the platforms. I did cite the reason of insufficient signage in my Appeal, but they flat out refused to accept this - even though I wanted to supply the video evidence and therefore show the Rules didn't allow a PFN under these circumstances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

samsnoot, I am disappointed that after our PM conversation you have decided that you would take a militant approach. I would have hoped that you would appreciate the central issue in this whole saga is that you had committed a Byelaw 18 offence, which is the legislation under which this case is lodged under. All this talk about the prosecution presenting false evidence may not affect the central issue at all if there is other sufficient proof that you indeed committed this offence. It just serves to muddy the water and a magistrate may see through that quite easily and accept that an administrative error was made by the prosecution rather than a deliberate intention to mislead.

Of course how you wish to proceed with the matter is entirely your decision and your decision alone. But I would have thought that should you wish to point out to the prosecution the flaws in their evidence under such circumstances, a more reconciliatory tone and a touch of subtlety would be much more productive and much less likely to get their backs up. I would have supported a militant tone had you not committed the offence in the first place, but that is not the case here.

I can't help the feeling that your sense of injustice is clouding your judgement, and not in a good way.

I do appreciate the advice given and will reread it. I can't take the letter back but I can apologise for the tone and seek a settlement - or just plead guilty in the quite near future. Admitting defeat is not something I am averse to if I am beat.

This does still leave the problem of the false statement being made, which, as I say, will be for someone else to decide on. I don't know if anyone will care one way or another but if a criminal action is apparent it should be reported - especially something which carries a possible sentence of up to 7 years and directly impacts in a negative way. I would at least expect the Witness Statement to be withdrawn - I'm not having to prove the contradictions - the witness's own evidence does that - so if after knowing their evidence contains untrue statements they continue to repeat or fail to retract it, that would not appear to be a reasonable thing to do.

 

[bb21]

I can see what you are trying to do here, and I agree to a certain extent that it is not right morally that incorrect evidence should be allowed to go unchallenged, but my feeling is that you are going about this in the worst possible way.

You could have allowed the case to go to court and challenge it there and then, you may succeed with sufficient preparation and well-organised arguments. (Of course, no guarantee here.)

You could ignore that and take a more moderate tone with the company and chances are you would get a settlement agreement without the case going to court, or that they may exercise discretion and drop the matter altogether when they realise that their case was not water-tight.

What you have done here is threaten the company by pointing out to them exactly the flaws in their evidence, therefore you have given them the chance to revisit the case and lodge new evidence/fully prepare their explanations for the mistakes in the evidence before the case is heard. Meanwhile your tone in those letters may just have got their backs up so any potential chance at reaching an out-of-court settlement may have disappeared, and given them the incentive to get everything correct in order that they succeed.

Granted, we cannot possibly know what is going through the prosecution's mind at the moment and how they would proceed in light of your letters, but I hope you see what I am trying to get at. I sincerely hope that it is true when you said earlier that you may deal with the matter in a more reconciliatory manner. I would urge you to give this approach some serious consideration.

 

[samsmoot]

I can see what you are trying to do here, and I agree to a certain extent that it is not right morally that incorrect evidence should be allowed to go unchallenged, but my feeling is that you are going about this in the worst possible way.

You could have allowed the case to go to court and challenge it there and then, you may succeed with sufficient preparation and well-organised arguments. (Of course, no guarantee here.)

You could ignore that and take a more moderate tone with the company and chances are you would get a settlement agreement without the case going to court, or that they may exercise discretion and drop the matter altogether when they realise that their case was not water-tight.

What you have done here is threaten the company by pointing out to them exactly the flaws in their evidence, therefore you have given them the chance to revisit the case and lodge new evidence/fully prepare their explanations for the mistakes in the evidence before the case is heard. Meanwhile your tone in those letters may just have got their backs up so any potential chance at reaching an out-of-court settlement may have disappeared, and given them the incentive to get everything correct in order that they succeed.

Granted, we cannot possibly know what is going through the prosecution's mind at the moment and how they would proceed in light of your letters, but I hope you see what I am trying to get at. I sincerely hope that it is true when you said earlier that you may deal with the matter in a more reconciliatory manner. I would urge you to give this approach some serious consideration.

Thanks - I will. And thanks also for your acknowledgement that it's right to challenge incorrect evidence. It does make me wonder if my signing or not the PFN is actually an important thing for the Prosecution to have put down on paper - as it was stressed that I did when it plainly can be shown I didn't it could be taken that there was some motive for doing that. Or it could have been an error, I would accept, if told so.

 

[Llanigraham]

Most signs have been taken down during the refurbishment. I videotaped a similar journey and caught no signs from getting off the train to getting on another at the opposite end - no signs - but later I did notice a warning sign near the Fares To Pay counter - quite large but not easily seen. Along the whole one side of New Street, on both sides of the walkway and the platform entrances, there are no signs and barely any on the platforms. I did cite the reason of insufficient signage in my Appeal, but they flat out refused to accept this - even though I wanted to supply the video evidence and therefore show the Rules didn't allow a PFN under these circumstances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I do appreciate the advice given and will reread it. I can't take the letter back but I can apologise for the tone and seek a settlement - or just plead guilty in the quite near future. Admitting defeat is not something I am averse to if I am beat.

This does still leave the problem of the false statement being made, which, as I say, will be for someone else to decide on. I don't know if anyone will care one way or another but if a criminal action is apparent it should be reported - especially something which carries a possible sentence of up to 7 years and directly impacts in a negative way. I would at least expect the Witness Statement to be withdrawn - I'm not having to prove the contradictions - the witness's own evidence does that - so if after knowing their evidence contains untrue statements they continue to repeat or fail to retract it, that would not appear to be a reasonable thing to do.

Sam, sorry but you really don't get it, do you?

You are being prosecuted for not having a ticket, and it has been proved that you ignored the ticket machine at your original station, and you then ignored the possibility of buying a ticket at New St, where you have now proved there are signs even if they are not obvious.

Your continual raising of the difference in statements is not proving anything. If you stood up in front of 3 magistrates and implied that the prosecution had committed perjury do you honestly believe that they would accept your word? Sorry but you are the accused and they are the professional prosecutors, and you are just going to sound like you are trying it on. I have heard it several times when I acted as a Presenting Officer and it never got anywhere.

Have you realised what the effect may be in the future if you have a criminal record? Somehow I doubt you have!!

I guess you are under 25 and think the whole world is against you. Well sorry, but in this case the whole world is The Law and they are on a far stronger footing than you are!!

 

[island]

The display or not of posters (or leaflets, paintings, murals, &c.) is completely irrelevant to the success or not of a prosecution for joining a train without a ticket. I am very confused as to why members continue to make reference thereto.

 

[bb21]

Have you realised what the effect may be in the future if you have a criminal record? Somehow I doubt you have!!

If the OP is being prosecuted under the Byelaws, he should not get a criminal record on conviction.

 

[455driver]

Samsmoot, do please let us all know what court and date you will be attending.

Dave, would the magistrate take a dim view of somebody sitting in the public gallery eating popcorn? If not, you are welcome to share mine, I'll bring a big bag!

I will provide the coke with 2 straws (to drink )!

it would be worth wasting a day off just to view it, better than car crash afternoon telly thats for sure!

 

[jon0844]

Dave, would the magistrate take a dim view of somebody sitting in the public gallery eating popcorn? If not, you are welcome to share mine, I'll bring a big bag.

Sounds tempting - think I might come along now. Sweet popcorn please, none of that salted nonsense.

 

[Flamingo]

I think we'll have quite a jolly day out! Hip flasks optional