Notice of fine & Collection order

[abixo]

Hi everyone

I today received in the post a Notice of Fine and collection order from Bolton Magistrates' Court. It is broken down as follows:

- 1 / Board a train in non compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket - railway bye law. Fine of £220, "Comp" of £3.60, victim surcharge of £22.00 and costs of £150.00.

- 2 Fail to give name and address when suspected of breach or attempted breach of railway byelaws. Fine of £220.

I have until 8th February to raise payment.

Firstly I wish to say I never received any notice of hearing or summons, or any information at all in relation to this case.

To explain the background situation, I boarded a train at Mossley which was unmanned at the time. The ticket officer did not come round on the train as he sometimes does. I got to Manchester Victoria and asked the man for a return from Mossley to MCV. I was asked to go and speak to the revenue officer who was just off to the side about 10 metres away. At this point I knew what was going to happen but as Mossley was unmanned I was fine about it and knew it wouldn't be a problem.

I tell the revenue officer I got on the train at Mossley, then after speaking to the person selling the ticket (as I obviously shouldn't have been stopped considering it wasn't manned at the time) I was accused of saying I boarded at Ashton Under Lyne, which is 2 stops after Mossley. I completely denied and again, said I boarded at Mossley. The revenue officer wasn't really happy with this and said he would call the British Transport Police, which he did.

I was asked for my date of birth, phone number, address etc. I queried if I needed to provide all of this information and was told I did. I gave him my drivers license and he got on some cheap phone which I am assuming was to confirm who I was. This leads me to the question of why I was fined £220 for failing to give my name and address? How did they get my details if I failed to give it?????

Next, the revenue officer wrote down his version of events on his notepad. The main points were that I failed to buy a ticket at Ashton Under Lyne and that I boarded the train without purchasing a ticket before when there was no reason for me not to. In the presence of the BTP he asked me to sign the notepad to confirm. I refused, saying my signature was an admission of guilt by confirming his events as true. He got extremely mad and in the end again went over to the BTP who confirmed I did not have to sign it at all. I didn't sign it and was on my way.

So here we are now. Is there any way I can appeal this, or is that it? What are the prospects of success in this matter?

Appreciate any advice or guidance. This is about principle really for me, should I be looking at hiring some form of lawyer?

Cheers

 

[najaB]

There are two issues here which need to be looked at separately.

The first issue is that you said you received no documentation or letters about this case. If this is true, then it is possible to file a Statutory Declaration which will reset the case back to the beginning, setting aside the fine and allowing it to go through the Court to be heard again.

Please bear in mind that making this declaration when it isn't true is contempt of court and can result in a separate criminal proceeding being taken against you.

The second issue comes to the station that you boarded at. If you really boarded at an unmanned station then you cannot be found guilty of a Byelaw 18 offence. The question that I have is why the Inspector was so sure that you had boarded at a manned station. If it's truly a case of mistaken identity then making a Statutory declaration is probably in your best interest. If however, you really did board at a staffed station, compounding a false statutory declaration with perjury is not a good idea.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thinking about this a little more, it does seem odd that this letter has managed to find you, but the summons did not. Are you sure that you didn't simply fail to open the earlier correspondence?

 

[FenMan]

Mossley has a ticket office, but opening hours are not comprehensive. What day of the week and time did the OP travel?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with najaB that, technically, there is the procedure of making a Statutory Declaration (SD) which is available in the situation described of a trial having taken place without the Defendant having received any Summons or other notification.
But I cannot advise that procedure with the baffling lack of explanation for those same two questions: Was there really absolutely no notification of the Court hearing?, and, what explanation is there for the incredible substitution of one station name for another?

If there is no satisfactoy explanation for the second question, then there is little chance that a re-trial is going to provide a more beneficial outcome (and may bring its own, higher, costs).

 

[185]

My only concern is whilst the passenger could indeed have been trying asking for a short-fare from Ashton, the railway hasn't helped itself using contract firm STM for Revenue bookups. STM have set revenue targets - ie money changing hands for the more they do - less likely to use discretion, more likely to do anything for a TIR.

 

[island]

Thinking about this a little more, it does seem odd that this letter has managed to find you, but the summons did not. Are you sure that you didn't simply fail to open the earlier correspondence?

Indeed – it is not unknown for passengers in such a situation to stick the head in the sand and hope it'll all go away.

 

[abixo]

There are two issues here which need to be looked at separately.

The first issue is that you said you received no documentation or letters about this case. If this is true, then it is possible to file a Statutory Declaration which will reset the case back to the beginning, setting aside the fine and allowing it to go through the Court to be heard again.

Please bear in mind that making this declaration when it isn't true is contempt of court and can result in a separate criminal proceeding being taken against you.

The second issue comes to the station that you boarded at. If you really boarded at an unmanned station then you cannot be found guilty of a Byelaw 18 offence. The question that I have is why the Inspector was so sure that you had boarded at a manned station. If it's truly a case of mistaken identity then making a Statutory declaration is probably in your best interest. If however, you really did board at a staffed station, compounding a false statutory declaration with perjury is not a good idea.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thinking about this a little more, it does seem odd that this letter has managed to find you, but the summons did not. Are you sure that you didn't simply fail to open the earlier correspondence?

Sorry, I should of been more clear. I received a letter from Northern Rail indicating an intention to potentially prosecute and asking for me to write my version of events on the back of one of their letters. I did so and sent it back. The next thing I receive is the order telling me I must pay a total of £615.00.

The station I boarded at is manned but I believe only at certain hours. I made the journey late afternoon around 5pm and it wasn't manned, nor has it ever been since around that time. This was a weekday but I cannot remember the specific date. You can understand my shock when I received the order considering this happened in October if memory serves.

Mossley has a ticket office, but opening hours are not comprehensive. What day of the week and time did the OP travel?

As above, thank you.

I agree with najaB that, technically, there is the procedure of making a Statutory Declaration (SD) which is available in the situation described of a trial having taken place without the Defendant having received any Summons or other notification.
But I cannot advise that procedure with the baffling lack of explanation for those same two questions: Was there really absolutely no notification of the Court hearing?, and, what explanation is there for the incredible substitution of one station name for another?

If there is no satisfactoy explanation for the second question, then there is little chance that a re-trial is going to provide a more beneficial outcome (and may bring its own, higher, costs).

No notification received at all from either the court or Northern Rail (I am not sure who would send this to me?). Having worked in a law firm previously I am well aware that these things simply don't go away if you leave them! In relation to the substitution of station names, the only explanation I can possibly have is that the ticket seller heard someone else at the time. Another man was spoken to by a revenue officer at near enough the same time I was. There were around 4 staff selling tickets and maybe 6 staff in total. When the revenue protection officer accused me of stating the wrong station and the whole debacle escalated, he himself said he heard me when he was 10+ metres away and from what I can remember, wasn't focusing on what was going on. I appreciate your comments as well as your warnings in relation to a re-trial.

My only concern is whilst the passenger could indeed have been trying asking for a short-fare from Ashton, the railway hasn't helped itself using contract firm STM for Revenue bookups. STM have set revenue targets - ie money changing hands for the more they do - less likely to use discretion, more likely to do anything for a TIR.

You have probably heard this countless times on the forums, however I have no reason and/or need to short-fare from a stop that would save me around 50 pence. I have monthly season tickets but the way the dates fell in relation to trying to get the most out of my season ticket, it worked out better for me to get a single instead of renewing at the time. Furthermore, having been travelling the same route for around 5 years, I knew one of the ticket sellers' face and he knew mine. I'm fairly certain he knows where I get the train to and from on a regular basis, and I am not sure if he did verify the revenue officers' version of events.

----------------------------------------------------

Can anyone please shed light on the second fine of £220 I received for failing to give my name and address? I handed over my driving license and I have received a collection order so how could they have received my details if I failed to hand them over? Or am I simply missing something?

Thanks for your continued assistance.

 

[crehld]

?, and, what explanation is there for the incredible substitution of one station name for another?

I'm surprised you haven't come across this situation before. It is not at all uncommon for such inaccuracies and mistakes to be made in inspectors' reports!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If the ticket office was not open, and if there was no other opportunity to pay before boarding (such as a ticket machine) then you are not in breach of the byelaws. Obviously a court has found you in breach of them, but you claim the records about incident, which would have been used as evidence against you, are inaccurate. One of the others will be in a better position than I about how (or indeed if) this judgement can be over turned. However, you might think about what evidence you have to mobilize in your defence that you did indeed board at Mossley.

As to the matter of not providing your details when you did, this is baffling indeed. Especially given you say you gave your details and ID, and they obviously have your details to correspond with you. Just a thought. Did you at one point refuse to hand over your details, and then later agree? For example from your opening post it is not quite clear to me at least if you initially refused to hand over your details and only relented once the British Transport Police became involved.

 

[najaB]

I'm surprised you haven't come across this situation before. It is not at all uncommon for such inaccuracies and mistakes to be made in inspectors' reports!

It does occur, but one has to wonder why it wasn't corrected when the OP replied to the TOC's intial letter. There must be a good reason for the TOC to continue to hold that the OP boarded at Ashton Under Lyne if he has twice (once on the day and again by correspondence) said that he boarded at Mossley.

To the OP, I have no reason to believe you are lying but it would appear that the TOC does. Do you have any idea why this would be?

If the ticket office was not open, and if there was no other opportunity to pay before boarding (such as a ticket machine) then you are not in breach of the byelaws. Obviously a court has found you in breach of them, but you claim the records about incident, which would have been used as evidence against you, are inaccurate. One of the others will be in a better position than I about how (or indeed if) this judgement can be over turned. However, you might think about what evidence you have to mobilize in your defence that you did indeed board at Mossley.

You are correct - if we accept that the OP boarded at Mossley at a time when there were no ticket vending facilities, then the Byelaw 18 prosecution is unsound. If the OP were to make a statutory declaration that he was unaware of the case being heard, and is then able to provide evidence sufficient to undermine the TOC's assertion that he boarded at Ashton Under Lyne then he would be found innocent. You correctly identify that it would be incumbent on the OP to be sure that he has access to such evidence before taking this course of action - as DaveNewcastle said if the same evidence is presented then you would expect that the same verdict will be reached, the only difference will be a potential doubling of the costs.

As to the matter of not providing your details when you did, this is baffling indeed. Especially given you say you gave your details and ID, and they obviously have your details to correspond with you. Just a thought. Did you at one point refuse to hand over your details, and then later agree? For example from your opening post it is not quite clear to me at least if you initially refused to hand over your details and only relented once the British Transport Police became involved.

That is the way I read the OP as well - he initially refused to cooperate (which presumably extended to refusing to provide his details) - only doing so after the BTP became involved.

 

[exile]

I'm surprised you haven't come across this situation before. It is not at all uncommon for such inaccuracies and mistakes to be made in inspectors' reports!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If the ticket office was not open, and if there was no other opportunity to pay before boarding (such as a ticket machine) then you are not in breach of the byelaws. Obviously a court has found you in breach of them, but you claim the records about incident, which would have been used as evidence against you, are inaccurate. One of the others will be in a better position than I about how (or indeed if) this judgement can be over turned. However, you might think about what evidence you have to mobilize in your defence that you did indeed board at Mossley.

Given that the OP is accused of telling the inspector that he boarded at Ashton, evidence that he boarded at Mossley isn't going to help.

It boils down to one person's word versus another. Given the fine is so high it may be worth seeking legal advice, outside this forum.

 

[ian959]

Firstly I wish to say I never received any notice of hearing or summons, or any information at all in relation to this case.

Which you subsequently have admitted is wrong as you did receive the initial correspondence from Northern Rail requesting your version of events.

You have now received a notice of fine and collection order, which would therefore suggest that there is no issue with the address on correspondence. I am therefore struggling to understand how you would not have received a follow up letter from Northern Rail saying that they were going to prosecute nor the summons to appear in court.

From my reading of your events, you initially refused to provide your name and address. That is the cause of the penalty for failure to provide your address almost certainly. It is an offence not to provide your name and address to an authorised person. That you subsequently DID provide the details, after intervention by the BTP officer, does not change the fact the the offence was committed. Maybe harsh to charge and fine you but on the face of it, it is correct.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Does the OPs station have CCTV? Could video of him boarding at Mossley be used to prove this one way or the otter?

 

[island]

Does the OPs station have CCTV? Could video of him boarding at Mossley be used to prove this one way or the otter?

I don't get why people so frequently suggest this. Any CCTV footage which may or may not exist will have been deleted long ago.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

No notification received at all from either the court or Northern Rail (I am not sure who would send this to me?).

It would have been in the form of a Summons to a Magistrates Court to plea to the offence stated; this, in turn, would have been issued in response to information provided to the Court Office which included your name and address.

If there is no doubt that the Summons wasn't received, then you may seek to make the SD which effecively allows the Summons to be reissued and will trigger a re-hearing. What would make that re-hearing of the matter any different from the original hearing would be if you pleaded 'not guilty' and had any relevant Evidence to support that plea - Evidence which would undermine the Prosecution's own Evidence of your guilt to the required standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Does the OPs station have CCTV? Could video of him boarding at Mossley be used to prove this one way or the otter?

Almost certainly. However it's now likely to be much too late to request it as the matter's gone to Court already.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm surprised you haven't come across this situation before. It is not at all uncommon for such inaccuracies and mistakes to be made in inspectors' reports!

This is missing the point I was making to abixo, who I hope did grasp the point, but as I appear to have been unclear, I will expand that point:

I was advising, based on the facts presented here, that it does not appear to be beneficial to abixo to make a SD unless (s)he has a satisfactory explanation for the substitution of one station name for another in the Inspector's written evidence.

It would not be a satisfactory explanation to announce that Inspectors make mistakes. Such an announcement, without any corroboration or other facts to support it, would not be likely to cast adequate doubt on the Prosecution's report to reach a verdict of 'not guilty' where there are already accusations of : travel without a valid ticket and providing a false name and address.

 

[bnm]

and providing a false name and address.

Where has that been stated?

OP was asked for personal details, queried the need, then provided them with corroborating evidence in the form of a driving licence. These were, according to the OP, checked at the time he was stopped. He also said he was told he had to provide a date of birth as well as phone number. The OP has given far more than he was required to do by law.

I find it perfectly possible that, if, as it appears, we have a Revenue Officer overstating his legal position to obtain details, that same Revenue Officer could (by fault or design) enter the wrong origin station on paperwork.

Why also, when those details were given, ID provided, and then checked at the time, has the OP been convicted of failure to provide? Some correspondence was received at the OP's address prior to the (apparently) unreceived summons. How did a prosecution for no details go ahead when Northern had details that appear to have been corroborated and verified at the time of incident?

 

[Shempz]

That is the way I read the OP as well - he initially refused to cooperate (which presumably extended to refusing to provide his details) - only doing so after the BTP became involved.

The OP does not state that - so I do not see how you can interpret it that way until he confirms one way or the other at what point the BTP got involved, and whether he had refused to give the relevant details initially to the RPO or simply wanted to know if he had to provide them

To quote the OP:
I was asked for my date of birth, phone number, address etc. I queried if I needed to provide all of this information and was told I did. I gave him my drivers license and he got on some cheap phone which I am assuming was to confirm who I was.

 

[najaB]

The OP does not state that - so I do not see how you can interpret it that way until he confirms one way or the other at what point the BTP got involved, and whether he had refused to give the relevant details initially to the RPO or simply wanted to know if he had to provide them

To quote the OP:
I was asked for my date of birth, phone number, address etc. I queried if I needed to provide all of this information and was told I did. I gave him my drivers license and he got on some cheap phone which I am assuming was to confirm who I was.

Yes. But this was after the BTP were called due to his original refusal to cooperate.

 

[Shempz]

Yes. But this was after the BTP were called due to his original refusal to cooperate.

Can you please show exactly where in this thread the OP says they refused to co-operate?

 

[najaB]

Can you please show exactly where in this thread the OP says they refused to co-operate?

Why would there be a need to call BTP if they were being fully cooperative?

 

[Shempz]

Why would there be a need to call BTP if they were being fully cooperative?

OP states they did not agree with the RPO with regards to where they said they boarded. RPO says they will get the BTP.

- this is not failing to co-operate, its simply failing to agree.

OP was asked for their details. They queried if they were required, and when told yes, they provided them.

- again, this is not failing to co-operate, its just asking for clarification before co-operating.

OP was asked to sign a statement they did not agree with, asked if they needed to sign it. They were told "no", so did not sign it.

- again, this is not failing to co-operate, but simply exercising their rights.

 

[najaB]

OP states they did not agree with the RPO with regards to where they said they boarded. RPO says they will get the BTP.

That is their version of events. I can't see how or why an RPI would call BTP just because the passenger disagrees with what he's written. I also can't see BTP sticking around if the passenger is calm and being fully cooperative.

Edit: I wasn't there, so I can't say what happened. It's entirely possible I'm reading more into the OP's statement than is there but I just can't see BTP being involved with a RPI/passenger interaction if the passenger is being cooperative.

 

[island]

To quote the OP:
I was asked for my date of birth, phone number, address etc. I queried if I needed to provide all of this information and was told I did.

This could have been interpreted as failure to provide name & address, and bearing in mind the OP did not appear in court to give contrary evidence, the only evidence tendered will have been that of the prosecution.

 

[bnm]

I can't see how or why an RPI would call BTP just because the passenger disagrees with what he's written.

I can. Having experienced two occasions personally when I've been is disagreement with railway staff and BTP were called. That's disagreement. Not argument. Not obstructive. Not a failure of some mythical 'attitude test'.

Both times the BTP were highly miffed that they'd been involved and said so. Following my most recent interaction the BTP officers involved thanked me for my calm rational explanation of the situation which was in stark contrast to what they were told by the railway employee. They were happy to be involved in the complaint process I made to the TOC about the employee. Grapevine tells me that employee was subject to the TOCs disciplinary process. TOC correspondence informed me the matter was discussed at Director level.

Some rail staff regularly fail the 'attitude test'. Some rail staff treat the BTP as their personal heavies.

OP. You have my sympathies. If everything you say is as it occurred on the day and subsequently then I'd suggest proper legal advice rather than this forum for help. Too many here start from the position that the OP is guilty until proved innocent. It's bringing this board into disrepute.

 

[jkdd77]

My interpretation of the 'false details' issue is that the OP was asked not only for his name and address, but also at the same time had the RPI simultaneously demand date of birth, phone number, etc (to which the RPI was not entitled), that the OP politely, and reasonably queried exactly what he/she needed to provide. I further interpret that the RPI interpreted this reasonable query as "being aggressive", and called the BTP, who wrongly told the OP that he needed to provide every piece of information demanded, including date of birth, phone number.

It would be ridiculous, in my view, when a RPI demands a combination of information to which they are entitled (name and address) and information to which they are not entitled (the rest), for a passenger to be held to be in breach of the byelaw merely through a simple polite query as to exactly what was required to be provided. This is especially so when name and address were provided immediately after this query had been answered (incorrectly, as it happens, in relation to the other details demanded besides name and address- if the BTP indeed insisted that these other details had to be provided under threat of arrest then that would merit a separate complaint).

I think RJ, paulweaver, bnm, yorkie and many others would all profoundly disagree that it is extraordinary or rare for certain (not all) members of gateline staff to make false or fabricated accusations against passengers, and in any case the OP's suggestion that the RPI misheard seems eminently plausible to me. They would also profoundly disagree that it is uncommon for BTP to be called where a passenger is polite, co-operative and travelling with a valid ticket or lawful excuse.

The evidence in question that the OP would produce in defence would be the OP's sworn evidence under oath that he/she boarded at Mossley, along with evidence that no ticket purchase facilities were available at that time. The evidence for the prosecution would be the RPI's statement that the OP stated he boarded at Ashton, albeit that the RPI, not having witnessed the OP start his/ her journey, would be unable to give direct evidence as to where the OP actually boarded. If the OP requests CCTV and it is unavailable, then then would likely work in the OP's favour in that he/ she can assert that the TOC has destroyed evidence which would conclusively prove his innocence.

Since this is a byelaw 18 prosecution and not a fare evasion prosecution, the only question the court would consider in relation to this charge would be whether the prosecution has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the OP in fact boarded at Ashton or other station with purchase facilities.

Even if the OP had given false information to the RPI as to his/ her boarding station, this may well constitute other offences, but would not constitute an offence under byelaw 18, being the relevant offence of which the OP is charged, although, were the court to conclude that the OP had given such false information, this would grievously undermine his/ her credibility in relation to the evidence he/she provided as to his/her boarding station.

It seems unlikely, based on the facts presented, that a bench could safely decide beyond reasonable doubt that the OP indeed boarded at Ashton, even more so given that the OP did not, in fact, board at Ashton!

I disagree with DaveNewcastle's apparent assertion, if I have understood him correctly, that it would be for the OP to provide additional evidence (over and above his/ her sworn testimony) to prove his/ her innocence, failing which he/ she should not bother making the SD. The fact of the initial conviction proves nothing, since it is trivially easy to get a conviction where no defence is presented, since the conviction would have been set aside by the SD, and since, as previously mentioned, the likely destruction of the CCTV evidence by the TOC would not work in their favour.

Even if the 'false details' claim were to be upheld in isolation, with the byelaw 18 prosecution failing, as it surely would, it would still be worthwhile making the SD.

Furthermore, the fact of making the SD and resetting the process would give the opportunity to negotiate a out-of-court settlement with Northern (presuming this to be the TOC involved), were the OP so inclined (although I personally would not be so inclined), which would itself be preferable to the status quo.

It follows that, assuming the OP has been entirely truthful, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, I would recommend that he make the SD at the earliest opportunity, and also make a belated request for the CCTV footage at Mossley station. If, as is likely, the request is refused, he will appear more credible in court.

 

[Llanigraham]

Too many here start from the position that the OP is guilty until proved innocent. It's bringing this board into disrepute.

That has to be answered!

There are also a lot of people posting replies on here who were NOT there and therefore did not witness the occurrence, but are also jumping to conclusions. And funnily enough some of them have shown their anti-railway bias here and previously.

There are some in-constituencies in the story that need clarifying.

 

[najaB]

I can. Having experienced two occasions personally when I've been is disagreement with railway staff and BTP were called. That's disagreement. Not argument. Not obstructive. Not a failure of some mythical 'attitude test'.

Okay, I'll grant you that. However as you yourself said BTP will be 'highly miffed' if they are asked to be involved in this kind of thing and there is nothing in the OP's statement that indicates that they were.

As I said, I may well be reading more into it than there is and if I am then apologies to the OP. But same factor (justified or not) that resulted in BTP being called is why the Byelaw 23 charge was added.

With regards to that charge - "What is your name and address?" "No. You tell me why do you need to know that?" - is a refusal to answer the question. Later providing the requested information doesn't negate the earlier breach of the rule. The Byelaw says

" Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person."

- note 'when asked' not 'after some time'.

 

[Llanigraham]

If the OP requests CCTV and it is unavailable, then then would likely work in the OP's favour in that he/ she can assert that the TOC has destroyed evidence which would conclusively prove his innocence.

It seems unlikely, based on the facts presented, that a bench could safely decide beyond reasonable doubt that the OP indeed boarded at Ashton, even more so given that the OP did not, in fact, board at Ashton!

Para 1
CCTV only needs to be kept for a very short period unless a request is made in that time. As it hasn't been requested your assertion is incorrect.

Para 2
And you are able to answer what the Bench would do without ALL the facts in front of you? Remember we are only here "the accused" side here.

 

[crehld]

It does occur, but one has to wonder why it wasn't corrected when the OP replied to the TOC's intial letter. There must be a good reason for the TOC to continue to hold that the OP boarded at Ashton Under Lyne if he has twice (once on the day and again by correspondence) said that he boarded at Mossley.

To the OP, I have no reason to believe you are lying but it would appear that the TOC does. Do you have any idea why this would be?

We are, in all likelihood, talking about Northern , so it is entirely likely an error on the part of the inspector has been made, as is a lack of thorough investigation on the part of the 'back office' revenue team (although not for certain of course). This I know from both personal experience a number of first hand accounts.

That is the way I read the OP as well - he initially refused to cooperate (which presumably extended to refusing to provide his details) - only doing so after the BTP became involved.

For the avoidance of doubt, I did not read anything into the situation. It was merely a question posed to clarify the facts of the situation.

This is missing the point I was making to abixo, who I hope did grasp the point, but as I appear to have been unclear, I will expand that point:

I was advising, based on the facts presented here, that it does not appear to be beneficial to abixo to make a SD unless (s)he has a satisfactory explanation for the substitution of one station name for another in the Inspector's written evidence.

It would not be a satisfactory explanation to announce that Inspectors make mistakes. Such an announcement, without any corroboration or other facts to support it, would not be likely to cast adequate doubt on the Prosecution's report to reach a verdict of 'not guilty' where there are already accusations of : travel without a valid ticket and providing a false name and address.

Thanks for clarifying.

Slightly off topic, but as a matter of interest: what is a passenger to do when confronted with an inaccurate report from an inspector or where such a mistake has been made? It seems clear from your advice that drawing attention to its inaccuracy is futile without other evidence, which, as the average innocent passenger does not spend their day going about and gathering evidence, one cannot reasonably expect them to produce. So how does one correct an inspector's error? Or should one simply recognize the futility of it all and agree with the inspector's version of events, which you know to be false?

That has to be answered!

There are also a lot of people posting replies on here who were NOT there and therefore did not witness the occurrence, but are also jumping to conclusions. And funnily enough some of them have shown their anti-railway bias here and previously.

There are some in-constituencies in the story that need clarifying.

Apologies, but I observe no anti-rail bias on this thread at all. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to? I completely agree, of course, there are questions which need answering for the facts to be determined (as best as they can).