In the non-railway world your accuser would need, in the absence of other evidence, a witness, otherwise the prosecution would stand no chance whatsoever.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Notice of fine & Collection order
- Thread starter abixo
- Start date
- Status
In the non-railway world your accuser would need, in the absence of other evidence, a witness, otherwise the prosecution would stand no chance whatsoever.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It's the common trait on RailUK when any slight on the integrity of rail staff is perceived. Rather like the common assumption that an attitude test must have been failed to put someone in a position where byelaws etc are being invoked.
The 'not being there' point is also often raised. Again as a defence of the rail staff involved. Rarely, if ever, as a defence of the passenger. But 'not being there' cuts both ways.
The vast majority of rail staff do an excellent job. That we disproportionately hear about the less excellent shouldn't be taken as proof that the person sharing their experiences is anti-rail.
Perhaps there should be a board specifically for staff praise to address the disproportion. I'd certainly contribute to it. Just yesterday I can recount two excellent examples of staff doing more than the minimum, against no poor experiences.
That said, I was travelling through Paddington after 1930 and with a comp ticket!
Last edited:
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Thanks, but just to emphasise for clarity, my comments which have given you no encouragement to re-run the same trial in the same Court with no new evidence is just that. I don't see much merit in repeating it.
You do have the option of an Appeal to the Crown Court which will have been mentioned on the Correspondence which you received informing you of the Magistrates' Decision. You have 21 days to lodge an Appeal and can request an extension of time if there is good reason in the interests of justice. As you and others have sugested, you can take legal assistance and more than likely you will qualify for Legal Aid; but I have seen some impressive and sucessful appeals where the Appellant has simply represented themselves.
If there is no newevidence, then it should be a simple matter to go through the facts (which appear to be just one Inspector's report and the railway laws) and to cross-examine the Inspector rigourously.
With the amount of debate and argument among forum members in this thread, I regret that it might be difficult to offer you any clear assistance.
The new evidence would be the OP's evidence under oath and under cross-examination that he/ she boarded at Mossely, and denial under oath that he/ she gave false information to the RPI, leaving the magistrates to decide whether or not it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, presumably based solely on the RPI's evidence, that the OP committed the offence by boarding at a station with ticket purchase facilities.
As exile says, this sort of prosecution would normally have no chance whatsoever unless they, and not the defendant, could produce additional evidence as to the defendant's station of origin. It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and not for the defendant to prove his or her innocence.
Even in the context of a railway prosecution, I believe that the merit of 'repeating the trial' by making a SD is very considerable indeed, and that, whilst there can be no guarantees, the chance of justice prevailing is, in my view, in excess of 50%. Even were the chance less than 50%, the OP might still judge that this is better than the 0% chance resulting from accepting the unjust conviction and paying up.
By contrast, I strongly advise against an appeal to Crown Court, since the chance of success on the merits would be the same, but the potential costs greatly increased. Furthermore, making an appeal, unlike making a SD, would not relieve the OP of the immediate responsibility to pay the amount ordered by the convicting court, and the Crown Court may well wonder why their time is being wasted in this manner when the OP could have simply made a SD .
As exile says, this sort of prosecution would normally have no chance whatsoever unless they, and not the defendant, could produce additional evidence as to the defendant's station of origin. It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and not for the defendant to prove his or her innocence.
Even in the context of a railway prosecution, I believe that the merit of 'repeating the trial' by making a SD is very considerable indeed, and that, whilst there can be no guarantees, the chance of justice prevailing is, in my view, in excess of 50%. Even were the chance less than 50%, the OP might still judge that this is better than the 0% chance resulting from accepting the unjust conviction and paying up.
By contrast, I strongly advise against an appeal to Crown Court, since the chance of success on the merits would be the same, but the potential costs greatly increased. Furthermore, making an appeal, unlike making a SD, would not relieve the OP of the immediate responsibility to pay the amount ordered by the convicting court, and the Crown Court may well wonder why their time is being wasted in this manner when the OP could have simply made a SD .
Last edited:
On what is that estimate of probability based?
Given that, if the OP is to be believed, and I do believe the OP, the offence did not occur since the OP boarded at a station with no ticket purchase facilities, it would be difficult for the TOC to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the OP did in fact board at a station with purchase facilities. This is all the more so since the RPI did not see the OP board, and thus would be unable to offer direct evidence to counter the OP's sworn assertion that he/ she boarded at Mossley.
Furthermore, if this is indeed a journey the OP makes regularly, then the tickets, purchase receipts and CCTV evidence from those other journeys would tend to support the proposition that the OP is telling the truth in relation to the specific journey for which he/ she has been charged.
Whilst miscarriages of justice do occur, I am naive enough to believe that they are relatively rare, and that most benches, recalling the burden and standard of proof, would not consider that they could be sure of the defendant's guilt based solely on the second-hand evidence of a person who was not present when the OP boarded the train, and who may well have misheard the OP state his/ her origin station.
Last edited:
I don't disbelieve the OP either, but am not as confident as you are for the simple reason that the TOC proceeded with a prosecution despite the OP saying at the time that he had boarded at Mossley and confirming it again in writing later. Without knowing what evidence the TOC considered before deciding that a prosecution was warranted, and without also knowing what evidence was presented in court, I say that it isn't possible to say with any certainty what the likely outcome of a rerun of the prosecution would be.
That would be evidence of journeys made on other days, which is of exactly zero relevance to the journey made on the day in question. To argue from absurdity: showing evidence of all the days that I didn't kill people isn't a suitable defence of a murder charge.
As you say, if the OP is to be believed, all that readers of this forum can do is to accept the details as presented at the beginning of this thread
I agree, but what this forum does not have is access to, nor firm knowledge of, is what evidence was submitted to the original Magistrates Court hearing.
It is a very big assumption to make that the ONLY evidence in the prosecution file was that there was a witness statement from the reporting inspector isn't it?.
BTP were certainly called to give assistance according to the OP so there should be a log reference. What if there is also a statement from the officer concerned?
What time of day did this incident occur?......... it doesn't say in the original post. There may be a statement confirming evidence taken from machine records of the ticket office being open at Mossley at the material time.
The OP says that none of the preliminary correspondence from the company, nor the subsequent Summons were received.
If that is true then the best course of action is for the OP to go to their local Court in order to make a Statutory Declaration as suggested by DaveNewcastle.
The OPs second post on this thread confirms that it was late afternoon, about 5pm.
Again, the OP clarifies that they did receive the initial intention to prosecute letter and responded to it. The next thing they received was the post court request for payment.
Last edited:
I agree that evidence relating to other journeys is very weak evidence indeed and wholly circumstantial in relation to *this* prosecution, for *this* journey, but it is not vastly more so than the evidence that the TOC *presumably* has that the OP did not board at Mossley, in the form of the *presumed* witness statement from a Manchester-based RPI who did not see the OP board.
I acknowledge that it is of course *possible* that the TOC has other evidence against the OP, and indeed *possible* that the OP is either lying or mistaken.
It is also difficult to give a precise estimate of the OP's prospects of success without seeing all the evidence available to each party, which is clearly not realistic. My estimate of the prospect of success with a defence for the byelaw 18 charge following a SD was based on the following two assumptions, which may not be correct for all I know:
1) the OP genuinely boarded at Mossley,
2) Mossley had no purchase facilities at the time the OP boarded the train;
3) the OP truthfully stated this to the RPI at the first opportunity, and;
4) the OP genuinely did not receive the summons
If any of the assumptions I have made are erroneous, for whatever reason, then clearly the value of my advice, being based on false assumptions, would be gravely and profoundly reduced. In particular, it is conceivable to my mind that Northern might be able to produce evidence that Mossley did have ticket purchase facilities at the time the OP boarded, in which case there is likely little worth in making a SD.
However, if my assumptions are indeed correct, and the OP should know whether this is the case, then one presumes that the TOC won't have any additional evidence besides the circumstantial evidence of the RPI's witness statement, which, in my view, would not be sufficient to prove the byelaw 18 charge beyond reasonable doubt when faced with a defendant whose sworn evidence to the contrary has presumably survived cross-examination. If so, then the OP was wise to refuse to sign the RPI's mistaken account of events.
However, in general terms, I think members of this forum should start from the presumption that an OP is telling the truth unless there are glaring absurdities or inconsistencies in their account, and try to follow this line myself. I happen to believe that this OP is truthful, which has not always been the case in relation to some other nameless OPs I have seen in this section. If we collectively start from the assumption that all OPs are lying, then honest posters will be driven away, and the quality of the advice will suffer.
In relation to the byelaw 23 offence, we have not received enough information to be certain whether an offence occurred. If the RPI asked simultaneously for name, address, and lots of superfluous information (e.g. date of birth, telephone number, NI number), then it seems probable that anything other than immediately giving his/ her name and address is technically a breach, however understandable and reasonable the OP's actions, if he/ she is to be believed, in querying the need for the superfluous information. The BTP officer may or may not be able to provide evidence of some sort on this point.
That said, even if the byelaw 23 offence is proven, it would still be worthwhile having made the SD if the byelaw 18 offence is found not proven. I suspect that there is a good chance that a sympathetic bench who have just acquitted on the byelaw 18 offence would impose a much lower fine, or even a discharge and no fine at all, with minimal costs.
Whilst the OP cannot know with absolute certainty what evidence was submitted to the original hearing, I agree with FareCop's helpful advice, that, if, as I believe, he/ she is being truthful, the best course of action at present is to make a SD. Edit- as MikeWh points out, the OP did receive the initial correspondence from Northern, but not the actual summons, but receiving correspondence other than the actual summons does not affect the validity of the SD.
Even if the chances of success with a defence are truly as low as DaveNewcastle makes out, resetting the matter to summons by making a SD would still at least give an opportunity to seek a out-of-court settlement with Northern.
Last edited:
Only the first two points have any relevance as far as a Byelaw 18 prosecution is concerned.
Only the OP can know if the TOC may have evidence that contradicts his story or, alternatively, if he has evidence that supports it. I agree that if he's confident that no such contradictory evidence exists then a Statutory Declaration is a viable option.
Bearing in mind, of course, that Northern are under no obligation to settle.
Point 3 is relevant to the byelaw 23 prosecution. It is not directly relevant to a byelaw 18 prosecution, but nonetheless has a degree of indirect relevance, since, if the OP did falsely state his/ her origin station, or did not but is nonetheless found to have do so by the magistrates, it gravely undermines his/ her credibility as to his/ her other sworn evidence, and, in particular, undermines his/ her evidence relating to his/ her claimed origin station, particularly *if*, as is plausible, the case ultimately comes down to the credibility of the OP. In theory it would indeed be possible for a defendant to have, mistakenly or otherwise, claimed a different origin station to the one at which they boarded, yet still to have a defence to a byelaw 18 charge if their actual boarding station had no purchase facilities.
Point 4 has no relevance as to the prosecution itself, but is relevant to the making of a SD, since any false statement would be a very serious offence indeed, and of course I would never advise committing perjury or PCoJ, even if, for the sake of argument, an original prosecution was mistaken or deficient in some way.
Last edited:
John Palmer
Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 399
It's worth noting the terms of Byelaw 23(2):
The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request. (my emphasis added)
An enquiry by a passenger in such terms as "You tell me why do you need to know that?" indicates that such a statement has not yet been made. Until then the demand for the article (1) particulars has not been lawfully made, and the issue of whether there has been a refusal to answer has not yet arisen.
We're starting to argue around the edges if the matter, but one would presume that the conversation would have been something along the lines of "You said you boarded at Ashton Under Lyne, so you should have bought a ticket", which is sufficient to make it clear that the RPI suspected that the OP was being reported for boarding without a ticket. Note that the wording of the Byelaw only requires the suspected offence to be described in general terms.
John Palmer
Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 399
@ najaB
I disagree that we are arguing around the edges of the matter. The OP has been fined £220 for failing to supply his/her name and address, notwithstanding that the TOC in question delivered a letter advising that a prosecution was being contemplated.
I simply addressed the postulate of your original post that a conversation took place along the lines "What is your name and address?" "No. You tell me why do you need to know that?" Adding the prior statement "You said you boarded at Ashton Under Lyne, so you should have bought a ticket" fundamentally changes the postulate. In those circumstances the passenger would have had no reason to ask why the request for name and address had been made, so the nature of the postulated exchange becomes unrealistic. Embellishment of the circumstances said to support the case being advanced suggests that such a case is either unsound or of application only to the particular exchange said to have take place as so embellished.
In any event, the particular conversation you suggest took place does not follow the pattern described by the OP, who says:
" 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 "
Rather than adopt your speculation as to the course that the conversation took, I prefer to address the account the OP has given:
I disagree that we are arguing around the edges of the matter. The OP has been fined £220 for failing to supply his/her name and address, notwithstanding that the TOC in question delivered a letter advising that a prosecution was being contemplated.
I simply addressed the postulate of your original post that a conversation took place along the lines "What is your name and address?" "No. You tell me why do you need to know that?" Adding the prior statement "You said you boarded at Ashton Under Lyne, so you should have bought a ticket" fundamentally changes the postulate. In those circumstances the passenger would have had no reason to ask why the request for name and address had been made, so the nature of the postulated exchange becomes unrealistic. Embellishment of the circumstances said to support the case being advanced suggests that such a case is either unsound or of application only to the particular exchange said to have take place as so embellished.
In any event, the particular conversation you suggest took place does not follow the pattern described by the OP, who says:
" 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 "
Rather than adopt your speculation as to the course that the conversation took, I prefer to address the account the OP has given:
- The revenue officer requested information to which he was not entitled, in addition to information the OP did have an obligation to supply.
- The OP questioned the legitimacy of a request for information (s)he was under no obligation to supply.
- The revenue officer incorrectly insisted that he was entitled all of the information he had requested.
- Notwithstanding this error, the OP produced the driving licence from which details were apparently taken that led to delivery of the letter mentioned.
We are. Based on the OP: the OP said he boarded at station A, the RPI claimed that he said he boarded at station B, the OP denied it, the RPI asked for information that included name and address, the OP declined to provide it and only did so after it was confirmed that he had to. (I understood it to be BTP that confirmed it since that's the only other party whom we know to have been involved.)
So as I read things the nature of the suspected breach had been 'stated in general terms': there couldn't have been a disagreement if the RPI hadn't made it clear that he didn't believe the OP and instead believed that he had had boarded at a station where he had the opportunity to buy a ticket before boarding, and there was at the time of asking a refusal to provide name and address (along with other information). Subsequently providing the requested information doesn't nullify the initial breach.
The reason that I say we are arguing around the edge of the matter has been stated earlier by jkdd77 - if the OP can show that no Byelaw 18 offence occurred and no prosecution should have been entered into due to RPI not following correct procedure and filing a false report, then the Byelaw 22 charge is likely to be dismissed as well.
How did the RPI get his date of birth and phone number unless the RPI had asked for it and recorded it, acting beyond the powers granted by the byelaw?
The byelaws say the RPI can ask for the name and address, and this is backed up by legal powers. If the RPI also asked for inside leg measurements in the same statement, and if that statement was queried, that would be a breach of the byelaw?
(If the RPI then claims he has a legal right to know the inside leg measurement, is that perjury?)
I see nothing in the byelaws giving a time period for an address to be provided. If the RPI asks for the address, and the OP takes 5 minutes before responding, is that a breach? What about 30 seconds? What about 5 seconds?
I'd love to see the evidence that the TOC has that the OP is in breach of the byelaws, presumably their argument would have to be "he gave us the address, while he was still in conversation with the RPI, but he took too long to do it"?
The Byelaw says:
Again, possibly reading too much into it, but it says 'when asked' not 'if asked', which to me says that if the response fails to provide the information then that causes the breach. Later providing the information doesn't remedy that breach.
If we take the OP's statement here as fact - given we have no other irrefutable evidence so show (s)he is lying, then at no stage have they refused to provide name and address. Querying if (s)he had to provide the details is not refusing to provide them, and I can't understand why you think it is.
John Palmer
Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 399
Nothing in the OPs account indicates that (s)he declined to provide information that included name and address. Asking whether all of the information has to be provided is nothing more than a question. It is neither agreement nor refusal to provide the information demanded. In this case, according to the OP, the revenue officer continued to insist, wrongly, that he was entitled to all the information demanded. The OP then provided the information he was required to supply by tendering a driving licence.
I see no basis for your understanding that BTP confirmed that the OP had to supply the information demanded. There is nothing in the OP to indicate that a police officer played any part in the conversation. On the contrary, the OP comments that the revenue officer 'again went over to the BTP'. If anything, that suggests that the police remained at some distance from the proceedings.
The account given by the OP is that the revenue officer demanded information to which he was not entitled under Byelaw 23. If it is your case that BTP confirmed that the OP must provide all the information the revenue officer demanded, are you saying that they told the OP that (s)he was required to supply not only name and address but also date of birth and telephone number? I would not expect a BTP officer to be unaware of the restricted range of information that can be demanded under Byelaw 23.
I never suggested that the nature of the suspected breach of Byelaws had not been 'stated in general terms' by the time the request for name, address, date of birth, telephone number, etc had been made. You speculated that the conversation had taken the form "What is your name and address?" "No. You tell me why do you need to know that?" As I pointed out before, if the revenue officer had by then already made known the nature of the suspected byelaw breach, it is scarcely likely that the other party would then ask "why do you need to know that?" But we have already been told that that is not the way the conversation went, and I probably should not have risen to your speculation.
It is not for the OP to prove that no Byelaw 18 offence has been committed. It is for the prosecutor to prove that it has. But that is irrelevant to the alleged breach of Byelaw 23. If a breach of any of the byelaws, or any attempt to do so, is reasonably suspected, then the right to require the suspect to supply name and address under Byelaw 23 is engaged. Whether prosecution for another byelaw breach ensues or is successful is neither here nor there as regards a breach of Byelaw 23. If, however, there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that a byelaw offence had been committed, then the right of an authorised person to ask for name and address under Byelaw 23(1) cannot have arisen, and a prosecution for that Byelaw's breach must fail.
The nature of the suspected byelaw breach does indeed only need to be specified 'in general terms' according to Byelaw 23(2). However, the information given to the suspect ought to contain enough information to identify the byelaw infringement suspected and thereby demonstrate that the powers conferred by Byelaw 23(1) have, in fact, become exercisable.
I see no basis for your understanding that BTP confirmed that the OP had to supply the information demanded. There is nothing in the OP to indicate that a police officer played any part in the conversation. On the contrary, the OP comments that the revenue officer 'again went over to the BTP'. If anything, that suggests that the police remained at some distance from the proceedings.
The account given by the OP is that the revenue officer demanded information to which he was not entitled under Byelaw 23. If it is your case that BTP confirmed that the OP must provide all the information the revenue officer demanded, are you saying that they told the OP that (s)he was required to supply not only name and address but also date of birth and telephone number? I would not expect a BTP officer to be unaware of the restricted range of information that can be demanded under Byelaw 23.
I never suggested that the nature of the suspected breach of Byelaws had not been 'stated in general terms' by the time the request for name, address, date of birth, telephone number, etc had been made. You speculated that the conversation had taken the form "What is your name and address?" "No. You tell me why do you need to know that?" As I pointed out before, if the revenue officer had by then already made known the nature of the suspected byelaw breach, it is scarcely likely that the other party would then ask "why do you need to know that?" But we have already been told that that is not the way the conversation went, and I probably should not have risen to your speculation.
It is not for the OP to prove that no Byelaw 18 offence has been committed. It is for the prosecutor to prove that it has. But that is irrelevant to the alleged breach of Byelaw 23. If a breach of any of the byelaws, or any attempt to do so, is reasonably suspected, then the right to require the suspect to supply name and address under Byelaw 23 is engaged. Whether prosecution for another byelaw breach ensues or is successful is neither here nor there as regards a breach of Byelaw 23. If, however, there never was a reasonable basis for suspecting that a byelaw offence had been committed, then the right of an authorised person to ask for name and address under Byelaw 23(1) cannot have arisen, and a prosecution for that Byelaw's breach must fail.
The nature of the suspected byelaw breach does indeed only need to be specified 'in general terms' according to Byelaw 23(2). However, the information given to the suspect ought to contain enough information to identify the byelaw infringement suspected and thereby demonstrate that the powers conferred by Byelaw 23(1) have, in fact, become exercisable.
Again, the Byelaw requires a passenger to provide their name and address when requested. "What is you name and address." "Why do you need to know?" is not complying with the Byelaw.
Later providing the information doesn't change the fact that it was not provided on request. I'm not saying that it's right and proper, I'm just saying how I read it.
And if the authorised person doesn't state, or refuses to say why he requires those details?
Again, you are misquoting the OP.
"I queried if I needed to provide all of this information and was told I did"
That is not the same as asking someone why they need to know something.
How long are you allowed to take before you give your address? 2 seconds? 10?
When I gave my address after I was errantly pulled over by some railstaff at Euston that don't understand the contract they attempt to enforce, it took me several seconds to pull my driving licence out of my wallet and present it (rather than try to go through the hassle of spelling an address for them - I had no evidence to believe they would be able to cope with a complex three line address).
Had my license not been in my wallet, and instead in my bag, this would have caused a further delay. Had I then found that my licence wasn't on me at all and then proceeded to dictate the address (slowly of course) would I be guilty at that point?
At no point has the OP stated he refused to give his name or address. He did seem to be given errant details by either the RPI or the BTP, either explicitly or by implication, that he had to give personal details that the RPI was not entitled to, and that is something that should be stamped out (and should in my opinion weigh against the RPI in the court).
Not only that, but the answer to his query was WRONG!
John Palmer
Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 399
I note that najaB has not responded to the doubts I articulated about the extent of BTP's involvement in the matter. What, exactly, is the part BTP is said to have played?
I also note that no challenge has been raised to my assertion that a Byelaw 23 prosecution may be sustainable irrespective of whether any other byelaw prosecution ensues. If that's accepted then I suggest that the conviction for a Byelaw 23 offence remains very much at the heart of the concerns raised by the OP.
My view is that the OP should take the steps appropriate to roll matters back to a point prior to the summons' issue. The summons needs to be properly served if the TOC in question is intent upon prosecuting. The prosecutor will have to provide initial details of the prosecution case. These should include a summary of the evidence on which the prosecution case is based, and should enable the OP to take stock of the position and decide how to proceed. At that point, if the OP is disposed to contest either of the offences alleged, some professional legal advice about how to do so is likely to be of benefit.
I also note that no challenge has been raised to my assertion that a Byelaw 23 prosecution may be sustainable irrespective of whether any other byelaw prosecution ensues. If that's accepted then I suggest that the conviction for a Byelaw 23 offence remains very much at the heart of the concerns raised by the OP.
My view is that the OP should take the steps appropriate to roll matters back to a point prior to the summons' issue. The summons needs to be properly served if the TOC in question is intent upon prosecuting. The prosecutor will have to provide initial details of the prosecution case. These should include a summary of the evidence on which the prosecution case is based, and should enable the OP to take stock of the position and decide how to proceed. At that point, if the OP is disposed to contest either of the offences alleged, some professional legal advice about how to do so is likely to be of benefit.
Thanks MikeWh,
My apologies, I had somehow missed the OPs later clarifications.
That said, I suggest that a Stat Dec is still in order given that the OP says no Summons or notice of hearing were received.
Thanks for the replies everyone.
I am making the SD and will be meeting the solicitor to do so on Thursday. This will then be filed and we will go from there. As I am hit with a £615 fine at the minute, another couple of hundred for the legal costs are worth me challenging the entire sum. The money is not actually a problem but of course I am not in the business of throwing money at something if I don't believe I have a real chance of beating it.
I will reply to individual comments asking for more information/clarification etc tomorrow and will of course keep everyone up to date on what happens!
I am making the SD and will be meeting the solicitor to do so on Thursday. This will then be filed and we will go from there. As I am hit with a £615 fine at the minute, another couple of hundred for the legal costs are worth me challenging the entire sum. The money is not actually a problem but of course I am not in the business of throwing money at something if I don't believe I have a real chance of beating it.
I will reply to individual comments asking for more information/clarification etc tomorrow and will of course keep everyone up to date on what happens!
I wish you luck, and still believe that it would be worthwhile to ask for CCTV footage from Mossley on the date of travel.
It would be for the magistrates to decide how much weight, if any, is to be placed on the likely non-availability of the footage, and to decide how much weight, if any, is to be placed on evidence of past journeys from Mossley. However, I don't believe that this could harm you, and it may be of assistance.
It would be for the magistrates to decide how much weight, if any, is to be placed on the likely non-availability of the footage, and to decide how much weight, if any, is to be placed on evidence of past journeys from Mossley. However, I don't believe that this could harm you, and it may be of assistance.
- Status