Notice of fine & Collection order

[najaB]

I wish you luck, and still believe that it would be worthwhile to ask for CCTV footage from Mossley on the date of travel.

That footage would have been deleted months ago.

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...

None. Magistrates know that CCTV is almost never kept for longer than 30 days,

...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.

Almost none. As I pointed out up-thread, proof of boarding at Mossley on any other day is not proof of boarding at Mossley on the day in question.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I . . . . still believe that it would be worthwhile to ask for CCTV footage from Mossley on the date of travel.

This is not good advice.

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, . . . . .

If, abixo, and only if, we are assuming that, either, you make an SD to trigger a re-trial, or you seek an Appeal against your existing Conviction in the Crown Court, and also that we are assuming that whichever Court you chose agreed to re-try the alleged offence, then it will absolutely NOT be obliged to place any weight on the availability or otherwise of CCTV images - images which may or may not clarify some aspects of the alleged incident - aspects which may or may not be in agreeement between the parties.
That just isn't how justice is determined - Convictions flow from the Evidence which IS presented, and he authorities in law which ARE presented..

Nothing in the OP’s account indicates that


. . . . alleged breach of Byelaw 23

Perhaps not, but . . . .

. . . . 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?

Exactly!

There is no need to suggest that you, abixo, are being selective or even dishonest, to realise that the other party will have their own version of the incidents, and that there may be other factors with considerable weight, which were apparent to them and not to you. We can help based on what you have reported, and on nothing else. And we can help on the basis of experience of other incidents where additional factors have been brought into the balance. I have to report that the latter introduction of other factors is very, very commonly experienced.

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?

Whatever the answer to this question is, which you will surely be able to recall, you are being wongly advised that the Inspector was acting wrongly by asking.

That footage would have been deleted months ago.
None. Magistrates know that CCTV is almost never kept for longer than 30 days,Almost none. As I pointed out up-thread, proof of boarding at Mossley on any other day is not proof of boarding at Mossley on the day in question.

absolutely correct on both points.

 

[clagmonster]

As I pointed out up-thread, proof of boarding at Mossley on any other day is not proof of boarding at Mossley on the day in question.

Agreed. Would it, however, help to cast reasonable doubt on the accusation that the passenger boarded at
Ashton, particularly if a regular travel pattern can be determined?

Of course, the ideal defence would be proof that the passenger boarded at Mossley on that particular day. Would proof that the passenger was at least in Mossley, such as a shop receipt or evidence of bank card use in the town, preferably close to train time, be any use? If of course the passenger has any use.

 

[kevinwaltets]

Would the OP have a car park ticket for the station on the day in question. Maybe he paid by phone and has an electronic receipt?

 

[Llanigraham]

Would the OP have a car park ticket for the station on the day in question. Maybe he paid by phone and has an electronic receipt?

Proves nothing constructive to his case.

 

[talltim]

If you take the OPs story as true, it is difficult to see what other unknown evidence Norther could present. Any suggestions?

 

[najaB]

If you take the OPs story as true, it is difficult to see what other unknown evidence Norther could present. Any suggestions?

They may have a second person who reported that they heard the OP say he boarded at Ashton.

 

[talltim]

They may have a second person who reported that they heard the OP say he boarded at Ashton.

I said if it was taken as true. Why would he say that if he didn't, especially as the whole point was that he was saying he didn't ?

Of course if you don't accept the story as true, then there is a whole host of other evidence that could possibly exist

 

[najaB]

I said if it was taken as true. Why would he say that if he didn't, especially as the whole point was that he was saying he didn't ?

I said a second person who reported that the OP said that. Taking the OP's story as true there's already one person who reported hearing it, so no reason that there couldn't be a second.

 

[talltim]

I said a second person who reported that the OP said that. Taking the OP's story as true there's already one person who reported hearing it, so no reason that there couldn't be a second.

Fair point.

 

[miami]

Proves nothing constructive to his case.

OK, it's a byelaw, so he doesn't need to be proven guilty, just be found guilty on the balance of probabilities

However on the balance of probabilities, if he had a car park ticket from the Mossley vicinity, with a purchase time 10 minutes before the train was due, how could that not be "constructive to his case"?

Or does he have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he boarded the train where he said he did?

Sounds like a total mockery of justice, but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

I would love to see the evidence they have.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

abixo, you are being given some incorrect advice here:

OK, it's a byelaw, so he doesn't need to be proven guilty, just be found guilty on the balance of probabilities.

Please do not rely on the advice you are being given on here.

 

[DaleCooper]

abixo, you are being given some incorrect advice here:

Please do not rely on the advice you are being given on here.

You should be more specific otherwise that is a paradox.

 

[Llanigraham]

OK, it's a byelaw, so he doesn't need to be proven guilty, just be found guilty on the balance of probabilities

However on the balance of probabilities, if he had a car park ticket from the Mossley vicinity, with a purchase time 10 minutes before the train was due, how could that not be "constructive to his case"?

Or does he have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he boarded the train where he said he did?

Sounds like a total mockery of justice, but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

I would love to see the evidence they have.

Again, that is not being helpful.
Car park ticket could be for any car, or even his car driven by someone else.
Purchase receipt could be from anyone.

And your penultimate comment shows how little you know of the legal system, and how your "advice" should be ignored.

 

[bb21]

You should be more specific otherwise that is a paradox.

The key words are "balance of probability", for a start.

No, no, and no. The Byelaws have nothing to do with balance of probability.

 

[island]

Byelaw prosecutions are a criminal matter and need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[exile]

Again, that is not being helpful.
Car park ticket could be for any car, or even his car driven by someone else.
Purchase receipt could be from anyone.

Yes, the OP is going to go to the trouble of borrowing someone's Mossley car park ticket, or a receipt for a train ticket from Mossley (difficult to do without actually going to Mossley), just in order to avoid paying for a ticket.

And your penultimate comment shows how little you know of the legal system, and how your "advice" should be ignored.

Being rude to a poster - is this allowed, mods?

 

[najaB]

Yes, the OP is going to go to the trouble of borrowing someone's Mossley car park ticket, or a receipt for a train ticket from Mossley (difficult to do without actually going to Mossley), just in order to avoid paying for a ticket.

Not impossible though, they just need to know someone who did travel from Mossley on the day in question. It has been done before.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yes, the OP is going to go to the trouble of borrowing someone's Mossley car park ticket, or a receipt for a train ticket from Mossley (difficult to do without actually going to Mossley), just in order to avoid paying for a ticket.

Yes, why not?
Anything is possible and people can do funny things when threatened with officialdom.
See also naja's reply.

Being rude to a poster - is this allowed, mods?

I was not rude just pointing out that the advice given was not applicable, and he needs to do some research into the legal system.
I suggest that if you think otherwise you use the "Report" button.

 

[kelv]

I was at Newton Le Willows the other week waiting for my daughter (train was delayed for about an hour) I could see the ticket office but on numerous occasions the 'Closed' blind was pulled down. Anyone entering during these times & getting on a train would it seems be in danger of a fine because the station is classed as manned & if everyone was to seek the guard before boarding to notify him that they are ticketless then would that not cause delays ?
From things I've read on here it's an absolute minefield this ticketing, with much confusion regarding types of fares, validity etc.

seems the whole thing needs a complete overhaul to simplify it to me, but cant help wondering if they will bring in these validation things that they have abroad so as to add to the confusion & increase revenue from fines.

 

[najaB]

I was at Newton Le Willows the other week waiting for my daughter (train was delayed for about an hour) I could see the ticket office but on numerous occasions the 'Closed' blind was pulled down. Anyone entering during these times & getting on a train would it seems be in danger of a fine because the station is classed as manned & if everyone was to seek the guard before boarding to notify him that they are ticketless then would that not cause delays ?

If they want peace of mind, seek out the guard on board. It's also been suggested that you could take a picture of the ticket office if you happen to have a camera phone. Neither of these are actually necessary though.

From things I've read on here it's an absolute minefield this ticketing, with much confusion regarding types of fares, validity etc.

The ticketing system could be simpler, but that would likely result in some people paying higher fares.

...but cant help wondering if they will bring in these validation things that they have abroad so as to add to the confusion & increase revenue from fines.

With one debatable exception, I believe that TOCs would rather generate increased revenue through sales rather than penalties.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Car park ticket could be for any car, or even his car driven by someone else. Purchase receipt could be from anyone.

Indeed it could, but that is true of most evidence. The RPI could have lied about what he heard in order to meet his prosecution targets. He wouldn't be the first TOC employee to tell porkies to try and nail someone who stood up to him. Who knows?

It's all about proving beyond all reasonable doubt that he didn't board at Mossley. The more evidence the OP has to show he did board at Mossley, the harder it is for the prosecutor to prove otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt.

I think the OP is being wise in taking professional legal advice on this one, and shouldn't be relying on much of the legal "advice" I've seen on here, which can best be described charitably as wishful thinking. I wish him well.

 

[najaB]

It's all about proving beyond all reasonable doubt that he didn't board at Mossley. The more evidence the OP has to show he did board at Mossley, the harder it is for the prosecutor to prove otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt.

That is true. But I don't want the OP to be left with the impression that by simply providing a parking receipt the whole matter would go away. It may introduce sufficient doubt, or it may not. We still do not know what evidence the TOC has at their disposal.

 

[exile]

The ticketing system could be simpler, but that would likely result in some people paying higher fares.

Why would ensuring 100% of passengers paid fares, rather than, say 70%, cause fares to rise?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With one debatable exception, I believe that TOCs would rather generate increased revenue through sales rather than penalties.

I wonder if you're thinking of Northern Rail?

 

[Llanigraham]

Why would ensuring 100% of passengers paid fares, rather than, say 70%, cause fares to rise?
?

The additional wages for all the extra staff needed?

 

[najaB]

Why would ensuring 100% of passengers paid fares, rather than, say 70%, cause fares to rise?

Because the most restrictive fares with the most complex rules are also generally the cheapest.

 

[455driver]

Indeed it could, but that is true of most evidence. The RPI could have lied about what he heard in order to meet his prosecution targets.

Any evidence to back up this statement or is it just your opinion?

He wouldn't be the first TOC employee to tell porkies to try and nail someone who stood up to him. Who knows?

That's quite a statement as well! :roll:
Do you know?

 

[miami]

If they want peace of mind, seek out the guard on board. It's also been suggested that you could take a picture of the ticket office if you happen to have a camera phone. Neither of these are actually necessary though.

(Literally out loud)

I was going to come out with a list of advice given in this thread that is contradictory (like a car park ticket not being constructive according to one poster, but being helpful according to another), but I can't be bothered.

I wish the OP the best of luck, I hope he comes back with the outcome of the case, I'd love to know what evidence that the railway has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he boarded at Mossley.

 

[najaB]

(Literally out loud)

Not entirely sure why you're laughing. If the ticket office is closed when you arrive at the station (and assuming there's no ticket machine you can use) then you can board the train. If you want peace of mind, ask the guard before boarding or take a photo of the ticket office window. But neither of these actions are necessary. Can't see the humour.

 

[talltim]

Any evidence to back up this statement or is it just your opinion?

That's quite a statement as well! :roll:
Do you know?

Of course he doesn't know it or have anything to do back it up. They are hypotheticals, things that could possibly happen, which is why he used the word could.
:roll: