Being taken to court

[najaB]

I have witnessed various people being given permission to do things...

Clearly, though, I do not qualify as a "reasonable person".

I don't dispute that. The issue is that the magistrate must only consider the facts that are placed before them when making their decision.

The fact that sometimes, some people give bad advice doesn't mean that the nameless, faceless, nondescript 'man on the platform' - for whom there is no specific evidence of existence - gave this particular passenger bad advice.

 

[sheff1]

The fact that sometimes, some people give bad advice doesn't mean that the nameless, faceless, nondescript 'man on the platform' of whom there is no specific evidence gave this particular passenger bad advice.

The question is one of permission to travel, not "bad advice".

 

[najaB]

The question is one of permission to travel, not "bad advice".

The bad advice being that the ticket was valid to travel on the XC train.

As I said above, if the OP's friend is willing to testify to the specifics of the conversation then they may be able to beat a Byelaw 18 conviction, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[sheff1]

The bad advice being that the ticket was valid to travel on the XC train.

The permission being that they were given consent to travel on the XC train without a valid ticket for that train.

 

[ian959]

The permission being that they were given consent to travel on the XC train without a valid ticket for that train.

Only if it can be proven - so we go round in circles again...

 

[Puffing Devil]

Very few people arrive in court in person for a Byelaw prosecution. I don’t think in 13 years I have ever seen a trial for a Byelaw prosecution. That the OP is prepared to turn up and go to trial says a lot for the OP and their credibility as a witness.

If the matter does go to trial, and the OP appears and gives the following evidence, as presented already in this thread

• They had valid tickets for a journey from A to B
• The train they were ticketed on was delayed
• Another train travelling between A and B arrived at the station
• The OP asked the a member of staff if the tickets they held were valid for the train at the platform
• The staff member inspected and confirmed the validity of the tickets and told them they could board the train at the platform.
• The OP’s travelling partner witnessed the on platform conversation and would be prepared to give evidence in court, on oath, to that effect.

That is all that is required for the statutory defence.

On discovering that the tickets were invalid and they had been given incorrect advice by the station staff, the OP engaged with XC to settle the matter. The fact that they were unable to settle on the train, or were away from home when the demand arrived should not count against the OP. They have tried to settle the matter before coming to court.

I would suggest that this is also in the OPs favour and adds to the strength of their evidence.

If I heard the case I could be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the OP had the conversation as described and had been given permission to board the train and was not guilty of the byelaw offence.

However, other benches normally comprise of three and it can sometimes be a lottery. Laying that defence before XC may well nudge them towards an out of court settlement.

 

[najaB]

If the matter does go to trial, and the OP appears and gives the following evidence, as presented already in this thread

• They had valid tickets for a journey from A to B
• The train they were ticketed on was delayed
• Another train travelling between A and B arrived at the station
• The OP asked the a member of staff if the tickets they held were valid for the train at the platform
• The staff member inspected and confirmed the validity of the tickets and told them they could board the train at the platform.
• The OP’s travelling partner witnessed the on platform conversation and would be prepared to give evidence in court, on oath, to that effect.

That is all that is required for the statutory defence.

The only possible problem is that the friend, who is providing the corroboration, is also accused of the same offence. If that fact would be enough to cause their evidence to be discounted I really don't know.

On discovering that the tickets were invalid and they had been given incorrect advice by the station staff, the OP engaged with XC to settle the matter. The fact that they were unable to settle on the train, or were away from home when the demand arrived should not count against the OP. They have tried to settle the matter before coming to court.

I would suggest that this is also in the OPs favour and adds to the strength of their evidence.

If it were a RoRA prosecution then I'd agree wholeheartedly, but for a Byelaw prosecution would the magistrate be able to take this into consideration with respect to guilt/innocence? Certainly at the sentencing stage it would result in a lower fine.

If I heard the case I could be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the OP had the conversation as described and had been given permission to board the train and was not guilty of the byelaw offence.

However, other benches normally comprise of three and it can sometimes be a lottery.

This is a problem.

Laying that defence before XC may well nudge them towards an out of court settlement.

To be honest, I can't understand why they aren't agreeable to settling, it isn't like this is a particularly blatant case of attempted fare evasion.

 

[DaleCooper]

To be honest, I can't understand why they aren't agreeable to settling, it isn't like this is a particularly blatant case of attempted fare evasion.

Unless there are other factors of which we are not aware.

 

[Lauraxox]

Unless there are other factors of which we are not aware.

I don't know what type of person you seem to think I am judging by previous posts on the situation. I'm looking for help in the matter hence why I have clearly told all the facts of the situation. I have nothing to hide. I want some genuine help as I have never been in this situation and am absolutely terrified

 

[Llanigraham]

• They had valid tickets for a journey from A to B
• The train they were ticketed on was delayed
• Another train travelling between A and B arrived at the station
• The OP asked the a member of staff if the tickets they held were valid for the train at the platform
• The staff member inspected and confirmed the validity of the tickets and told them they could board the train at the platform.
• The OP’s travelling partner witnessed the on platform conversation and would be prepared to give evidence in court, on oath, to that effect.

That is all that is required for the statutory defence.

1/ Agreed
2/ Agreed
3/ Agreed
4/ Not exactly what the OP stated
5/ Not what the OP said, and we do not know who that person waqs or whether they were a qualified person.
6/ Cannot be considered a trustworthy witness as they are also accused of the same offence.

And some of your later suppositions sound like you have never been into a Magistrates Court.

 

[Puffing Devil]

1/ Agreed
2/ Agreed
3/ Agreed
4/ Not exactly what the OP stated
5/ Not what the OP said, and we do not know who that person waqs or whether they were a qualified person.
6/ Cannot be considered a trustworthy witness as they are also accused of the same offence.

And some of your later suppositions sound like you have never been into a Magistrates Court.

4/5 are covered by the OPs statement

we went over to a platform employer and showed him out tickets and asked if they were correct which he replied yes to so we boarded the train​

The degree to which we believe them to be qualified or not is not important here. If the OP had honestly believed that the employee on the platform gave them correct advice, and had no reason to question their competence or qualification, I believe the OP acted in good faith.

6 - It is up to the court to decide of the credibility of a witness. Because they have been accused of the same offence does not necessarily mean they are not a credible witness.

And I do have over 13 years experience in the Mags courts. I have taken a leave of absence. Before I stepped down I even worked a few experience courts for new coppers.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

deleted

 

[Llanigraham]

4/5 are covered by the OPs statement

we went over to a platform employer and showed him out tickets and asked if they were correct which he replied yes to so we boarded the train​

The degree to which we believe them to be qualified or not is not important here. If the OP had honestly believed that the employee on the platform gave them correct advice, and had no reason to question their competence or qualification, I believe the OP acted in good faith.

6 - It is up to the court to decide of the credibility of a witness. Because they have been accused of the same offence does not necessarily mean they are not a credible witness.

And I do have over 13 years experience in the Mags courts. I have taken a leave of absence. Before I stepped down I even worked a few experience courts for new coppers.

Sorry but 4 and 5 are important. Not everyone who works on the platform are persons authorised to permit travel. We do not know exactly who the OP spoke to.
We've been through this before on this Forum, several times.

And my apologies, but some of your comments about Magistrates Courts don't tally with mine as an ex Court Presenting Officer.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Sorry but 4 and 5 are important. Not everyone who works on the platform are persons authorised to permit travel. We do not know exactly who the OP spoke to.
We've been through this before on this Forum, several times.

In the absence of specific guidance, I would be happy to accept that the OP had acted in good faith: It is reasonable to assume that a member of railway staff on the platform would be in a position to authorise travel and it's not the duty of the traveller to check the credentials and qualifications of each customer facing member of staff.

There may be specific case law to refute this position - Dave?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There may be specific case law to refute this position - Dave?

I seem to recall that there was one in recent years, but can't find it right now.

There was an important judgement back in 1854 (yes, 160 years ago!) which seems to be very helpful - that was in Great Northern Railway v Harrison (1854) 156 ER 489 where the passenger held a ticket which was a 'non-transferrable pass' issued to one of his colleagues, but which through custom, the Railway Company had routinely accepted these passes for travel by different employees of the same company. Harrison was allowed onto the train by a station porter.
The Company then argued that he was travelling unlawfully.

The Jury in the Court of first instance found that Harrison had been authorised to travel, and on Appeal by the Company, this position was upheld. "if the jury should be of the opinion that this irregular use of tickets, however worded, was with the knowledge and permission of the superintendent of the station . . . . this would be such evidence of a licence as would make it wrong to say that the plaintiff was a trespasser in the carriage".
It was held that Harrison was travelling by licence of the company.

 

[John Palmer]

On the assumptions that (a) a bylaw offence is one of strict liability (and, in passing, I should be interested to know the authority to the effect that it is) and (b) that the OP is anticipating a possible prosecution under Bylaw 18(1), to which a defence under Bylaw 18(3)(iii) may be relevant, thought might be given to whether such a prosecution can be answered on the basis that the OP held an honest and reasonable belief (even if such belief were mistaken) that her ticket was valid for the particular train on which she embarked and/or that the member of staff to whom she showed her ticket was an authorised person for the purposes of Bylaw 18(3)(iii) and gave her permission to board that train.

Such an answer is not, strictly speaking, a defence to a strict liability charge. Rather, it defeats the prosecution case on the basis that if the defendant establishes that she formed such belief/s reasonably and honestly, the prosecution has failed to establish that the defendant had knowledge of some essential ingredient of the charge.

It is up to a defendant to raise such a 'defence', and to do so by discharging the resulting evidential burden that she held such belief/s and did so reasonably and honestly. She must discharge that burden on the balance of probabilities, but once she has done so the burden of proof then shifts to the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt either that such belief/s were not held, or that they were not reasonable beliefs to hold.

I would further suggest that the possible availability of such an answer to a Bylaw 18 prosecution might be brought to the attention of Transport Investigations Ltd on the basis that it might prompt that body to pause for reflection about the wisdom of proceeding with such a prosecution.

 

[najaB]

Such an answer is not, strictly speaking, a defence to a strict liability charge. Rather, it defeats the prosecution case on the basis that if the defendant establishes that she formed such belief/s reasonably and honestly, the prosecution has failed to establish that the defendant had knowledge of some essential ingredient of the charge.

I don't believe that to be true. As I understand it, the very meaning of strict liability is that the prosecution isn't required to establish any form of mens rea - the case determined solely on the facts.

Since, based on the evidence posted in this thread, there's no doubt that the ticket was invalid the only thing that court needs to consider is if the OP was given permission to travel by an authorised person or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On the assumptions that (a) a bylaw offence is one of strict liability (and, in passing, I should be interested to know the authority to the effect that it is)

You just need to look at the language of Byelaw 18: there is no requirement for intent to be proven. Compare it to RoRA § 5 (3) which specifically requires intent to be proven. If it was a major crime then you could say that the need for mens rea was implicit, but a Byelaw offence isn't even a recordable offence.

 

[John Palmer]

I don't believe that to be true. As I understand it, the very meaning of strict liability is that the prosecution isn't required to establish any form of mens rea - the case determined solely on the facts. Since, based on the evidence posted in this thread, there's no doubt that the ticket was invalid the only thing that court needs to consider is if the OP was given permission to travel by an authorised person or not.

Please re-read my post. I never suggested that mens rea was required to establish a strict liability offence, and that was not the basis on which I suggested a Bylaw 18 prosecution might be answered. Believe what you like, my advice to the OP stands that an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief as to fact can be capable of affording an answer to a strict liability charge. I am prepared to concede that there might be scope for argument as to whether the mistaken beliefs I suggested were as to fact rather than as to law (which is a relevant consideration), but that doesn't alter the principle that mistaken belief can be tantamount to a defence.

You just need to look at the language of Byelaw 18: there is no requirement for intent to be proven, hence it is strict liability. Compare it to RoRA § 5 (3) which specifically requires intent to be proven.

No, more than this is needed.

"Our first duty is to consider the words of the Act: if they show a clear intention to create an absolute offence that is an end of the matter. But such cases are very rare. Sometimes the words of the section which creates a particular offence make it clear that mens rea is required in one form or another. Such cases are quite frequent. But in a very large number of cases there is no clear indication either way. In such cases there has for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. That means that whenever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea." - Lord Nicholls in Sweet v Parsley [1970] A.C.132

This is (or should be) a well-known restatement of the common law presumption that mens rea must be proved. And it is clear from this passage that the absence of a statement in the statutory specification of an offence that intent must be proved does not of itself render such an offence one of strict liability.

Moreover, the statement that "Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did" is highly apposite to the OP's case.

I would still like to know what legal authority there is for saying that, for example, Bylaw 18 creates strict liability offences.

 

[najaB]

No, more than this is needed.

You perhaps replied while I was editing my post to add the latter sentence: "If it was a major crime then you could say that the need for mens rea was implicit, but a Byelaw offence isn't even a recordable offence."

This is (or should be) a well-known restatement of the common law presumption that mens rea must be proved. And it is clear from this passage that the absence of a statement in the statutory specification of an offence that intent must be proved does not of itself render such an offence one of strict liability.

Moreover, the statement that "Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did" is highly apposite to the OP's case.

As I understand it - and I'm happy to be proven wrong - where the matter is a minor offence (e.g. littering, minor traffic offence) that presumption doesn't apply.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Lauravox, I wonder if you are a puzzled as I am as to why your request for advice and assistance has led to so many other forum members arguing about details, some of which are of no asssistance to you at all.

If it helps, I will try to summarise the important points that have been raised :
The accusation that you were travelling without a valid ticket is a matter of fact. It's known as a 'strict liability' offence because it follows so simply from the facts, and no discussion of your intentions or reasons come into it.
But this particular accusation of liability comes with its own exemption : if you are given permission to travel by an appropriate person, then you may do so. No liability for any penalty.

I don't think anything else is relevant or helpful to you . . . you do not need to worry that the person who advised to board the train can't be identified now, and you don't need to worry about the philosophy of intention in our laws.
As bb21 advised, just contact the Company by phone to clarify the situation and, hopefully resolve it based on the facts you've presented on here. No more, and no less.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
John Palmer, I admire and appreciate your quest for knowledge:-

On the assumptions that (a) a bylaw offence is one of strict liability (and, in passing, I should be interested to know the authority . . . .


the possible availability of such an answer to a Bylaw 18 prosecution might be brought to the attention of Transport Investigations Ltd on the basis that it might prompt that body . . . .

but may I suggest that the appropriate place for your quest is not in the course of giving reliable advice to Lauravox?

There are many sources for the information you are seeking. You may find the explantions you seek in terms you are comfortable with in this very forum in one of these previous threads:

Strict liability offences

Decriminalise ticket offences?

Simple Caution for Ticketless Travel

Who has the legal power to prosecute in Network Rail Station?

Should Railway Offences get a Criminal Record?

Should Railway Offences get a Criminal Record?

Railway bye-laws - strict liability

Railway Byelaw 18

Comparison of offences

I hope these might help, but if not, please feel free to start your own thread to enquire into the authority, basis and available defences of 'strict liability' offences, either on this forum or elsewhere. I hope you continue to enjoy your quest!

 

[John Palmer]

DaveNewcastle, thank you for the thread references. I have been through them all, but none answer the question I posed. The 'Railway Byelaw 18' thread seemed most likely to do so – even included a reference to Sweet v Parsley – yet still failed to reveal either the statutory or case law authority I sought. That being so, I have no expectation of it coming to light in any separate thread I start, so there appears to be little point in my doing so. A pity.

I hope that the OP is successful in obtaining a resolution satisfactory to her if she adopts your recommendation, but in view of her reports that attempts to do so have to date been rebuffed, I'm not optimistic.

 

[island]

If you are looking for case law that says "railway Byelaw 18 is strict liability" you won't find it.

Strict liability is a term used to mean that an offence is committed whether the offender intended to commit it or not. An offence which requires intent will say so in the law that creates the offence. An offence that does not — a strict liability offence — will lack such wording.

 

[najaB]

Strict liability is a term used to mean that an offence is committed whether the offender intended to commit it or not. An offence which requires intent will say so in the law that creates the offence. An offence that does not — a strict liability offence — will lack such wording.

It's not quite that simple. As per John Palmer and my side-conversation that only applies to minor offences - effectively ones which don't make risk "making a criminal" of the accused.

 

[island]

Whether an offence is recordable is not connected to whether it's strict liability.

 

[najaB]

Whether an offence is recordable is not connected to whether it's strict liability.

I didn't say anything about the recordable nature of the offence. It was a direct reference to the position of the law lords: "Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did"

 

[miami]

I don't know what type of person you seem to think I am judging by previous posts on the situation. I'm looking for help in the matter hence why I have clearly told all the facts of the situation. I have nothing to hide. I want some genuine help as I have never been in this situation and am absolutely terrified

Hi Lauranox,

I hope that reading this thread some of your concerns have been allayed. A bylaw offence isn't really that bad, even if you are found guilty, you won't be getting a criminal record.

It's a stupid situation you're in, and personally I think the cross country executives should be the ones up in court. You may find if you defend yourself you'll be completely exonerated, on the other hand you may not and end up with a three-figure fine (I don't think you'll get a four-figure one).

I believe that even if you could prove you were given permission to board, Cross Country may claim that person did not have authority in any case. That should simply be an internal affair for the railway industry to solve, but they do appear to like extracting money from unsuspecting passengers far more than training their own staff.

You could also try to write to one of the newspaper travel-help pages, explaining how you were told to board the train and now they are prosecuting you.

Ultimately it's up to you what to do next, but I'm not sure what else this forum can do other than offer support and good feelings.

 

[DaleCooper]

I ask the following without intending to imply any doubt as to the OP's innocence.

If this case goes to court and the court finds in the OP's favour does that not give carte blanche to anyone with a restricted ticket to catch any train they like and then claim they were given permission?

 

[VauxhallandI]

I ask the following without intending to imply any doubt as to the OP's innocence.

If this case goes to court and the court finds in the OP's favour does that not give carte blanche to anyone with a restricted ticket to catch any train they like and then claim they were given permission?

This is true.

However they could train their staff on who can give advice out and who cannot but I doubt if this is possible in this industry.

So therefore they will probably find them guilty and set the precedent at the detriment to the traveller.

Cynical? Maybe but probably true

 

[DaleCooper]

That should simply be an internal affair for the railway industry to solve, but they do appear to like extracting money from unsuspecting passengers far more than training their own staff.

However they could train their staff on who can give advice out and who cannot but I doubt if this is possible in this industry.

There appears to be a presumption here that the member of staff the OP spoke to was poorly trained, I can't recall any evidence for that in this thread.

 

[najaB]

...set the precedent...

If you mean precedent in the legal sense, then no. Magistrates Court decisions don't set precedent.