SJPN Issued (Merseyrail)

[Frenchie123]

Hi, new to the forum but would very much welcome any advice please.

My son was late for the morning train one morning in May this year. He boarded the train which he has done before then just purchased the ticket online. Sometimes this has been enforced as the office has been closed.

On this occasion, an inspector boarded the train at the next train station as my son was accessing the website (WiFi reception not the best where we are). The inspector boarded as the ticket office at the last station (where my son boarded) had alerted the station that he had boarded without purchasing a ticket (not sure how they knew he didn't have a season ticket?).

Anyway, inspector was not the most pleasant and was very confrontational. My son explained he was purchasing a ticket and showed the website with (bank) card details already entered. Inspector would not accept this and proceeded to issue a ticket. My son was non too pleased so a heated debated ensured for the rest of the journey. My son still proceeded to purchase a ticket. When they left, he went to the main office with the inspector to share his position with other staff (to get some reasonableness) anyway, the advice was accept the ticket and appeal.

When the letter arrived, it stated clearly a date and time when the offence occurred. The date was correct but the time quoted was AFTER he had purchased his ticket so therefore 'technically' he had a ticket when the crime had allegedly happened. I understand this is merely a technicality but, we did respond to point this out and we sought clarity as to the accuracy of the detail. After 3 or 4 emails exchanged and bearing in mind an initial 6 week wait for the first response, Merseyrail still have not acknowledged the error. We actually asked is this the date and time they are saying or was it an error - they have just ignored our question. The most recent email was from ourselves where we have request clarity as we have provided evidence of the ticket purchased before the date and time quoted (by Merseyrail). We received no further communication from them but instead we received a SJPN today.

Whilst I fully know this was all very much avoidable (rest assured I have had that conversation), my question relates to the technicalities of procedures and process in these instances. My main questions are:

- Should we stick by the 'technical' error they have quoted on their original letter? Is there a defense here?
- Can they just ignore our communications and proceed directly to the SJPN?
- Finally, is the SJPN worth challenging?

Any assistance or guidance would be gratefully received.

 

[Darandio]

It's likely that any discussion about technicalities regarding the time is irrelevant. The conditions state that you must have a valid ticket before starting the journey, boarding the train then purchasing a ticket is in breach of this. Running late generally isn't seen as a valid excuse.

Others will probably reply in more detail but more information is probably needed to make things more clear. Was the ticket office at the departure station actually closed on the day in questions? Are ticket vending machines present at that station?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they offering a settlement? If so, it would be best advice to pay it. An offence has been committed by boarding a train where there was a ticket purchase facility without purchasing one, regardless of whether it was bought afterwards. A slight inaccuracy unfortunately doesn't affect whether a criminal offence would be prosecuted or not - it's different from a parking ticket or Penalty Fare.

For what it's worth, the rule in Switzerland is the same - not only is it about if you're seen doing it, they'll check the time of issue was before the time of departure.

Lots of people will try their luck and start buying a ticket on their phone when they see an inspector board, hence why no leniency is given to this. Are you sure that your son wasn't doing this to save a few quid and is being completely honest with you?

Yes, they have every right to go straight to prosecution and do not need to do anything else first, because a criminal offence has been committed.

Unfortunately, running late is not an excuse.

 

[Watershed]

Hi, new to the forum but would very much welcome any advice please.

My son was late for the morning train one morning in May this year. He boarded the train which he has done before then just purchased the ticket online. Sometimes this has been enforced as the office has been closed.

On this occasion, an inspector boarded the train at the next train station as my son was accessing the website (WiFi reception not the best where we are). The inspector boarded as the ticket office at the last station (where my son boarded) had alerted the station that he had boarded without purchasing a ticket (not sure how they knew he didn't have a season ticket?).

Anyway, inspector was not the most pleasant and was very confrontational. My son explained he was purchasing a ticket and showed the website with (bank) card details already entered. Inspector would not accept this and proceeded to issue a ticket. My son was non too pleased so a heated debated ensured for the rest of the journey. My son still proceeded to purchase a ticket. When they left, he went to the main office with the inspector to share his position with other staff (to get some reasonableness) anyway, the advice was accept the ticket and appeal.

When the letter arrived, it stated clearly a date and time when the offence occurred. The date was correct but the time quoted was AFTER he had purchased his ticket so therefore 'technically' he had a ticket when the crime had allegedly happened. I understand this is merely a technicality but, we did respond to point this out and we sought clarity as to the accuracy of the detail. After 3 or 4 emails exchanged and bearing in mind an initial 6 week wait for the first response, Merseyrail still have not acknowledged the error. We actually asked is this the date and time they are saying or was it an error - they have just ignored our question. The most recent email was from ourselves where we have request clarity as we have provided evidence of the ticket purchased before the date and time quoted (by Merseyrail). We received no further communication from them but instead we received a SJPN today.

Whilst I fully know this was all very much avoidable (rest assured I have had that conversation), my question relates to the technicalities of procedures and process in these instances. My main questions are:

- Should we stick by the 'technical' error they have quoted on their original letter? Is there a defense here?
- Can they just ignore our communications and proceed directly to the SJPN?
- Finally, is the SJPN worth challenging?

Any assistance or guidance would be gratefully received.

Which offence does the SJPN state he is being prosecuted for?

If he is being prosecuted under Merseyrail's Byelaws, Byelaw 18 makes it an offence to board a train without a ticket, if there were ticketing facilities at the station you boarded. It sounds like this is made out in the circumstances you describe; not having enough time to buy your ticket isn't a defence. It's harsh but that's how the law stands.

If, on the other hand, he is being prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RoRA), section 5(3)(a) makes it an offence to travel on the railway without having previously paid the fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof. Here, the fact that your son tried to buy a ticket once onboard might help show that he did intend to pay. But Merseyrail may allege that he demonstrated intent to avoid payment by passing by the opportunity to pay at an open ticket office, and/or that he only started trying to pay once he saw the inspector.

If he is charged with the Byelaws offence, there is no realistic defence against such a charge, so he is best off trying to negotiate an out of Court settlement with Merseyrail - or else pleading guilty so as to minimise the penalty the judge imposes.

If he is charged with the RoRA offence, he needs to decide whether he wants to try for a settlement (pleading guilty if that isn't possible), or whether he wants to plead 'not guilty' as described above. The latter of course carries the risk that he is ultimately found guilty by the judge, and faces a larger penalty.

The sentencing guidelines for both offences are here, for reference.

Either way, the time being out by a few minutes will be neither here nor there, and there is no point trying to fight the prosecution on those grounds.

 

[furlong]

The prosecution has to be clear about the 'moment' when the alleged offence occurred - as opposed to when it was detected, which might be at some later time. For the most likely byelaw offence, all the necessary elements of the offence would have been completed at the moment in time the train was boarded, and nothing done after that (buying a ticket online) can undo the already-committed offence. But technicalities aside, courts may not be so keen on spending their time dealing with "academic" prosecutions where the train company is not out of pocket as the correct fare has already been paid so it would be surprising if a situation like this couldn't be resolved out-of-court - and even in court, a defence solicitor might attempt to argue for some form of discharge and for the train company to bear some or even all of the costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The prosecution has to be clear about the 'moment' when the alleged offence occurred - as opposed to when it was detected, which might be at some later time. For the most likely byelaw offence, all the necessary elements of the offence would have been completed at the moment in time the train was boarded, and nothing done after that (buying a ticket online) can undo the already-committed offence. But technicalities aside, courts may not be so keen on spending their time dealing with "academic" prosecutions where the train company is not out of pocket as the correct fare has already been paid so it would be surprising if a situation like this couldn't be resolved out-of-court - and even in court, a defence solicitor might attempt to argue for some form of discharge and for the train company to bear some or even all of the costs.

There are very good reasons to pursue this sort of prosecution (or at least issue a Penalty Fare*). The modern version of "pay when challenged" is that you quickly buy an e-ticket on your phone when you see the inspectors board, but don't bother paying otherwise. There must be loads of people doing this (indeed as I mentioned above SBB think it enough of a problem that they check when it was bought - if after departure it is treated as not being held).]

The OP's son may not have been doing this, but you have to appreciate that lots of people *do* do it, and so that's what it loks like at first glance.

* Do we know if one was offered and refused in the ensuing argument?

 

[island]

Tickets need to be bought before boarding. By choosing to join a train at a station with ticketing facilities, your son committed a criminal offence. Being late isn't an excuse. The offence was complete as soon as he set foot on the train and later purchase of a ticket doesn't undo it.

Miseryrail typically issue a £20 Penalty Fare for minor ticketing infringements but this can be escalated where an officer believes an intentional failure to pay occurred or where the passenger is uncooperative or gives attitude. From your post it sounds as though the latter may have been the case, though of course we were not there.

Arguing technicalities around the time written on a report is unlikely to work, and had you posted earlier we could have suggested seeking an out of court settlement. This might still be possible even though things have escalated further.

We can give further advice if you can tell us what precise offence he's been charged with, and also whether he will be aged under 18 on the court date.

 

[Frenchie123]

Thank you everyone for your responses. They have been really helpful.

Just a bit more information, the SJPN states as follows (I've included our comments in blue):

Charged with the following offence:

...failed to produce a valid ticket. When asked by an officer or servant of that railway company, failed to either produce, and if so requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that your fare was paid.

During the heated exchange, my son actually completed the transaction and bought the ticket. This was pointed out to the inspector. He chose to ignore it and continue with the fine/penalty.

Contract to Section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, as amended by the Transport Act 1962, section 84(2) and 93(1), Railways Act 1965 Section 35(5), Railways Act 1970 Section 18, Railways Act 1977 Sch 1, Criminal Justice Act 1982, ss35 & 46, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and Sch 7 and SI 1994/857

Statement of Facts

On Monday, 5th July 2021, Mr @@@@@@@ travelled from x to y (station). Mr @@@@@@@ on 5th July 2021 the defendant made a rail journey from x station to y station. At y station, when asked by an officer or servant of the railway company, you failed to either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing your fare paid.

Firstly apologies as in my OP I said it was May and it wasn't it was July. Anyway, this information is actually incorrect. When my son was at y station he actually had the ticket (which he paid for online) and presented this to the officer. Their advice was to appeal?

The defendant declined to be interview and was advised that all the facts would be reported. This is not true. There was never an offer to be interviewed. Once officer's had seen the ticket they just suggested he appeal.

The fare avoided is £5.70. Compensation of this amount is claimed. They have even got this wrong as the amount should be £5.90. I know this is trivial but just further evidences the slapdash nature of the charge.

Finally, application is being made for a £150 contribution towards the costs of Merseyrail Prosecutions. Further costs may be incurred if additional documentation is required or if the matter is not resolved by a Single Justice.

Merseyrail have not suggested that there is an option for settlement.

I should point out that this charge and statement of facts differs slightly from the original letter we received advising of the penalty.

 

[skyhigh]

Charged with the following offence:

...failed to produce a valid ticket. When asked by an officer or servant of that railway company, failed to either produce, and if so requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that your fare was paid.

During the heated exchange, my son actually completed the transaction and bought the ticket. This was pointed out to the inspector. He chose to ignore it and continue with the fine/penalty.

He was asked to provide a ticket. He didn't. The fact he then bought a ticket doesn't change that fact. Buying a ticket when challenged doesn't negate the offence.

 

[221129]

Should we stick by the 'technical' error they have quoted on their original letter? Is there a defense here?

No.

Can they just ignore our communications and proceed directly to the SJPN?

Yes.

Finally, is the SJPN worth challenging?

No.

 

[furlong]

Oh. That's much more interesting. The law says:

Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

That's 3 options with "or" in between before the conviction kicks in. You might want to check with a local solicitor (initial consultation might be free) to see about a defence.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==

He was asked to provide a ticket. He didn't. The fact he then bought a ticket doesn't change that fact. Buying a ticket when challenged doesn't negate the offence.

It would be unlikely to affect a byelaw offence, but it might well have an impact on a more serious RORA one apparently selected (and potentially misrepresented) here.

 

[Watershed]

...failed to produce a valid ticket. When asked by an officer or servant of that railway company, failed to either produce, and if so requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that your fare was paid.

There's been somewhat of an error on their part if they've charged him with section 5(1) of RoRA.

That offence is only made out where the defendant fails to produce a ticket and fails to pay the fare when requested and refuses to give their name and address.

Your son did the latter two, so any prosecution under section 5(1) is bound to fail - he is being charged with a crime which he simply has not committed. Awfully convenient of them to omit the remainder of the sentence which describes the offence !

The issue you have is that, if you raise this as your defence, Merseyrail may well request to alter the charge to be under section 5(3)(a) (or Byelaw 18) - and they may well be allowed to do so. So this doesn't necessarily mean your son is out of trouble.

If you want to fight this, it would be highly advisable to speak to a criminal defence solicitor.

 

[furlong]

The issue you have is that, if you raise this as your defence, Merseyrail may well request to alter the charge to be under section 5(3)(a) (or Byelaw 18) - and they may well be allowed to do so. So this doesn't necessarily mean your son is out of trouble.

If you want to fight this, it would be highly advisable to speak to a criminal defence solicitor.

Because you'd benefit from help understanding the process and thinking about tactics to try to get the court on your side. (E.g. blatantly attempting to substitute a byelaw offence on the same facts, amounting perhaps to nothing more than deleting some of the protective conditions on the RORA offence, may hint at the 'ultra vires' byelaw question much discussed on this forum a few years ago.)

 

[island]

It looks like a massive blunder by Miseryrail for the reasons people mention above.

The prosecution should fail if competently defended, because the passenger did, I understand, pay his fare from whence he started and give the railway officer his name and address.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2021 ==

Whilst I have no doubt you are trying logically to come up with reasons you feel the prosecution should fail, none of the below are points worth pursuing as they do not have any legal relevance. I understand you may feel strongly that because X is "wrong" it causes the "house of cards to collapse" and will get the charge dismissed. This isn't how things work so it is most important to focus on the above facts that your son did give his name and address and did pay his fare from whence he came.

The defendant declined to be interview and was advised that all the facts would be reported. This is not true. There was never an offer to be interviewed. Once officer's had seen the ticket they just suggested he appeal.

That is what the officer states – did your son cooperate?

The fare avoided is £5.70. Compensation of this amount is claimed. They have even got this wrong as the amount should be £5.90. I know this is trivial but just further evidences the slapdash nature of the charge.

A charge being "slapdash" is irrelevant and claiming less compensation than might otherwise be due does not invalidate anything.

Finally, application is being made for a £150 contribution towards the costs of Merseyrail Prosecutions. Further costs may be incurred if additional documentation is required or if the matter is not resolved by a Single Justice.

Merseyrail have not suggested that there is an option for settlement.

That's unfortunate but they aren't obliged to offer settlements, and train companies often won't offer them to people they perceive to have been uncooperative.

I should point out that this charge and statement of facts differs slightly from the original letter we received advising of the penalty.

That doesn't invalidate the process.

 

[Frenchie123]

Thank you all for the additional responses. It has certainly given me some hope here. In one of our first email responses we actually provided them evidence of the ticket we purchased - and they could see quite clearly that it was purchased during the journey. I can only assume they didn't even look at it, they certainly did not acknowledge it.

I will be seeking legal advice this week. I'm swaying towards pleading not guilty but will speak with solicitors first.

I will keep you posted. Thank again.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thank you all for the additional responses. It has certainly given me some hope here. In one of our first email responses we actually provided them evidence of the ticket we purchased - and they could see quite clearly that it was purchased during the journey. I can only assume they didn't even look at it, they certainly did not acknowledge it.

I will be seeking legal advice this week. I'm swaying towards pleading not guilty but will speak with solicitors first.

I will keep you posted. Thank again.

I would simply ask to settle. They have made an error with suggesting they will prosecute under 5(1) RORA, but a Bylaw offence is certainly complete and there is also evidence of intent to avoid the fare due (5(3)a)).

They should realise their mistake and nothing prevents them from prosecuting under the Bylaws, which is a slam dunk in this case, and RORA 5(3)a could be used if they are feeling combative.

You should not let it get to a court first and you should not mention that your son is a repeat offender by boarding trains routinely without a ticket, which is against Merseyrail Bylaw 18.

 

[scrapy]

I would simply ask to settle. They have made an error with suggesting they will prosecute under 5(1) RORA, but a Bylaw offence is certainly complete and there is also evidence of intent to avoid the fare due (5(3)a)).

They should realise their mistake and nothing prevents them from prosecuting under the Bylaws, which is a slam dunk in this case, and RORA 5(3)a could be used if they are feeling combative.

You should not let it get to a court first and you should not mention that your son is a repeat offender by boarding trains routinely without a ticket, which is against Merseyrail Bylaw 18.

Agree with this completely

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

Thank you all for the additional responses. It has certainly given me some hope here. In one of our first email responses we actually provided them evidence of the ticket we purchased - and they could see quite clearly that it was purchased during the journey. I can only assume they didn't even look at it, they certainly did not acknowledge it.

I will be seeking legal advice this week. I'm swaying towards pleading not guilty but will speak with solicitors first.

I will keep you posted. Thank again.

The fact that there is evidence that he purchased it DURING his journey and not BEFORE his journey means a bylaws prosecution would be pretty much guaranteed to succeed. It's also possible a RORA prosecution would succeed if not competently defended, train operators generally have very good prosecutors. The fact your son had got as far as the payment page online means nothing as it's very common for passengers to do this and only complete the transaction when about to be challenged.

 

[Frenchie123]

Hi all, just a quick question on settlement.

Is this an approach we make directly to Merseyrail or via the courts. Also, if we agree to settle is the SJPN then terminated thus no conviction?

 

[island]

Settlement approach would go to Miseryrail. If a settlement is agreed, they would then need to notify the court that the case is not proceeding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Settlement approach would go to Miseryrail. If a settlement is agreed, they would then need to notify the court that the case is not proceeding.

To do this it would make sense to write something:

1. Acknowledging what he did on this occasion (no need to bring any other occasions into it), ideally include a copy of the ticket if he did buy one and being honest about when it was purchased
2. Accepting that while done in all innocence this is now understood not to be the right thing to do, apologising and explaining that it won't happen again
3. Offering to cover their costs incurred so far and asking if they would be willing to advise what they were if they are amenable to that

If doing this you should not bring up whether it was technically right, or whether it was fair, or anything like that.

Merseyrail don't do e-tickets (I think most have overlooked this, I did) so what exactly was he purchasing? I think you can get the daysavers online on their website only, though - was it that?

 

[Frenchie123]

To do this it would make sense to write something:

1. Acknowledging what he did on this occasion (no need to bring any other occasions into it), ideally include a copy of the ticket if he did buy one and being honest about when it was purchased
2. Accepting that while done in all innocence this is now understood not to be the right thing to do, apologising and explaining that it won't happen again
3. Offering to cover their costs incurred so far and asking if they would be willing to advise what they were if they are amenable to that

If doing this you should not bring up whether it was technically right, or whether it was fair, or anything like that.

Merseyrail don't do e-tickets (I think most have overlooked this, I did) so what exactly was he purchasing? I think you can get the daysavers online on their website only, though - was it that?

Hi, yes a day saver.

 

[WesternLancer]

Will be interesting to see how this case plays out if @Frenchie123 goes to court with it, so please keep us updated.

My hunch is that you can have your day in court, that will cost Merseyrail more, but it will likely cost you more in legal advice if nothing else. I suspect you won't get anywhere either but that's just my opinion.

Merseyrail would have a strong incentive to robustly defend their actions since allowing people to buy after they get on is not, for reasons given above, a thing the railway will want to permit. If they realise you are prepared to take it to court I would expect them to ensure nothing further about their prosecution is slapdash.

 

[ukkid]

Some good advice in this thread but some bizarre too.

If the OP's son received a Single Justice Procedure Notice, the matter is already in court. They cannot ignore it unless the son wants to be found guilty by default. They should be either pleading guilty or not guilty (some advice above suggests they should plead not guilty).

If the defence case is the offence is not made out, l don't see how the prosecutions response is to substitute a new charge. I'm not aware of a railway case in these circumstances, but I recall in the Ben Stokes trial, the prosecution asked the court to lay new charges on the day of trial which were refused.

I'm not a lawyer and my understanding might be incorrect but l dare say the same applies to some of the posts above. Since it appears the son has received a SJPN from the courts for a RORA offence maybe his parent should be encouraged to seek legal advice. They can always mention the defence a poster made out above.

If this is not a Single Justice Procedure Noticed from the courts l apologise in advance and will edit my post in due course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

Some good advice in this thread but some bizarre too.

If the OP's son received a Single Justice Procedure Notice, the matter is already in court. They cannot ignore it unless the son wants to be found guilty by default. They should be either pleading guilty or not guilty (some advice above suggests they should plead not guilty).

If the defence case is the offence is not made out, l don't see how the prosecutions response is to substitute a new charge. I'm not aware of a railway case in these circumstances, but I recall in the Ben Stokes trial, the prosecution asked the court to lay new charges on the day of trial which were refused.

I'm not a lawyer and my understanding might be incorrect but l dare say the same applies to some of the posts above. Since it appears the son has received a SJPN from the courts for a RORA offence maybe his parent should be encouraged to seek legal advice. They can always mention the defence a poster made out above.

If this is not a Single Justice Procedure Noticed from the courts l apologise in advance and will edit my post in due course.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi all, just a quick question on settlement.

Is this an approach we make directly to Merseyrail or via the courts. Also, if we agree to settle is the SJPN then terminated thus no conviction?

Correct. Have you had correspondence with them before? Or is the SJPN the first contact you've had?

 

[Frenchie123]

Correct. Have you had correspondence with them before? Or is the SJPN the first contact you've had?

Hi, yes we have exchanged a few emails and then they just went to SJPN?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hi, yes we have exchanged a few emails and then they just went to SJPN?

In those emails did they offer you a settlement and you declined it, or make any hint of that? Typically these are around £100 + Anytime Single fare for the journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi, yes we have exchanged a few emails and then they just went to SJPN?

Did you suggest, or they offer, a settlement to keep the matter out of court?

 

[Frenchie123]

In those emails did they offer you a settlement and you declined it, or make any hint of that? Typically these are around £100 + Anytime Single fare for the journey.

No settlement was offered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

Did you suggest, or they offer, a settlement to keep the matter out of court?

No settlement was offered and we didn't suggest one to be honest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What was the nature of these conversations, then?

I can't help but think that constant push-back that it's unfair might have made them go "right, nuclear option", which might make getting a settlement very hard.

Merseyrail is a small TOC and likely one person is dealing with all of this, so there is a person at the other end of the letter/phone who could be getting annoyed, very much unlike the large operations like Transport Investigations Ltd etc.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What was the nature of these conversations, then?

I can't help but think that constant push-back that it's unfair might have made them go "right, nuclear option", which might make getting a settlement very hard.

But note that as long as they also comply with the deadlines in the SJPN, the OP's son has absolutely nothing to lose by trying for an out of court settlement. Although the process is now well advanced towards court, my understanding is that Merseyrail can withdraw the prosecution up to whatever the SJPN equivalent of the door of the court is - presumably the point at which the case is put in front of a magistrate for agreement of the punishment.