Youth prosecution

[nickobar]

Mods' note: Split from an old topic (on a similar issue):
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=37220

If only my son had the option of paying a penalty fare / administration charge.

He missed the last train back from London and was approached by an inspector on his way back early the following morning. He had no mobile phone or wallet which he had given to a sober friend to look after (not that there was probably any money in it anyway as he was unemployed at the time) before being separated.

No option has been given to pay a penalty fare; they seem to be sending him straight for prosecution.

Although unemployed at the time, he is now working at the Post Office, and so seems certain to lose his first (and last?) job as a result.

DaveNewcastle said "No one on here should ever assume that "going to Court" involves some sort of rational consideration of the balance of evidence, or a reflection on the moral issues it raises, or a whimsical interest in what is fair and reasonable."

Oh what a wonderful society we live in.

Does anyone please have any positive advice on how we might prevent them ruining my son's life?

Nick.

 

[Mike395]

If only my son had the option of paying a penalty fare / administration charge.

He missed the last train back from London and was approached by an inspector on his way back early the following morning. He had no mobile phone or wallet which he had given to a sober friend to look after (not that there was probably any money in it anyway as he was unemployed at the time) before being separated.

No option has been given to pay a penalty fare; they seem to be sending him straight for prosecution.

Although unemployed at the time, he is now working at the Post Office, and so seems certain to lose his first (and last?) job as a result.

DaveNewcastle said "No one on here should ever assume that "going to Court" involves some sort of rational consideration of the balance of evidence, or a reflection on the moral issues it raises, or a whimsical interest in what is fair and reasonable."

Oh what a wonderful society we live in.

Does anyone please have any positive advice on how we might prevent them ruining my son's life?

Nick.

First of all, welcome to the forums

Secondly, if I'm honest, your best bet would be to call the TOC involved and offer to pay the fare plus a reasonable administration charge (reasonable is probably unfortunately going to be £50-60), and see what they say. If they say you have to pay a higher amount, then do it, it'll save your son a criminal record.

(Thirdly, this post may get split off into its own thread, so if you cant find it later on today, that'll be why )

 

[LexyBoy]

Hi and welcome.

If you can tell us where your son was travelling, which TOC was involved and exactly what happened that should help us advise (though the usual advice remains to find a lawyer who is familiar with railway law). For example - was he asked for/did he give a statement? Was he given a chance to buy a ticket? Did he have any sort of ticket, or any money on him?.

Unfortunately, if he was travelling with no ticket or any means to pay for a ticket it is trivially easy for the TOC to prove intent to avoid paying. They may settle out of court if offered the fare plus an “admin fee” – at least a couple of hundred quid I would expect – but I’d get more expert advise before acting, since any further contact with the TOC could be used against your son if they do decide to prosecute.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can we have more detail please?

No option has been given to pay a penalty fare; they seem to be sending him straight for prosecution.

How has that been notified to you and which offence is being prosecuted?
It would be exceptional if an opportunity to settle before going to Court is not considered constructively; particularly if its a first offence. Have you made that offer and apology but had the offer refused, or ar you just thinking ahead of what might happen?

My quote (above) about appealling to a Court's sympathy is a little out-of-context, as there is rarely any need to get that far.

 

[RPI]

If intent is suspected then a Penalty fare should not be issued and by the actions of the OP's son Intent is proved by having no ticket or money at the time of travel, so the Inspector has acted correctly in this case, I echo the advice being given and offer to pay the fare plus the TOC's admin cost's (probably in the region of £100-£200).

I may be able to help more if I had more detailed info (although don't post names/addresses etc).

 

[Wyvern]

Did he have the return half of a ticket (even though it would be out of date) Would it help?

 

[First class]

Mods' note: Split from an old topic (on a similar issue):
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=37220

If only my son had the option of paying a penalty fare / administration charge.

He missed the last train back from London and was approached by an inspector on his way back early the following morning. He had no mobile phone or wallet which he had given to a sober friend to look after (not that there was probably any money in it anyway as he was unemployed at the time) before being separated.

No option has been given to pay a penalty fare; they seem to be sending him straight for prosecution.

Although unemployed at the time, he is now working at the Post Office, and so seems certain to lose his first (and last?) job as a result.

DaveNewcastle said "No one on here should ever assume that "going to Court" involves some sort of rational consideration of the balance of evidence, or a reflection on the moral issues it raises, or a whimsical interest in what is fair and reasonable."

Oh what a wonderful society we live in.

Does anyone please have any positive advice on how we might prevent them ruining my son's life?

Nick.

Right, need a couple of questions answering before I can advise you accordingly (as someone who deals with this):

1) How old is your son? You imply he was "under the influence", so over 18?
2) Has any other correspondance been received before a summons?
3) Is he admitting liability, or did he admit liability when originally stopped?
4) Does he have any previous dealings with the TOC?

Bear in mind that some "youths" do the best they can to keep things from mummy/daddy!

 

[b0b]

Is it me - even though the Inspector was completely in his rights to do what he did - finding a youth on an early train without a wallet or phone, probably clearly disheveled, the first thing I'd want him to do is try and contact his parents for the child's safety - the parents would have been willing to pay the fare immediately?

Or is this another common "fare dodge" technique as well?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did he have the return half of a ticket (even though it would be out of date) Would it help?

I can't imagine presenting the valid return portion would hurt where someone is being charged with intent to avoid paying the fare.

I'm not a lawyer though.

 

[First class]

Is it me - even though the Inspector was completely in his rights to do what he did - finding a youth on an early train without a wallet or phone, probably clearly disheveled, the first thing I'd want him to do is try and contact his parents for the child's safety - the parents would have been willing to pay the fare immediately?

Or is this another common "fare dodge" technique as well?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I can't imagine presenting the valid return portion would hurt where someone is being charged with intent to avoid paying the fare.

I'm not a lawyer though.

This may not be a RoRA 1889 5(3a) prosecution.

If intoxicated enough, Byelaw 4(1) or 4(3)

“intoxication” means being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs or other substances;

No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.

could be contenders in addition to:

17(2) OR 18(2)

A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

There is then the potential for the old favourite 23(1).

Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person. (Effectively means giving false details)

Once the OP can answer my original questions, I will be able to advise.

 

[Anvil1984]

Maybe if it was a child, but from the description and outlay of the story I've interpreted that he was a youth who'd been out with his mates, gave them his items to look after and forgot to get them back. No real need for the mollycoddling you've described as it wasn't a young person of child fare paying age who'd potentially ran away from home.

There may be other factors as well that we know about when the youth was found / questioned etc,

 

[nickobar]

OK, first, thanks for all the replies. I have sent a PM to Yorkie and I know he consults with others to if you are one of them, he has all the information plus some scans of summons, tickets, etc. To answer your various questions:

FirstClass:
- He is 19 - the "youth prosecution" title came from the previous thread when the mod split it
- We received a "Notice of intention to prosecute" which was sent the first working day after the offence
- Has he admitted liability? - not in those words probably, but he was honest in his answers to the form that came with the "Notice of ..." so by implication, he perhaps has
- He says he has never previously had a penalty fare. I understand your "mummy/daddy" point and I stressed that no-one's help will be worth anything unless we are straight with you

Wyvern:
- He did not have the ticket on him at the time as it was in his wallet At the time he told the inspector he had lost his wallet which is what he thought at the time - it later turned out he had given it to a sober-ish friend to look after so we do have it now

RPI:
- I respect your perspective, but if intent is suspected but not actually the case, how would this be resolved. Would this mean in practice an inspectors suspicion is sufficient to convict?
- I have to say that I am not at all clear on exactly what intent is. He would of paid if he had not lost his wallet, but he travelled anyway. He wasn't on the outward leg, he was trying to get home. Is this intent - I honestly don't know.

DaveNewcastle:
- Notified first by "Notice of intention to prosecute", and today by summons: "... without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof" - S.5(3)(a) - is that what you meant?
- The "Notice of intention to prosecute" was dated the first working day after the event. No opportunity has been given to make an offer/apologise". How would this be best done?

LexyBoy:
- He was returning from Kings Cross to Hertford with First Capital Direct.
- He may have been given a chance to buy a ticket, but as he thought he had lost his wallet he had no money. He had 10p left in his pocket after buying a childs fare ticket for the first part of the journey in order to get onto the platform. Intent? Seems the most stupid thing in the world to do but I guess he didn't know what else to do.


Thanks again all for your interest and help in this.

Nick.

 

[First class]

Unfourtuately, a 19 year old is not a "youth" in terms of how a prosecutions department will look upon it. Up to age 17, TOCs will be lienient, but 18 and over, you're an adult, not a youth.

What has probably happened is the TOC has written to him and asked him to pay an "administrative penalty" of between £50 and £150. He has either ignored/not received/not paid the penalty to avoid court action. The TOC will have then simply have taken his non-reply as an indication he does not want to settle out of court, so a summons will have been issued. I'm 99% sure that an out of court settlement would have been offered by the operator in this case. May well be worth ringing up their Prosecutor and asking whether that option still exists, although you will probably find the "admin penalty" has shot up to £100-£200. Still better than a criminal record though.

Personally, I feel that I could successfully convict for 18(2), I do not know what was said in his initial interview, so I can't make a judgement for the more serious 5(3a). Both are recordable, however.

Is it just me or has instances of forum members requring proecutions advice suddenly increased over the last couple of days?

 

[nickobar]

Struggling to keep up with your comments here....but don't stop:

Anvil1984: said "No real need for the mollycoddling you've described as it wasn't a young person of child fare paying age who'd potentially ran away from home."

Anvil is right - he's 19, got himself drunk, lost his coat, made stupid decisions.

No mollycoddling is warranted - I'm just not sure a criminal record is either.

Nick.

 

[Anvil1984]

The ticket office at Kings Cross is open as per the station opening hours and he should have sought out the first available member of staff as it will have been staff or indeed visited the BTP to report the wallet lost and he may have been given some form of authority or UFN to allow him to travel.

Because he's bought a child ticket and went through a set of ticket barriers then it is easy for the TOC to prosecute, it basically becomes ticket fraud and not ticketless travel (which is worse I'll let the others decide) and I guess the company are prosecuting on that basis. Basically all your son had to do was admit his proof of age then they have got your son on intentionally using a child ticket when he wasnt entitled to it

I hope there is some way out of it for him as I do have some sympathy but at the end of the day when he knowingly bought a kids ticket to get home instead of going to travel centre /btp he was taking a gamble of this happening

 

[b0b]

I hope there is some way out of it for him as I do have some sympathy but at the end of the day when he knowingly bought a kids ticket to get home instead of going to travel centre /btp he was taking a gamble of this happening

However, he does now have proof (the return ticket in the found wallet) that he did previously pay the fare.

the summons apparently says: "... without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof" - S.5(3)(a)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thanks for the additional info.
Yes, if its a S5.3a offence then that is the more serious of the likely options. That is "Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof". Its the 'Intent to avoid payment' that has been established following his statement to the Inspector that has confirmed the suspicion.
There's not anything in your posts which suggests to me that such a prosecution would fail (and so if it did reach a Court then the only point in attending would be to plea mitigating circumstances, but there may be some chink of hope if we knew exactly what the evidence & statement were or if the now-found-ticket can be submitted as counter evidence.

I advise making an offer of an out-of-court settlement as soon as possible, complete with brief explanation of why you were (he was) unable to respond sooner, a profound apology for the incident, an assurance that you (he) will be careful to avoid ever doing this again and a brief explanation of why a prosecution would have a detrimental effect on a promising young career. A cheque should be enclosed for the amount of the offer. I agree with RPI that £100 - £200 would be appropriate.
This should be in writing AND followed up by a phone call to the Prosecutions Manager.

If you wished to challenge on the grounds of the 'missing but found ticket' then please confirm that you have the original and that its valid for travel on that date and journey before we go further.

 

[Anvil1984]

However, he does now have proof (the return ticket in the found wallet) that he did previously pay the fare.

the summons apparently says: "... without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof" - S.5(3)(a)

Possibly, but the ticket must be shown when requested, the ticket could be disregarded as being a friends ticket which has been retained. He hasn't oaid the fare for the journey as he did not have the ticket present, I don't think finding the ticket afterwards will have any bearing to be honest

 

[nickobar]

What has probably happened is the TOC has written to him and asked him to pay an "administrative penalty" of between £50 and £150. He has either ignored/not received/not paid the penalty to avoid court action. The TOC will have then simply have taken his non-reply as an indication he does not want to settle out of court, so a summons will have been issued. I'm 99% sure that an out of court settlement would have been offered by the operator in this case.

Does that still leave 1% possibility? The "Notice of intention to prosecute" was dated the first working day after it happened and contains no offer to pay. It even says "DO NOT send any money with your reply".
No other mail was received between that and the Summons today.

May well be worth ringing up their Prosecutor and asking whether that option still exists, although you will probably find the "admin penalty" has shot up to £100-£200. Still better than a criminal record though.

Will do this once I hear back from Yorkie. Costs are currently listed as £110.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Possibly, but the ticket must be shown when requested, the ticket could be disregarded as being a friends ticket which has been retained. He hasn't oaid the fare for the journey as he did not have the ticket present, I don't think finding the ticket afterwards will have any bearing to be honest

I bought the ticket for him. I have a receipt that shows I bought two tickets that day. Does that help at all?

Nick.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If you now physically have the ticket and the receipt, and they were valid for that actual journey, AND if that is fully consistent with the statement made to the Inspector, then yes, you can take a chance on contesting the charge (because your evidence demonstrates that the claim of 'without having paid' is factually incorrect). Its good and persuasive evidence, but if you loose, then will it have been worth the argument? Probably not.

As stated above, I would need a much more thorough examination of the evidence before even attempting to advise whether to make the offer now or to argue the matter.

 

[Nick W]

What would happen if the OP was to send a copy of the original ticket to the prosecution department? Would they most likely carry ahead with the prosecution based on the evidence on the day, drop the charges altogether or choose to prosecute for the byelaw offence?

 

[Anvil1984]

What would happen if the OP was to send a copy of the original ticket to the prosecution department? Would they most likely carry ahead with the prosecution based on the evidence on the day, drop the charges altogether or choose to prosecute for the byelaw offence?

We can't say, as I think its agreed that this should be communicated between the OP and prosecutions department over the phone and in writing. The fact the ticket has been found though and there is a receipt still doesnt prove anything completely as I say it could have been bought but the friends used them and gave them back to the defendant (sorry to use that term). Theres proof the tickets been bought but not its user,

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Good question, Nick_W.
It would be possible for the TOC to do that, though it begs the question why the OP (or son) would be sending in the ticket if not with the purpose of changing the evidential basis for a Prosecution from the RRA Offence to the Byelaw Offence? (and on receipt of notice of that new prosecution, then make the apology, plea and assurance of taking greater care in future).
It doesn't make any difference, unless we've choosen the option of a successful prosecution by the TOC and we want to choose which Offence we are prosecuted for!

These are the choices:-
a) Ignore everything and await a successful prosecution;
b) Contest the prosecution and take the chances;
c) Apologise and offer compensation ASAP;
d) Demonstrate that the ticket has been found and wait again for a new Summons and reconsider at that time.

Might as well just combine c) and d) in the one letter (but subject to requests for clarification above, otherwise just c)).

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

The fact the ticket has been found though and there is a receipt still doesnt prove anything completely as I say it could have been bought but the friends used them and gave them back to the defendant (sorry to use that term). Theres proof the tickets been bought but not its user,

Er, what do we mean by "still doesn't proove anything completely"? If the OP's explanation is true, and its sustained by the evidence, is consistent with the statement made to the Inspector, and is made again by a statement under oath, where is this "but the friends used them" going to come from?

 

[b0b]

The fact the ticket has been found though and there is a receipt still doesnt prove anything completely as I say it could have been bought but the friends used them and gave them back to the defendant (sorry to use that term). Theres proof the tickets been bought but not its user,

If the prosecution does try to suggest the return portion was used, hopefully the defence will ask for proof that the return portion has been used and the lack of any evidence that it had been is good for the defence.

 

[Anvil1984]

Sorry but i have to play devil advocate here, I am not against the OP but just have to think what the TOC would say that is all. There are potential ways to check if the card hasn't been used (i.e the mag stripe on the back for one). I just have a feeling if it does come to court the only ticket brought up may be the child ticket I could be wrong I'm not an expert I only check them on the train

 

[First class]

What would happen if the OP was to send a copy of the original ticket to the prosecution department? Would they most likely carry ahead with the prosecution based on the evidence on the day, drop the charges altogether or choose to prosecute for the byelaw offence?

For me, personally, if the MG11/Report stated he hadn't been abusive/awkward etc, then I would drop 5(3a) and change to Byelaw 17/18(2) which could be proven beyond doubt as no valid ticket was offered for inspection, on request. I'm pretty much guaranteed a good result, with costs more than likely paid with a small compensation order, (fare due).

Otherwise I would be inclined to ask for an "administrative penalty" and to sign a "reprimand" that is noted on the TOC Prosecution Database, but not recorded by any "agency".

Sometimes the prosecutor is considering "the bigger picture" regardless of cost to the TOC. There is some nonsense about, however, that implies the TOC doesn't have to pay any fees, that is totally untrue. If they lose they pay from their own pockets.

 

[Stigy]

Personally, I feel that I could successfully convict for 18(2), I do not know what was said in his initial interview, so I can't make a judgement for the more serious 5(3a). Both are recordable, however.

Only the 5.3(a) would be recordable, as Byelaws are non-recordable. If convicted, both will mean a criminal record though, which I'm sure is what you really meant anyway...

 

[the sniper]

I bought the ticket for him. I have a receipt that shows I bought two tickets that day. Does that help at all?

Just as a side thought, might this not help as you're supposed to buy your own ticket? I can't remember where it's covered, but I thought that you technically couldn't use a ticket brought by somebody else, though many people do without any problem.

Or have I just imagined this?

 

[First class]

Just as a side thought, might this not help as you're supposed to buy your own ticket? I can't remember where it's covered, but I thought that you technically couldn't use a ticket brought by somebody else, though many people do without any problem.

Or have I just imagined this?

You can buy a ticket ON BEHALF of someone else. You can't use someone else's ticket.

 

[Anvil1984]

No, you CAN buy a ticket for somebody else thats ok but its not allowed to be used for someone its not been bought for (i.e resold on ebay etc)

 

[the sniper]

You can buy a ticket ON BEHALF of someone else. You can't use someone else's ticket.

No, you CAN buy a ticket for somebody else thats ok but its not allowed to be used for someone its not been bought for (i.e resold on ebay etc)

Thanks chaps, that makes more sense.