Single Justice Procedure / Statutory Declaration (Northern Trains)

[macsredna]

Hello all,

I was issued a fine for boarding a train 'without a ticket or promise to pay notice' at MILLS HILL (Manchester) which got sent to my old address, as it got sent to an address that I had moved from, I didn't see the letter until it reached court proceedings and had been escalated to magistrates court, when the letter finally reached me, I called northern rail who told me it had already been heard in court so I couldn't pay the settlement offer and I would have to file a statutory declaration to reset the case which I have a court date for.

For context, I usually buy my tickets through trainline.com, I travel for work the same journey every day, I have evidence of paying for my ticket the full week before and also proof of me purchasing a monthly train ticket following this incident (to avoid this happening again).

I have been charged with breaking Regulation of Railways Act of 1889, which states:

(3)If any person—
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof
What I want to oppose is the part which says 'with intent to avoid payment' as I had full intentions to pay

More context:
On the day of question, my phone battery had died, so didn't buy my ticket on trainline.com like usual and when I arrived at the station, my train was getting ready to leave so I boarded the train to avoid being late for work in a rush/panic

Usually there is a ticket inspector on the train where you can buy tickets and also at the destination but for some reason, on this occasion, there was no attendant on the train and the attendant at my destination (who I have bought tickets off in the past) refused to sell me a ticket and asked me to speak to his colleagues which I now know to be revenue protection officers.

They wouldn't understand that my phone battery had died, or that I was in a rush for work so I forgot to buy one before boarding, nor did they allow me to buy a ticket there (which I offered multiple times, even before speaking to the revenue protection officers), she wouldn't let me pay and threatened to get the police so I felt forced to give her my details as I didn't know the law at the time, I am an honest person so I gave her them. I believe I was discriminated against in this moment which is why they wouldn't let me buy a ticket but instead enforced the fine on me, which feels very unfair as again, the law states that there needs to be intent to avoid payment which I didn't have.

The fair was for £4.60, and as I say, I usually always pay and have proof of this, the fine has now reached £462.60 due to me not seeing any of the court letters.

I have proof of my tenancy for change of address and a screenshot from trainline for proof of intent to pay
I am yet to fill out the SJP and haven't given a plea yet?

I just want this to go away due to the stress and anxiety it is causing me,
any help?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2024 ==

I forgot to add,

Should my statutory declaration be accepted, which I see no reason for it not to be as I have my tenancy forms for moving address which proves I didn't see the court letter

How do I plea?

I don't believe I am guilty, as I explained above (I had full intentions to pay)
But unsure which option is best or the implications of each option

If I have to pay the original £100 fine, I will so that it goes away, but I refuse to pay £462 for a crime I believe I did NOT commit and I also do not want a criminal conviction

This is where I need the main help

Thank- you in advance!

 

[Haywain]

What I want to oppose is the part which says 'with intent to avoid payment' as I had full intentions to pay

Unfortunately, you demonstrated intent to avoid payment by passing an opportunity to pay in the form of the ticket vending machine. This is what will be presented to the court, and as intent is judged by words and actions, it will succeed and you will be found guilty (again).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2024 ==

I usually always pay

This isn't a good line to be using. The reverse of the statement is that, from time to time, you don't pay. That won't work in your favour!

You need to try and settle out of court, and to that end you need to contact Northern and explain that you have a hearing for the SD, and ask if they would be willing to accept a settlement. They will probably say that they can only agree that after the SD has been heard and you will therefore need to enter a not guilty plea so that your case can be scheduled for a later date after the SD is heard. That will then allow a settlement to be paid and for Northern to withdraw the case.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum!

The first thing that you need to do is get the statutory declaration sorted out.

Once you've done that (or you may already have done it) then the formal procedure is that the matter goes straight back to court (or it sounds as if you may have already been sent a new Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN). This will take a little time to process, so this gives you an opportunity to get back to Northern and ask if they would be prepared to agree an out of court settlement (think maybe a hundred pounds or so for costs, plus the train fare in dispute - so maybe £150 overall). You need to do this urgently as you only have the time before the matter goes to court / the closing date on the SJPN.

From what we see here, Northern are oftne willing to settle, so if you can get into discussion with them I think you will have a good chance of finishing things off for the £150 or so.

That being the case, you don't need to worry too much about the exact wording of the charge claiming that you didn't have a ticket and had the intent not to buy one - the charge will have gone away so won't matter. But for what it's worth, my feeling (and please note, I'm not a lawyer) is that you wouldn't be on good ground trying to argue that point. One way of knowing what someone's intention is to ask them - but of course, everyone is going to say that they intended to do the right thing. So the courts' approach is to look at what people did. And in this case, from what you tell us, you didn't have a charge on your phone, and you thought that getting to work on time was more important than getting a ticket. You might be right that for you getting to work was more important - but the railway don't take that view. They see that you had an opportunity to pay (most Northern stations have a ticket machine) , they see that you didn't take it, so they see that you intended not to pay for a ticket.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I would doubt that boarding without a ticket where the opportunity existed to buy one constitutes the criminal intent to avoid payment required for a RoRA 5(3) offence, especially given it sounds like the OP tried to pay before being challenged. They could have charged a strict liability byelaw offence for which you would have no defence.

I would do the statutory declaration and try and negotiate an out of court settlement with Northern as advised. If that was not possible I would plead not guilty based on your description of events.

One point to note is you may want to have a solicitor do the statutory declaration as I believe there can be complications in doing one and leaving a sufficient window to negotiate. There have been previous discussions on this forum about the process.

For what it is worth, the Northern prosecutions department seem to be legally incompetent (to put it politely) so I wouldn’t have any expectation that they had a watertight case against you.

 

[Haywain]

I would doubt that boarding without a ticket where the opportunity existed to buy one constitutes the criminal intent to avoid payment required for a RoRA 5(3) offence, especially given it sounds like the OP tried to pay before being challenged. They could have charged a strict liability byelaw offence for which you would have no defence.

In which case you would be wrong.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2024 ==

One point to note is you may want to have a solicitor do the statutory declaration as I believe there can be complications in doing one and leaving a sufficient window to negotiate. There have been previous discussions on this forum about the process.

Probably too late now that the OP has a date for the hearing of the SD.

 

[KirkstallOne]

One other point on this, Northern are not allowed to charge RoRA 1889 offences via Single Justice Procedure Notices so this is another line of defence.

The relevant statute is here:

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (New Method of Instituting Proceedings) (Specification of Relevant Prosecutors) Order 2016

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Haywain]

One other point on this, Northern are not allowed to charge RoRA 1889 offences via Single Justice Procedure Notices so this is another line of defence.

The relevant statute is here:

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (New Method of Instituting Proceedings) (Specification of Relevant Prosecutors) Order 2016

www.legislation.gov.uk

Under the Single Justice Procedure any defence will result in the case going before the magistrates to be heard, so it really isn't much of a defence.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Under the Single Justice Procedure any defence will result in the case going before the magistrates to be heard, so it really isn't much of a defence.

On the lengthy discussions about this previously there was no clear opinion on what the situation would be, and how it would interact with the 6 month limit on summary prosecutions.

Also, when I was facing a charge such as this, a letter from my lawyer pointing out that they had no authority to charge the offence they had via an SJPN resulted in an immediate offer to settle for the sum of £3.50