Advice Needed on Rail Fare Evasion SJPN Fine

[cool110]

The possibility that ancillary orders might follow conviction had occurred to me, but the question that remains is what sentences can be imposed, given that Byelaw 24(1) specifically excepts Byelaw 17 from the provision that "a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale" can be imposed for each proven byelaw offence?

Byelaw 24(2) then goes on to make provision for ejection from the railway of a person reasonably believed to be in breach of the byelaws. This suggests to me that Byelaw 24 is intended to provide a comprehensive statement of the sanctions available for byelaw breach.

It also needs to be read in conjunction with the requirement to give name and address under Byelaw 23(1), which leads to the intended sanction of a Penalty Fare being issued.

 

[furlong]

In summary there were deficiencies in the charges and the process. The charges don't match the legislation and the penalty imposed doesn't seem to be one that can follow from the convictions.
There are ways to get this reopened, but the SD which you already looked into seems the best as it resets everything to the beginning. In the case of 17(1) the train company's errors might be correctable (offence is entering the CTA not entering the train) though the offence would normally not be prosecuted (see code for prosecutors, public interest test, byelaw reference to penalty fare liability etc.) and there's a large untested grey area surrounding what currently constitutes a CTA (the current definition is incomplete but a court might fill the gaps and accept what it's "obviously" intended to be).

Once the SD is done, negotiating a settlement out-of-court as originally suggested seems best unless you fancy taking a chance hoping the prosecution won't succeed in filling the gaps to the satisfaction of the court.

 

[Haywain]

If anyone has the time or patience to sum up my situation is laymans terms then that would be great

I'll try, based on the above and prepared to be shot down for being wrong. You were convicted of an offence amd while a penalty is not specified the court exercised their power to impose one.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'll try, based on the above and prepared to be shot down for being wrong. You were convicted of an offence amd while a penalty is not specified the court exercised their power to impose one.

One for @tspaul26 here I think. What was the OP’s sentence? As there appears to be no fine.

 

[Haywain]

£88 charity

"Victim surcharge"?

 

[Cantab26]

One for @tspaul26 here I think. What was the OP’s sentence? As there appears to be no fine.

I agree that the Byelaw 17(2) offence is not made out because a ticket (albeit not a valid one) was proffered for inspection on request. A not guilty plea would be appropriate accompanied by a direct letter to the prosecutor inviting withdrawal of that charge and intimating a potential application for wasted costs if that is not done within a suitable period (say, seven calendar days).

As to Byelaw 17(1), it is for the prosecution to adduce evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Marylebone is actually designated as a compulsory ticket area and that the requisite notices were displayed at the time and on the date in question. If that can be done then it seems to me that a conviction for this offence would be sound on the facts as they have been presented in this thread.

On conviction for a Byelaw 17(1) offence only then the maximum theoretical disposal would be:

• Conditional discharge
• Surcharge (£26)
• Compensation (see below)
• Costs (see below)

As to compensation, having reviewed the wording of the Byelaws and the (amended) 2018 Penalty Fare Regulations again, it seems to me that the loss to be compensated would be the improperly applied railcard discount i.e. the full relevant single fare for the journey in fact made net of the amount already paid.

As to costs, if a statutory declaration is made followed by a prompt guilty plea then the amount previously ordered by the court seems about right.

If the OP instead pleads not guilty in the first instance, but subsequently switches plea or is convicted at trial then something in the region of £400 to £600 would probably be appropriate.

 

[some bloke]

If anyone has the time or patience to sum up my situation in laymans terms then that would be great

You have a good chance of a settlement after the SD.

Errors by Chiltern, the magistrates and the magistrates' legal adviser may mean that Chiltern are more likely to offer a settlement, so they can forget about the errors.

 

[John Palmer]

I reached the same conclusions as @tspaul26 regarding the application of Goldstein and the conjoined appeal of Rimmington, which was also concerned with the common law crime of public nuisance, now abolished by Section 78(6) Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

The specification of charge set out in the OP's post #12 strikes me as somewhat puzzling:

“That you on ** between Maylebone and ** stations did contravene Byelaw no 17 (1) of the Railway Byelaws made under section 219 and schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 in accordance with the Railways Act 2005, in that you entered a train in a compulsory ticket area for the purpose of travelling on the Railway without having with you a valid ticket entitling you to travel.”

The Byelaw 17(1) offence involves entering a compulsory ticket area on the railway. That could include a train provided it had been identified as such in a relevant Penalty Fare Scheme and by display of the requisite notice. My understanding is that certain station platforms and associated areas managed by Chiltern Railways continue to be treated as CTAs, but not the trains themselves. FWIW, Marylebone wasn't included in the list of CTAs supplied in this post, although I should be surprised to learn that it had ceased to be such. But my point remains: why specify a Byelaw 17(1) charge in terms of entering a train, when the more appropriate charge would surely be one of entering the CTA at which such train was boarded? Or is this a case where there is doubt about the station at which the train was boarded, and whether it was a CTA?

 

[RevenueProtect]

Hi everyone,
I’m seeking some advice regarding a fine I received from the courts due to a prosecution by Chiltern Railways for fare evasion. I travelled with an out-of-date railcard in January from London. The fine paperwork from the court is the first I've heard about the case owing to moving address.
I have a few questions:

1. If I decide to appeal the fine, is it still possible to settle the dispute with Chiltern Railways out of court, or does it have to go through the courts now?
2. In a statement from the ticket inspector, it says that he cautioned me, but this did not happen. What ramifications does this have for the legality of the case?
3. If the conviction is upheld, will it result in a criminal record that would show up on a DBS check (standard or enhanced) and potentially impact my ESTA travel to the United States?

I’m really desperate to avoid a criminal record and am willing to pay the fine if it means resolving this issue. Any insights or advice would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you

You should be given the opportunity to have you case heard in an open court - not just the automated process of an SJP. You can also appeal the fine. Most train operating companies prefer to settle out of court as it's cheaper and reduces their workload.

 

[Jlas]

Thank you all for your insights and knowledge.

I will enact the SD and contact CR and see if they will accept an out of court settlement.

Here's to hoping this is possible, as despite my best efforts, I don't have the bandwidth to take on the byelaw 17 argument. If it goes to court ill hire you all as my legal team, so long as i can pay you in coffee and cakes!

Thanks again everyone

 

[furlong]

The Byelaw 17(1) offence involves entering a compulsory ticket area on the railway. That could include a train provided it had been identified as such in a relevant Penalty Fare Scheme and by display of the requisite notice.

A CTA could never include a train under a Penalty Fare Scheme.

The original definition used in Penalty Fare Schemes was

‘Compulsory ticket area’ means any area at a station identified by a notice which indicates that people may not enter that area without a ticket or other authority allowing them to enter that area, or to travel on a train arriving at or departing from that area.

which was equivalent to the definition used in the regulations

“compulsory ticket area” means any area at a station identified by a notice which indicates that persons may not enter that area without being able to produce a ticket or other authority authorising travel on a train arriving at or departing from that area or otherwise authorising entry into that area

Operators had to set out in each Penalty Fare Scheme

the stations where there will be compulsory ticket areas, and the location and extent of these areas

Under the byelaws,

“compulsory ticket area” means any area designated as such under a Penalty Fares Scheme and identified by a notice to this effect. Persons who enter a compulsory ticket area without being in possession of a valid ticket may be liable to pay a penalty fare

However the Penalty Fare Schemes to which the byelaws refer directly were all abolished but the byelaws were never updated to reflect this.
This leaves us with a deficient definition, as the current regulations do not provide any authority for any particular CTA to exist:

“compulsory ticket area” means any area at a station which a person must not enter or be present in without being able to produce—
(a)a valid travel ticket authorising travel on a train arriving at or departing from that area; or
(b)a platform ticket authorising their entry to or presence in that area;

You might argue that if a CTA existed previously, it continues across the transition between old and new regulations, though that wasn't provided for in the transitional provisions.
You might argue that putting up signs creates a CTA, but that's a circular definition, albeit without inconsistencies, drawing its authority from the very regulations it seeks to define.