Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ok apologies I misread. I will let those with more knowledge of the process advise then although my instinct would be that strictly yes you do need to sign the form for it to be reopened unless northern are planning to make a section 142 application to reopen which doesn’t seem the correct approach in this instance when a settlement has been reached.
Ok apologies I misread. I will let those with more knowledge of the process advise then although my instinct would be that strictly yes you do need to sign the form for it to be reopened unless northern are planning to make a section 142 application to reopen which doesn’t seem the correct approach in this instance when a settlement has been reached.
Northern can make a section 142 application to reopen the case and then offer no evidence, although it is not at all clear that is what they plan to do. In your shoes I would be attending court to make certain the matter is dropped, properly and permanently.
Northern can make a section 142 application to reopen the case and then offer no evidence, although it is not at all clear that is what they plan to do. In your shoes I would be attending court to make certain the matter is dropped, properly and permanently.
The case details as sent to me are below ... did travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare of £14.50 and with intent to avoid payment thereof.
You can ask the magistrates whether they think Northern misled the court that the unpaid amount was £14.50 rather than under £5 (how can you intend to avoid £14.50 if you paid most of it?), and on that basis obtained a compensation order for too much money.
If you can get to see the Statement of Facts and if there is one a witness statement, you may see other forms of words they used about the "fare avoided".
"Thereof" might be read as "thereof in full" but it may seem reasonable to view the words as likely to mislead the court.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You could ask the court at an earlier stage,
"If there was no valid SJP notice, because Northern is not a "relevant prosecutor" for that offence via SJP, and/or because the offence alleged is "imprisonable", then can a statutory declaration really be applicable, or is the appropriate route a reopening through section 142(2) instead?"
"16E Accused not aware of single justice procedure notice...
(1)This section applies if—
(a) a single justice procedure notice has been issued"
An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions of justices’ clerks, and to matters connected therewith, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.
Just an update got to the court was only in there for 30 seconds (it's so official and very nerve racking) they checked my details and northan applied for a section 142 and it was accepted the conviction is now gone away same with any fines. Thank you everyone for your help I hope I never have to come on here again. But I'm extremely thankful for people taking time out of their day to help me. To new beginnings!
Just an update got to the court was only in there for 30 seconds (it's so official and very nerve racking) they checked my details and northan applied for a section 142 and it was accepted the conviction is now gone away same with any fines. Thank you everyone for your help I hope I never have to come on here again. But I'm extremely thankful for people taking time out of their day to help me. To new beginnings!
Glad to hear it’s sorted and thanks for the update.
Presumably Northern accept this is one of the cases affected by the Westminster ruling otherwise I don’t see how a section 142 is appropriate. In which case the fact they implied this outcome was conditional on you paying a settlement seems questionable.
Presumably Northern accept this is one of the cases affected by the Westminster ruling otherwise I don’t see how a section 142 is appropriate. In which case the fact they implied this outcome was conditional on you paying a settlement seems questionable.
Agreed - it is hard to see how paying £14.50 was an "opportunity" for the defendant rather than the company, if Northern could or would not make a second attempt at conviction.
There are other questionable aspects as well.
My view is that the rules are worth knowing about in case a defendant wants to exercise a right to information, or anyone wants to look at how far a party is complying with their obligations.
Northern had obligations to inform the court and defendant of significant procedural failure, and to give reasons for both a section 142 application and (at least according to the CPS) for applying for the reopened case to be withdrawn.
Northern proposed to apply for a section 142 reopening in the absence of the defendant.
"Setting aside a conviction or varying a costs, etc. order
44.3.—[...(1) This rule applies where the court can— ...
(b) under section 142 of the 1980 Act—
(i) set aside a conviction ...
(2) The court may exercise its power—
(a) on application by a party, or on its own initiative; and
(b) at a hearing, in public or in private, or without a hearing.
(3) The court must not exercise its power in a party’s absence unless—
(a) the court makes a decision proposed by that party;
(b) the court makes a decision to which that party has agreed in writing; or
(c) that party has had an opportunity to make representations at a hearing (whether or not that party in fact attends).
(4) A party who wants the court to exercise its power must—
(a) apply in writing as soon as reasonably practicable after the conviction or order that that party wants the court to set aside, vary or rescind;
(b) serve the application on—
(i) the court officer, and
(ii) each other party; and
(c) in the application—
(i) explain why, as appropriate, the conviction should be set aside..."
It might be argued that by stating an intention to make a statutory declaration, the defendant agreed to a section 142 reopening. I'm not sure that holds.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
These problems are in addition to other/possible problems noted earlier in this thread.
Honestly in my opinion the £14:50 is a good amount for me as northan will deal with it from now on. I wasn't required to attend court as told today however I wouldn't trust the prosecutors word on that, so I attended. I'm just happy this is all over and 14:50 is a lot less than the 500 that I was originally fined. I'm just happy this is all over and I do not have a criminal record as I plan to do my PHD in the states again I'm super thankful for everyone on here.
Agreed - it is hard to see how paying £14.50 was an "opportunity" for the defendant rather than the company, if Northern could or would not make a second attempt at conviction.
There are other questionable aspects as well.
My view is that the rules are worth knowing about in case a defendant wants to exercise a right to information, or anyone wants to look at how far a party is complying with their obligations.
Northern had obligations to inform the court and defendant of significant procedural failure, and to give reasons for both a section 142 application and (at least according to the CPS) for applying for the reopened case to be withdrawn.
Northern proposed to apply for a section 142 reopening in the absence of the defendant.
"Setting aside a conviction or varying a costs, etc. order
44.3.—[...(1) This rule applies where the court can— ...
(b) under section 142 of the 1980 Act—
(i) set aside a conviction ...
(2) The court may exercise its power—
(a) on application by a party, or on its own initiative; and
(b) at a hearing, in public or in private, or without a hearing.
(3) The court must not exercise its power in a party’s absence unless—
(a) the court makes a decision proposed by that party;
(b) the court makes a decision to which that party has agreed in writing; or
(c) that party has had an opportunity to make representations at a hearing (whether or not that party in fact attends).
(4) A party who wants the court to exercise its power must—
(a) apply in writing as soon as reasonably practicable after the conviction or order that that party wants the court to set aside, vary or rescind;
(b) serve the application on—
(i) the court officer, and
(ii) each other party; and
(c) in the application—
(i) explain why, as appropriate, the conviction should be set aside..."
It might be argued that by stating an intention to make a statutory declaration, the defendant agreed to a section 142 reopening. I'm not sure that holds.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
These problems are in addition to other/possible problems noted earlier in this thread.
As I and others have told you on multiple occasions, your extensive quotations from the CrimPR are of no assistance to OPs. It is one of the rules of this section of the forum that posts should be "constructive" and "directly relevant", and should avoid "introducing concepts that aren't relevant/applicable".
The overriding objective of the CrimPR is that criminal cases be dealt with justly. The court system is not a bureaucracy. Magistrates also do not wield gavels, listen to parties yelling "objection", or stand on unnecessary ceremony. The case has been resolved with the appropriate result for the defendant and limited fuss, and there would have been no benefit to anyone, other than perhaps stationery suppliers, of making out and serving copies of paperwork.
Just an update got to the court was only in there for 30 seconds (it's so official and very nerve racking) they checked my details and northan applied for a section 142 and it was accepted the conviction is now gone away same with any fines.
Do you recall exactly how they did this in law?
S142 - what reasons did they give for this?
After it was reopened, what did the prosecution say and with what reasons, if any? E.g. "we are offering no evidence" or "we are asking the court to declare this a nullity because..."
What did the court decide?
In other words, what will the formal record of this case now state as the outcome?
(Make sure Northern's actions are consistent with what it is telling the Chief Magistrate and DfT. Did Northern ensure this court was aware of the full circumstances before it acted?)
Do you recall exactly how they did this in law?
S142 - what reasons did they give for this?
After it was reopened, what did the prosecution say and with what reasons, if any? E.g. "we are offering no evidence" or "we are asking the court to declare this a nullity because..."
What did the court decide?
In other words, what will the formal record of this case now state as the outcome?
(Make sure Northern's actions are consistent with what it is telling the Chief Magistrate and DfT. Did Northern ensure this court was aware of the full circumstances before it acted?)
Do you recall exactly how they did this in law?
S142 - what reasons did they give for this?
After it was reopened, what did the prosecution say and with what reasons, if any? E.g. "we are offering no evidence" or "we are asking the court to declare this a nullity because..."
What did the court decide?
In other words, what will the formal record of this case now state as the outcome?
(Make sure Northern's actions are consistent with what it is telling the Chief Magistrate and DfT. Did Northern ensure this court was aware of the full circumstances before it acted?)
Section 142 error in the law is all I remember to be honest. We are offering no evidence. They did not claim it was a nullity but I'm not bothered as the criminal conviction has now gone away as the person above has said if I can get a case number or I'll request the formal documentation (not sure of the offical name) I can post it on here for you and some bloke to get stuck into?
Right. So that suggests the developments involving the Chief Magistrate were disregarded and you can't rule out the case needing to be reopened yet again!
(Declaring the proceedings a nullity goes a step beyond offering no evidence and might help with any future "no smoke without fire" situation you could find yourself in, as it tells people the prosecutor had no authority to prosecute you and the entire system is supposed to behave as if the prosecution never happened. Different from being prosecuted validly but declared innocent. Arguably you, and everyone affected, should be offered legal advice at another party's expense so you can make an informed decision on whether further steps are needed to put everything right in your case. If the proceedings were a nullity, then the next question would be whether the train company can be compelled to remove the fact there were erroneous proceedings against you from its databases, so even if you were to apply for a job working at Northern this information would not show up.)
Right. So that suggests the developments involving the Chief Magistrate were disregarded and you can't rule out the case needing to be reopened yet again!
But the Chief Magistrate might be taking things into new territory! Perhaps "dead" cases might get listed again without reopening them. (I can't be the only one who suspects satisfactory resolution will require the involvement of a higher court.)
But the Chief Magistrate might be taking things into new territory! Perhaps "dead" cases might get listed again without reopening them. (I can't be the only one who suspects satisfactory resolution will require the involvement of a higher court.)
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.legislation.gov.uk
