Hi, my daughter bought a child ticket in June when she was 17 and got stopped at the station. She has now turned 18 and has received a single justice procedure notice from Chiltern Railways. Can they do this if she was 17 at the time of the incident?
-
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!
Single Justice Procedure Notice from Chiltern Railways For 17 year old
- Thread starter pjj
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Mzzzs
Member
Can you upload all the correspondence blocking put any personal info
From what we have seen recently chiltern usually settle out of court.
From what we have seen recently chiltern usually settle out of court.
If they are charging her under Bylaw 18 then no - these are strict liability offences, which she is guilty of - a bit like speeding. "Sorry it was a genuine mistake" isn't a defence to that charge. Yes, it will result in a "criminal record", but the record, if it is for a Bylaw offence, will not be recorded on the Police National Computer; instead it is held on the magistrates' court records.
What you can do is offer to pay the proper fare and Chiltern's administrative costs in order for them to withdraw the SJPN.
Do you have a copy of all the correspondence, including what you sent back to Chiltern? Please redact names and addresses etc. We can then see what course of action is best and suggest what to say.
Thanks- I have attached files below. Please note 2 things- my daughter turned 18 in August and this incident happened in June when she was 17. But the officer wrote that she was 18 at the time. Secondly, charge 2 says that she was abusive to the officer. But the statement doesn’t show any abuse or aggression. Is there anything I can do or say to help her?
There are three issues your daughter is prosecuted for:
1. The ticketing issue
2. Abusive behaviour towards staff
3. Smoking on railway premises
Chiltern normally offer an out of court settlement when it comes to dealing with ticketing issues, as long as you co-operate with them. The abusive behaviour and smoking are issues thet are less likely to deal with out of court.
As others have said we really need to see all of the paperwork relating to the case. Can you upload this, even if you think it's not relevant. I have seen cases where Chiltern send a SJPN and out of court settlement in the same envelope.
1. The ticketing issue
2. Abusive behaviour towards staff
3. Smoking on railway premises
Chiltern normally offer an out of court settlement when it comes to dealing with ticketing issues, as long as you co-operate with them. The abusive behaviour and smoking are issues thet are less likely to deal with out of court.
As others have said we really need to see all of the paperwork relating to the case. Can you upload this, even if you think it's not relevant. I have seen cases where Chiltern send a SJPN and out of court settlement in the same envelope.
BazingaTribe
Member
Just a heads up -- there are some unobscured names in your paperwork, including what may be your daughter's surname. Best to cover those up for privacy purposes.
WesternLancer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 15,328
As suggested above it seems possible that other aspects of your daughter's behaviour during this incident might have influenced them to 'throw the book at her' - ie go for prosecution using the SJPN rather than give a chance to offer a settlement (think about if you were abused at work by someone, what would you want your employer to do about it if they could do something)
But if she did not receive any other correspondence it may simply be that was not sent or it was lost.
However, I don't want to suggest your daughter has not been truthful with you but we do see cases on here where young people don't realise the seriousness of what other earlier letters could escalate to and ignore them, hoping the problem will all go away....it might be worth a chat about that to see if there really were any other letters as your daughter might not have realised what they were threatening. Having said all that things have now moved on as the process of court prosecution has commenced with this SJPN.
Anyway I suspect the options now are as follows, but it is important that the deadline to return court papers must not be missed
I think those options are probably:
a) using the e-mail address for Chiltern given on the paperwork, your daughter needs to write to them apologising profusely for what happened, and pleading for them to consider settling the matter out of court and withdrawing the SJPN court notice (ie seek an out of court settlement). This would have to happen before the deadline for the return of court paperwork. I can't see anything to be lost by doing that ASAP so long as you don't miss the court paperwork deadline. They might agree to it, and I can't see that anything would be lost if they did not agree.
or
b) engage with the court paperwork soon by either
1) pleading guilty. Pleading guilty will result in a reduced court fine as I understand it. Your daughter will also receive a criminal record which will need to be declared when asked about it (eg jobs, car insurance applications etc etc)
or
2) pleading not guilty - which will result in a court hearing that she will have to attend. But since she / you presumably do not dispute that she bought a child ticket when she was 17 she would be found guilty for that anyway. There would be no reduced court fine and there would still be a criminal record.
the court fine would be related to your daughter's income so long as she completed the relevant paperwork stating her income etc
You could help her handle all of the above yourself, or you could consider engaging a solicitor to help. There are 2 or 3 firms that get mentioned on here as specialising in railway offences and anecdotal evidence suggests they have a good track record at getting out of court settlements - but this can't be guaranteed. people who feedback generally report paying from about £500 - £750 solicitors fees for this sort of work, on top of any settlement fee they negotiate. If you want to get quotes I'm sure we can give links to those firms. Paying a solicitor is basically engaging someone who is likely to have more experience than you of trying to get an out of court settlement, and might have a higher chance then you of achieving that - but it comes at a cost of their fees. You might want to set that off against the indirect costs your daughter might face for having a criminal record for what happened - eg impact on job applications, possible increased costs of insurance etc.
If they can be persuaded to offer a settlement they would be likely to want an 'admin' fee for investigating the case (eg£150 - £250) plus the full adult fare for any tickets they think your daughter has bought at child rate after she reached 16 years of age - they will check on line ticket buying accounts to investigate that - they probably have done so already. But this is likely to be less money than the court fines and costs could be
As an aside - as your daughter is now 18 she should think about buying a Railcard to help legitimately reduce the costs of rail fares in future.
Hope this helps you know what to expect now.
Hopefully others here can correct me on anything I have got wrong or missed out.
That’s a very good summary from @WesternLancer.
The only caveat I would make that where solicitors have been successful in the cases we are aware of, they have been purely in respect of not paying the correct fare. I don’t think we have any experience of where the passenger has, to put it bluntly, failed the attitude test both in terms of interaction with staff and breaching other byelaws. As noted earlier, that may cause the train company to take a harder line, regardless of whether a solicitor is involved.
The only caveat I would make that where solicitors have been successful in the cases we are aware of, they have been purely in respect of not paying the correct fare. I don’t think we have any experience of where the passenger has, to put it bluntly, failed the attitude test both in terms of interaction with staff and breaching other byelaws. As noted earlier, that may cause the train company to take a harder line, regardless of whether a solicitor is involved.
Unfortunately these are the same as posted in post 9 and add no additional information. It's difficult to advise without seeing all of the paperwork.
If there are multiple charges, as is apparently the case, a third option or set of options is pleading guilty to some and not the others.
Where is the correspondence that would provoke this reply from @Hadders?
It would be good if other members could see this paperwork.
Do you mean this?
Attachments
BazingaTribe
Member
Yes we do.
The previous uploads identified the daughter by name but OP has now obscured that name as well.
So there are some discrepancies with this statement:
1) Was she over 18, yes or no? The statement I can just about make out says they got the person's details and DOB from their driving licence, and the person was over 18 when stopped.
2) Does the censored part make any reference to either smoking or using foul language?
3) Did your daughter smoke at this time? Does she dispute that she did this?
4) Did your daughter use any foul or obscene language? Does she dispute this?
As your daughter is 18 she must deal with this matter herself, as she is an adult. It is possible that Chiltern have not even processed your reply to them, but we cannot be certain.
She needs to avoid going to court, here.
Did you reply to Chiltern by email? Can we see a copy of your response so we can take it into account when advising what she should say to Chiltern to try to avoid this court date?
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,811
To add to @AlterEgo 's points, it's best if you upload both your original response and the email you sent yesterday, anonymised and with dates visible.
No, she was 17 at the time of the incident.
She did not use any foul language.
Yes- She was vaping.
I have added the email we sent yesterday.
Attachments
WesternLancer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 15,328
Hopefully they will respond more quickly - there can be no harm in sending them a polite query ahead of the court deadline to check if they have had a chance to consider your request as in the previous e-mail if you don't hear. I note the e-mail you uploaded doesn't mention that you had already written to them about this but not had a reply, so it's not as if you had ignored previous efforts to contact you.
If you need to send a follow up you might want to get the wording checked here before you send it off.
When is the deadline to return the court papers?
WesternLancer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 15,328
Would it not have been easier for you to draft the e-mail but it be sent from your daughter or her e-mail account - thus avoiding the formal consent issue - having said that once she had given consent they should have respected your daughter's instruction.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
There is a section in the witness statement that has been obscured and, without knowing the content of that obscured section, it is difficult to advise further.
The fare evasion charge is a slam-dunk and it should be the OP's aim to keep it out of court if at all possible. Mitigation and contrition should be the aim of the correspondence- explaining contrition and also offering any mitigation. The correspondence refers to mental health issues but I'm completely unaware of the acronym used- I would suggest that any acronyms and treatment are explained.
However if there are factual inaccuracies in the witness statement I would suggest these also do need to be addressed in the correspondence. If the OP's daughter was not 18 at the time then clearly the witness is erroneous in their belief (probably because they're using a boilerplate...) and this should be highlighted. "I accept that I was travelling with a child ticket despite being over the age of 16, however at the time of the offence I was aged under 18 and would ask Chiltern to consider this when deciding if they are amenable to agreeing an out of court settlement".
If the OP's daughter disputes the language she used or the smoking then this should also be highlighted. And, it goes without saying, the OP's daughter should strongly consider pleading not guilty if she is adamant she did not do what she was accused of. This would result in the case being heard in court.
It's worth noting that vaping isn't illegal under the byelaws because of the way smoking is defined within those byelaws.
The fare evasion charge is a slam-dunk and it should be the OP's aim to keep it out of court if at all possible. Mitigation and contrition should be the aim of the correspondence- explaining contrition and also offering any mitigation. The correspondence refers to mental health issues but I'm completely unaware of the acronym used- I would suggest that any acronyms and treatment are explained.
However if there are factual inaccuracies in the witness statement I would suggest these also do need to be addressed in the correspondence. If the OP's daughter was not 18 at the time then clearly the witness is erroneous in their belief (probably because they're using a boilerplate...) and this should be highlighted. "I accept that I was travelling with a child ticket despite being over the age of 16, however at the time of the offence I was aged under 18 and would ask Chiltern to consider this when deciding if they are amenable to agreeing an out of court settlement".
If the OP's daughter disputes the language she used or the smoking then this should also be highlighted. And, it goes without saying, the OP's daughter should strongly consider pleading not guilty if she is adamant she did not do what she was accused of. This would result in the case being heard in court.
It's worth noting that vaping isn't illegal under the byelaws because of the way smoking is defined within those byelaws.
Indeed.
The fact that (from the prosecutor's point of view) the defendant hasn't bothered to take responsibility, own up, and address her offending herself and has offloaded it onto a parent will be a factor in why it's proceeded to court and not gone for out of court settlement.
This is what the extract says:
I am employed by Chiltern Railways Ltd, as a Fraud Investigation Officer. My duties include the detection and prevention of travel irregularities and fraud upon the railway network. I am trained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and I am authorised to conduct interviews under caution.
On Saturday 15th June 2024, at approximately 19:25 hours, I was on duty and in plain clothes, at Birmingham Moor Street station.
produced a child rate ticket from Birmingham BR to Solihull.
When questioned they admitted they were 18 years old, in view of their age, they were not entitled to a child rate ticket.
A copy of the screenshot of the information obtained from the barcode is attached and marked as exhibit LB/NJ/01.
As I believed that an offence had been committed and had I not questioned them at the time, they would have avoided the correct rail fare
vas not cautioned, but I elected to ask further questions.
I said: "Where did you commence your journey by rail today?"
Reply: "Birmingham Moor Street"
I said: "Where are you travelling to by rail today?"
Reply: "Solihull"
I said: "Why did you buy a child ticket?"
Reply: "Because it's cheaper"
I said: "I put it to you from what we have discussed is it your intention to avoid paying the correct
fare for your rail journey today do you agree?"
Reply: "No"
I said: "Why are you vaping?"
Reply: "'m not anymore"
The interview was terminated at 19:30 hours.
Miss X was then asked to read and sign my contemporaneous notes, which they did.
I informed them that the matter would be reported.
The value of loss to Chiltern Railways is £4.60.
I am employed by Chiltern Railways Ltd, as a Fraud Investigation Officer. My duties include the detection and prevention of travel irregularities and fraud upon the railway network. I am trained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and I am authorised to conduct interviews under caution.
On Saturday 15th June 2024, at approximately 19:25 hours, I was on duty and in plain clothes, at Birmingham Moor Street station.
produced a child rate ticket from Birmingham BR to Solihull.
When questioned they admitted they were 18 years old, in view of their age, they were not entitled to a child rate ticket.
A copy of the screenshot of the information obtained from the barcode is attached and marked as exhibit LB/NJ/01.
As I believed that an offence had been committed and had I not questioned them at the time, they would have avoided the correct rail fare
vas not cautioned, but I elected to ask further questions.
I said: "Where did you commence your journey by rail today?"
Reply: "Birmingham Moor Street"
I said: "Where are you travelling to by rail today?"
Reply: "Solihull"
I said: "Why did you buy a child ticket?"
Reply: "Because it's cheaper"
I said: "I put it to you from what we have discussed is it your intention to avoid paying the correct
fare for your rail journey today do you agree?"
Reply: "No"
I said: "Why are you vaping?"
Reply: "'m not anymore"
The interview was terminated at 19:30 hours.
Miss X was then asked to read and sign my contemporaneous notes, which they did.
I informed them that the matter would be reported.
The value of loss to Chiltern Railways is £4.60.
SimplyLovely
Member
Not sure why she said no if that is exactly what she intended to do. Lying when asked has likely made this worse as she wasn't cooperating.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Do we honestly think the prosecutor has even read the correspondence? I don't.
These processes are as boilerplate as they come. You even see the same grammatical mistakes in these letters time and time again. The idea that a prosecutor is carefully weighing up the evidence and making an assessment of both the evidential test and the public interest test is fanciful.
There's an entire section which you have censored and also haven't included in your extract.
The purpose of asking what this says is to see what the witness has said about a) the language used and b) the alleged smoking.
It's up to you whether you reveal what this says or not- and you should still redact any identifying information. But if the witness statement does not refer to either abusive language or smoking then that is interesting information.
Her response has made precisely zero difference to how the matter has progressed. Of course nobody (or nobody with any sense, anyway) is going to say "sure I was intending to avoid the fare".
- Status