Amended Title - SJP After Penalty Notice Cancelled

[KirkstallOne]

However I am unsure what you mean here: and the last sentence of paragraph 69 of the judgement (with the references of course so they can read them in context should they not already be aware)?

This refers to this ruling from August 2024 (can be referred to as 'Northern Trains Limited v Ballington'):

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment-1.pdf

Paragraphs 68 and 69 cover exactly the situation you are in (bold is mine). Note this is not the Chief Magistrate ruling on this position, it just says that Northern and Greater Anglia had both agreed with this position. That is why it is so surprising to see Northern trying to prosecute a case such as yours less than a year later.

68. In addition to the issue ruled on above both prosecutors invited me to rule on the lawfulness of prosecuting railway offences following an unsuccessful appeal of a penalty fare, it is not thought that is the position with any of the above case

69. Both prosecutors provided written and oral submissions on the law, broadly agreeing the position in law is as follows;

Regulation 11(3) contains a clear prohibition on the instigation of proceedings for Byelaw offences, or offences contrary to section 5(3)(a) or (b) of the RRA after an appeal against a penalty fare has been determined. The Railway Operator has the opportunity either within 21 days of receipt of the appeal or prior to determination of the appeal (whichever is the shorter) to cancel the penalty fare and bring a prosecution. It is therefore not deprived of any avenue otherwise open to it. It is simply given a time limit in which to make a decision about which route to pursue. Having made a decision, deliberately, or by acquiescence, the possibility of prosecution is brought to an end. There is nothing within the regulation to suggest that the right to prosecute is resurrected after the penalty fare appeal process has concluded. There are good reasons to prefer such an interpretation: first, appropriate use of the State’s resources: an appeal process, with several levels, should not take place only then to become redundant if a Rail Operator chooses to bring a prosecution, second, it is undesirable to have an independent appeal process and criminal court effectively determining the same substantive issues where they could reach different determinations, third, finality, fourth, an individual appealing a penalty fare is required to set out their grounds for doing so, and may make any representations they wish to: the effect is they may both set out an evidential account, and self-incriminate – there would be unfairness if criminal proceedings could follow that process. It follows that any prosecution of a Byelaw offence, or section 5(3)(a) or (b) RRA offence, following an unsuccessful appeal of a penalty fare was invalid.

 

[John Palmer]

There is a problem with the words “The only restrictions on this bar are detailed in regulation 11.3(a) and 11.3(b) which I reproduce in full” in @KirkstallOne's draft.

The general rule is that a railway operator can cancel a penalty fare at any time and instead prosecute the passenger concerned. That general rule changes if the passenger makes a first appeal against the penalty fare in accordance with Regulation 16 of the penalty fare regulations. As soon as that appeal is made, the operator has a time-limited opportunity to cancel the appealed penalty fare so that it may prosecute. The time limit is the shorter of the two periods specified in Regulation 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(b). If the operator doesn't cancel the penalty fare before that time limit is reached, it may no longer prosecute the passenger for any of the offences specified in Regulation 11(4).

I fear the words “The only restrictions on this bar are detailed in regulation 11.3(a) and 11.3(b) which I reproduce in full” are liable to mislead. The time periods defined by those two sub-paragraphs do not restrict any bar on prosecution; rather, they define the limited period of time at the end of which prosecution for certain offences will become barred if the penalty fare then remains uncancelled. This illustrates the danger of using a letter to the prosecution to advocate a particular interpretation of the law. In this case it opens the way for the prosecutor to argue the opposite of the point you are seeking to make and say that your own words actually support the view that there is no bar to the present prosecution.

The choice is one of whether to advance detailed arguments now about the bar on prosecution (the @KirkstallOne approach) or just to say that the bar on prosecution is in place after reciting nothing more than the facts on which that statement depends (my approach). That choice is entirely yours, but if you prefer the first approach it is vital that the points made accurately reflect what the law says and cannot be manipulated to support the prosecution.

Whatever you or the prosecutor say, if Northern Trains refuse to terminate the proceedings voluntarily the question of whether the prosecution is barred will be decided by a magistrate. It is quite likely that, once the point about prosecution being barred has been raised, the case will be transferred to a legally qualified District Judge for a decision on that issue. If it is not, and the case remains in the hands of lay magistrates, they will be provided with suitable advice about the law by their legally qualified adviser. Ultimately, regardless of how silver tongued is your own advocacy, whether the bar on prosecution is upheld will be decided with qualified legal input from the court. If you deal with the case as an unrepresented defendant, you should expect lay magistrates' legal adviser to provide them with accurate and appropriate advice about any legal point you have raised.

I support what @island says about how this should be dealt with. You can ask the court to convene a pre-trial hearing for the purpose of hearing your application under Section 8A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for a ruling that the proceedings brought against you are barred by Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, and that the charge against you should consequently be quashed. You could make a request in those terms in your response to the question about why you are pleading not guilty on the sheet headed 'Not Guilty Plea' that you will need to return to the court.

The correct legal citation for the Ballington case is Ballington v Northern Trains Ltd [2024] 8 WLUK 114.

 

[Manda78]

This refers to this ruling from August 2024 (can be referred to as 'Northern Trains Limited v Ballington'):

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment-1.pdf

Paragraphs 68 and 69 cover exactly the situation you are in (bold is mine). Note this is not the Chief Magistrate ruling on this position, it just says that Northern and Greater Anglia had both agreed with this position. That is why it is so surprising to see Northern trying to prosecute a case such as yours less than a year later.

Ah ok, thank you.

So again I am finalizing my papers.

I am including:
The letter drafted by John Palmer
A copy of the original fine
Copies of my three appeals (x3)
Copies of Northerns appeals decisions (x3)
A copy of the SJP
A copy of the letter where they state they are cancelling the Penalty Fare Notice
A page to include paragraph 69 and 11.3



1) I send in my Not Guilty plea - with “I am pleading Not Guilty because proceedings against me for the offences with which I am charged are barred by Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018” as my reasoning.

2) Email the all the above correspondence to drpu email address, and then also send the documents via registered mail. Do I do this right away? As in send this registered letter, along with the not guilt plea to the court at the same time?

 

[KirkstallOne]

There is a problem with the words “The only restrictions on this bar are detailed in regulation 11.3(a) and 11.3(b) which I reproduce in full” in @KirkstallOne's draft.

The general rule is that a railway operator can cancel a penalty fare at any time and instead prosecute the passenger concerned. That general rule changes if the passenger makes a first appeal against the penalty fare in accordance with Regulation 16 of the penalty fare regulations. As soon as that appeal is made, the operator has a time-limited opportunity to cancel the appealed penalty fare so that it may prosecute. The time limit is the shorter of the two periods specified in Regulation 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(b). If the operator doesn't cancel the penalty fare before that time limit is reached, it may no longer prosecute the passenger for any of the offences specified in Regulation 11(4).

I fear the words “The only restrictions on this bar are detailed in regulation 11.3(a) and 11.3(b) which I reproduce in full” are liable to mislead. The time periods defined by those two sub-paragraphs do not restrict any bar on prosecution; rather, they define the limited period of time at the end of which prosecution for certain offences will become barred if the penalty fare then remains uncancelled. This illustrates the danger of using a letter to the prosecution to advocate a particular interpretation of the law. In this case it opens the way for the prosecutor to argue the opposite of the point you are seeking to make and say that your own words actually support the view that there is no bar to the present prosecution.

The choice is one of whether to advance detailed arguments now about the bar on prosecution (the @KirkstallOne approach) or just to say that the bar on prosecution is in place after reciting nothing more than the facts on which that statement depends (my approach). That choice is entirely yours, but if you prefer the first approach it is vital that the points made accurately reflect what the law says and cannot be manipulated to support the prosecution.

Whatever you or the prosecutor say, if Northern Trains refuse to terminate the proceedings voluntarily the question of whether the prosecution is barred will be decided by a magistrate. It is quite likely that, once the point about prosecution being barred has been raised, the case will be transferred to a legally qualified District Judge for a decision on that issue. If it is not, and the case remains in the hands of lay magistrates, they will be provided with suitable advice about the law by their legally qualified adviser. Ultimately, regardless of how silver tongued is your own advocacy, whether the bar on prosecution is upheld will be decided with qualified legal input from the court. If you deal with the case as an unrepresented defendant, you should expect lay magistrates' legal adviser to provide them with accurate and appropriate advice about any legal point you have raised.

I support what @island says about how this should be dealt with. You can ask the court to convene a pre-trial hearing for the purpose of hearing your application under Section 8A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for a ruling that the proceedings brought against you are barred by Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, and that the charge against you should consequently be quashed. You could make a request in those terms in your response to the question about why you are pleading not guilty on the sheet headed 'Not Guilty Plea' that you will need to return to the court.

The correct legal citation for the Ballington case is Ballington v Northern Trains Ltd [2024] 8 WLUK 114.

Absolutely no objections to any of this I would go with John’s excellent advice.

 

[Manda78]

Sorry, I am a little bit lost now. What steps should I be doing now. I know I still have some time but I don't want to cause myself more issue by missing a deadline, if I have to do a step before I submit a not guilty plea via post.

 

[John Palmer]

Sorry, I am a little bit lost now. What steps should I be doing now. I know I still have some time but I don't want to cause myself more issue by missing a deadline, if I have to do a step before I submit a not guilty plea via post.

I suggest you send these papers to Northern Trains DRPU (though some of them it will already have):

The letter drafted by John Palmer
A copy of the original fine
Copies of my three appeals (x3)
Copies of Northerns appeals decisions (x3)
A copy of the SJP
A copy of the letter where they state they are cancelling the Penalty Fare Notice
A page to include paragraph 69 and 11.3

You should indeed send your Not Guilty Plea form to the court endorsed with the reason you have given:

I send in my Not Guilty plea - with “I am pleading Not Guilty because proceedings against me for the offences with which I am charged are barred by Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018” as my reasoning

I suggest you supplement that by putting the following into the same box on that form:

“I hereby apply to the Court under Section 8A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for a pre-trial ruling that the matters set out in the prosecution's Statement of Facts are such as to engage the bar on proceedings against me for the offences with which I have been charged that is contained in Regulation 11(3) of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, and that those charges should accordingly be quashed.”

By doing this you are taking the initiative in making the Section 8A application to the Court. I cannot anticipate in detail how the Court will then deal with the matter, but by submitting such an application to the Court you are putting it under an obligation to deal with it in one way or another.

I would expect arrangements to be made for your application to be dealt with by the Court, with both parties in the proceedings being given the opportunity to be heard, but before any such hearing takes place Section 8A(5) requires the Court to ask you, as an unrepresented defendant, whether you wish to have what is colloquially described as 'legal aid' in order to be professionally represented in the proceedings. If you do wish to seek legal aid for such representation arrangements must then be made for you to apply for it. Legal aid is not likely to be granted on the basis that the minor nature of the offences alleged will mean that your application does not pass the 'interests of justice' test. Notwithstanding this I recommend you to say that you do wish to apply for legal aid, for the following reasons: (1) Even an unsuccessful application for legal is helpful because it safeguards your ability in certain circumstances to obtain a Defendant's Costs Order. (2) The additional work required of the Court might encourage it to look for a way to bring the proceedings to an early conclusion.

You have two weeks remaining within which to respond to the Single Justice Procedure Notice, so you can if you wish delay that response for a few days whilst waiting to see whether Northern Trains will voluntarily withdraw the charges. Obviously it is vital that your do not miss the 21 day deadline for responding to the SJPN, so calculate any such delay accordingly. My own preference would be to use 'signed for' mail delivery so that you can be sure your communications have reached their addressees.

 

[Manda78]

I suggest you send these papers to Northern Trains DRPU (though some of them it will already have):

You should indeed send your Not Guilty Plea form to the court endorsed with the reason you have given:

I suggest you supplement that by putting the following into the same box on that form:

“I hereby apply to the Court under Section 8A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for a pre-trial ruling that the matters set out in the prosecution's Statement of Facts are such as to engage the bar on proceedings against me for the offences with which I have been charged that is contained in Regulation 11(3) of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, and that those charges should accordingly be quashed.”

By doing this you are taking the initiative in making the Section 8A application to the Court. I cannot anticipate in detail how the Court will then deal with the matter, but by submitting such an application to the Court you are putting it under an obligation to deal with it in one way or another.

I would expect arrangements to be made for your application to be dealt with by the Court, with both parties in the proceedings being given the opportunity to be heard, but before any such hearing takes place Section 8A(5) requires the Court to ask you, as an unrepresented defendant, whether you wish to have what is colloquially described as 'legal aid' in order to be professionally represented in the proceedings. If you do wish to seek legal aid for such representation arrangements must then be made for you to apply for it. Legal aid is not likely to be granted on the basis that the minor nature of the offences alleged will mean that your application does not pass the 'interests of justice' test. Notwithstanding this I recommend you to say that you do wish to apply for legal aid, for the following reasons: (1) Even an unsuccessful application for legal is helpful because it safeguards your ability in certain circumstances to obtain a Defendant's Costs Order. (2) The additional work required of the Court might encourage it to look for a way to bring the proceedings to an early conclusion.

You have two weeks remaining within which to respond to the Single Justice Procedure Notice, so you can if you wish delay that response for a few days whilst waiting to see whether Northern Trains will voluntarily withdraw the charges. Obviously it is vital that your do not miss the 21 day deadline for responding to the SJPN, so calculate any such delay accordingly. My own preference would be to use 'signed for' mail delivery so that you can be sure your communications have reached their addressees.

Ok so would it be reasonable to send all the DRPU documents today and then file the court papers either Friday or Monday if I haven't heard anything? I can email drpu this morning as everything is ready aside from my not guilty plea (which goes to the court anyways).

 

[John Palmer]

Whatever way you choose to return the 'Not Guilty' plea, you should ensure that it reaches the Warrington Combined Court offices by Friday 11 April at the latest. Strictly speaking you should have an additional two business days' grace for return of the plea, but treating 11 April as your deadline for getting it into the court's hands will remove any room for argument on the subject.

 

[Manda78]

Whatever way you choose to return the 'Not Guilty' plea, you should ensure that it reaches the Warrington Combined Court offices by Friday 11 April at the latest. Strictly speaking you should have an additional two business days' grace for return of the plea, but treating 11 April as your deadline for getting it into the court's hands will remove any room for argument on the subject.

Absolutely. I will ensure I send it registered by mid next week at the latest -but more than likely I will send it out Monday/Tuesday.

I will fill out my not guilt plea in the next day or so and submit it here for checking before I send it.

I have emailed DRPU this morning with all relevant info we spoke of above. However, I did get an automatic reply saying "Please note there is a potential delay of up to 10 days in responding. Where a response may impact the amount charged to you, this will be taken into account." So I am not holding out hope that I will hear back quickly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2025 ==

I have had a response from DRPU -

Dear xxx

Thank you for your query below in relation to the unpaid Penalty Fare Notice which was appealed.

Please find attached a copy of the cancellation letter sent to you. Northern Trains has discharged its duty under r11(3) The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

Please follow the instructions on the Single Justice Notice you have received.

Regards

Caroline

Prosecutor

 

[KirkstallOne]

Well at least they have not tried to claim they cancelled it with the appeals service before they sent you a letter about it.

 

[Manda78]

Well at least they have not tried to claim they cancelled it with the appeals service before they sent you a letter about it.

Where does this leave me? Do I just go ahead and send in the not guilty plea? I am not sure if I am any better or worse as they came back so quickly

 

[Haywain]

Where does this leave me? Do I just go ahead and send in the not guilty plea? I am not sure if I am any better or worse as they came back so quickly

It may help the experts if you can post a copy of the cancellation letter here, with personal details redacted.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Where does this leave me? Do I just go ahead and send in the not guilty plea? I am not sure if I am any better or worse as they came back so quickly

They are saying ‘see you in court’. I presume the cancellation letter they attached was identical to the one you received?

 

[Manda78]

They are saying ‘see you in court’. I presume the cancellation letter they attached was identical to the one you received?

Yes it is the same letter. So if they are saying they still want to take it to court, I assume that means they feel that they will win. I don't have the money for a solicitor, nor am I confident that I can not get muddled up in the legal speak.

 

[furlong]

What more is there to say?

The relevant Appeal Panel decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16 on October 28th. This is the date referred to in 11(3)(a).

The cancellation letter was dated February 26th.

As this was comfortably after October 28th, the necessary condition set out in 11(3) under which valid proceedings can be brought (i.e. if 26th February 2025 was before October 28th 2024) was not engaged by that letter and so you'll still be inviting the court to quash the proceedings as precluded by 11(3).

I see no reason to delay responding to the court.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I assume that means they feel that they will win

I completely understand how stressful this is but I wouldn’t assume they know what they are doing, if anything the quick response would make me think they are winging it - there are no qualified lawyers in the DRPU as far as I am aware.

There are several stages yet on this before any trial.

John suggested writing to the clerk of the court to try to get this stopped before trial, so I think sending off your Not Guilty plea and preparing this letter would be next.

 

[Manda78]

Ok, how do I format a letter to the court. Would it be similar to what I (well John) wrote to the DRPU or does this require a different approach. I am so sorry for all the questions. I truly am out of my depth here. I can certainly open to doing my research here on the forum for examples, but I am not sure if this needs a more specific approach citing bylaws and regulations or a more simplistic here is my case and all relevant paperwork which I am asking for a review of before a trial.

As always the support and guidance of this forum is outstanding, and saying thank you does seem like enough

 

[furlong]

Refer back to post #66 which says put in the box:

"I am pleading Not Guilty because proceedings against me for the offences with which I am charged are barred by Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

I hereby apply to the Court under Section 8A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for a pre-trial ruling that the matters set out in the prosecution's Statement of Facts are such as to engage the bar on proceedings against me for the offences with which I have been charged that is contained in Regulation 11(3) of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, and that those charges should accordingly be quashed.”

 

[Manda78]

I will fill out the court papers in the morning and then post them here for review (they are in my desk at work at the moment).

Do I address the letter to simply Clerk of the Court? I assume I send them to the same address as I send the not guilty plea:
Warrington Law Courts
Legh Street
Warrington
WA1 1UR

Lastly, do I submit both together (the letter and the plea) or do they need to be separate? Sorry for all the questions, I've learned the hard way in the past that sometimes small things can make a big diference.

 

[KirkstallOne]

John suggested writing to the clerk of the court to try to get this stopped before trial, so I think sending off your Not Guilty plea and preparing this letter would be next.

My mistake it was actually @island in post #55 who suggested this to be included in your SJP response. John’s suggested response covers this so I don’t think you need a separate letter.

 

[furlong]

One step at a time. Once you've sent this you're in a stronger position to reply to Northern (saying what you've done), and you can confirm the court has read it and check with them what happens next.

 

[John Palmer]

@Manda78, at this stage all you need to do is complete the form headed “To be returned to the court” by marking the box headed “Plead not guilty / Send me the date of my trial”, and, on the form headed “Not Guilty Plea”, complete the box headed “I am pleading not guilty because:” with the wording suggested in my post #66 and @furlong's post #78. Then return those forms to Warrington Combined Court at the address provided on the “To be returned to the court” form. It will then be up to the court to let you know how it intends to deal with the Section 8A application you have made.

It beggars belief that prosecutor Caroline can be under the misapprehension that a statement that the penalty fare has been cancelled in a letter sent to its recipient authorises these proceedings. The only relevance of the letter to that effect written on 26 February is that it gives an indication of when the company decided to cancel it. Regulation 11 does not require any such notice of cancellation to be given the recipient of the penalty fare; instead it requires the operator to notify “the relevant Appeal Panel” of cancellation before the deadline it defines in order for the bar on prosecution to be pre-empted. The prosecution's Statement of Case clearly shows that this did not happen, and that the bar consequently took effect.

The only plausible explanations for the prosecutor's response appear to be that she is either unable to understand the Regulations or is too idle to consider their effect. Either way it is indicative of the same failure by Northern Trains properly to control the activities of its DRPU as led to that unit improperly issuing Single Justice notices to many of its passengers when it had no authority to do so, in many cases probably alleging offences they had not committed.

 

[John Palmer]

@Manda78, your thread has been dormant since 2nd April, so I don't know what developments in your case have taken place since then.

What has since become apparent is that on 20th February Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring issued a ruling about the effect of Regulation 11(3) of the penalty fares regulations, i.e. the regulation on which you are relying as prohibiting prosecution for the charge you face. His ruling can be found at https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/...mited-v-nana-monteiro-and-also-v-lejhae-levy/ - hereafter Monteiro.

The Chief Magistrate ruled that non-compliance with Regulation 11(3)'s requirements (i.e. cancellation of the penalty fare within a specified period after it is appealed) does not bar a prosecution. In your case the penalty fare (although appealed on 15th October 2024) seems to have remained uncancelled until 26th February 2025. Significantly, that was just 6 days after the Monteiro ruling, strongly suggesting that Northern Trains was quick off the mark to treat itself as no longer subject to a prosecution bar in the light of the ruling, and consequently free to prosecute you as it did.

The Chief Magistrate's ruling is not binding upon other magistrates, but they may well feel obliged to follow it. That increases the risk of your being convicted of the offence with which you are charged, as you are relying exclusively on the prohibition on prosecution which in the Chief Magistrate's view no longer applies.

Contributors to this forum, including me, have made a number of criticisms of Monteiro, and I have seen nothing in the ruling that causes me to doubt the interpretation of Regulation 11 I have previously put forward in this thread. However, I believe there is a high probability that Northern Trains will rely heavily on the Monteiro ruling in order to oppose your application under Section 8A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for a finding that Regulation 11 prohibits the prosecution brought against you. So, you should be aware that you now face a more difficult task in persuading the court that the prohibition applies, and may choose to vary accordingly your strategy for dealing with the case.

Up until the Monteiro ruling, Northern Trains' view of Regulation 11's effect was set out at paragraph 69 of the Chief Magistrate's ruling in the earlier case of Northern Trains v Mark Ballington (hereafter Ballington), which you can read at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment-1.pdf. Both the prosecutors in that case advanced excellent reasons for upholding a bar on prosecution after a penalty fare had been appealed. Without any explanation, the Chief Magistrate disregarded all those reasons in his Monteiro ruling, but in my view they remain as strong as ever. With the support of any other applicable arguments, they may suffice to persuade the magistrates hearing your Section 8A application to uphold it and end the prosecution Northern has brought against you.

In my 31st March post #66 above, I recommended you to say that you want to apply for a representation order (i.e. legal aid) when you are asked at the Section 8A hearing whether you wish to do so. Although I still fear that such an application may well fail to pass the “interests of justice” test, I now think that it may stand a better chance of success than before on the basis that the case can be said to involve a substantial question of law. In support of that, you can point out that:

(a) Monteiro has only recently been published and that you (probably unlike Northern Trains) were previously unaware of it;
(b) you have been informed that the ruling in Monteiro may be open to legal challenge in several respects and that you wish to put forward that challenge in your Section 8A application;
(c) that Northern Trains has adopted an interpretation of Regulation 11 diametrically opposite to the one it adopted in Ballington even though the reasons for upholding the prosecution bar it then put forward retain their full force, and that those reasons were not addressed in Monteiro and should be taken into account in your case; and
(d) The circumstances of your PF's cancellation and your prosecution suggest that Northern Trains intend to rely on Monteiro, and that in line with the principle that there should be equality of legal arms you should have the benefit of state assistance to provide the professional representation you need to meet Northern Trains' legal arguments on equal terms.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Well summarised @John Palmer, I hope @Manda78 finds time to update us.

The only positive is that i seriously doubt Northern would want to allow a committed and well informed defendant to advance these arguments in court. However they may well use the ruling as a crowbar in their negotiations with the OP.

 

[Manda78]

Sorry for not updating sooner. For some reason I thought I had this set to email me if there was a response.

I have finally received mail on Friday and there is a hearing date set for September. I will upload the actual letter later. I feel so overwhelmed with this. From what I understood, they were outside the parameters set for dates, and were wrong to continue. However, it appears my not guilty plea based on that wasn't recognised. (I have read John Palmers post 83, which does help explain the possible reason why. All weekend I was just so frustrated of how they could "break" their own rules, yet I am being fined for doing what I thought was correct).

I do now understand that I was wrong to board the train, even though my intent was fully shown to pay. I still feel like I should have been given the option to step back off. Even Northern's own employees told me it was ridiculous and to fight it. (my fault for not checking further, the whole fine just sounded absurd to me). I can't believe I am now going to have a criminal record over this.

I am definitely well over head here. I am not even sure exactly what happens on the court date.

 

[MotCO]

In my 31st March post #66 above, I recommended you to say that you want to apply for a representation order (i.e. legal aid) when you are asked at the Section 8A hearing whether you wish to do so. Although I still fear that such an application may well fail to pass the “interests of justice” test, I now think that it may stand a better chance of success than before on the basis that the case can be said to involve a substantial question of law. In support of that, you can point out that:

If the OP goes down this route and is successful in being granted legal aid, will all his legal costs be covered or will the OP still have to bear some of the cost? If the latter, then obviously this will have to be factored in what the OP decides to do next.

 

[John Palmer]

Sorry for not updating sooner. For some reason I thought I had this set to email me if there was a response.

I have finally received mail on Friday and there is a hearing date set for September. I will upload the actual letter later. I feel so overwhelmed with this. From what I understood, they were outside the parameters set for dates, and were wrong to continue. However, it appears my not guilty plea based on that wasn't recognised. (I have read John Palmers post 83, which does help explain the possible reason why. All weekend I was just so frustrated of how they could "break" their own rules, yet I am being fined for doing what I thought was correct).

I do now understand that I was wrong to board the train, even though my intent was fully shown to pay. I still feel like I should have been given the option to step back off. Even Northern's own employees told me it was ridiculous and to fight it. (my fault for not checking further, the whole fine just sounded absurd to me). I can't believe I am now going to have a criminal record over this.

I am definitely well over head here. I am not even sure exactly what happens on the court date.

The Chief Magistrate has created a problem by handing down a ruling in Monteiro that fails to address the cogent reasons for adopting a different interpretation of Regulation 11 of the penalty fares regulations. Arguably it was inappropriate for him to issue such a non-binding ruling by way of guidance, yet the ruling was clearly intended to form such guidance for TOCs and, by extension, for other magistrates – see Para.1.4.

In today's posting on the https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-appealed-penalty-fares-february-2025.287394/ thread @KirkstallOne has revealed that the defendants involved in the Monteiro ruling were neither present nor represented at the hearing. That shows that the legal arguments against the Chief Magistrate's ruling have never received proper consideration, and that it would be wrong for the magistrate dealing with your case simply to follow that ruling without hearing and considering those contrary arguments. A defendant relying on the Regulation 11 bar on prosecution should therefore have the opportunity of seeking a ruling to that effect with the benefit of professional representation. After all, in Monteiro South Eastern Trains were represented by junior counsel, so why should a defendant adopting a position contrary to the CM's ruling suffer the disadvantage of representation that is any less competent? These factors, coupled with the relative complexity of the interpretation issues that the CM himself has introduced, provide good grounds for saying that the public interest test for legal aid eligibility is satisfied in your case.

A premise on which legal aid in criminal cases is based is that, at an early stage in the proceedings, the defendant will engage the solicitor intended to provide legally aided representation. I look forward to seeing a copy of the notice of the September hearing, which may clarify whether it is one to consider a preliminary application for a ruling that the prosecution is barred (assuming that you made such an application when writing to the court). If you want professional representation at that hearing to present the argument that Regulation 11 bars prosecution, I recommend you to approach a suitable practitioner now so that you can discuss the best way to proceed and get assistance in making an application for legal aid if your are potentially eligible on financial grounds.

You should be able to arrange an initial discussion with such a practitioner at no charge or for an acceptable pre-agreed fee. In answer to @MotCO's point, legal aid is not 'all or nothing' and a means test will be applied to establish financial eligibility and the amount of any contribution the represented person is required to pay. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-legal-aid-means-testing may help to give an indication of what contribution may be sought.

 

[Manda78]

Based on the gov.uk site you posted, I will not qualify for legal aid. However, I still don't have the means to say for practitioner myself. I have had to fly back to Canada three times recently for funerals and I am just tapped out with last minute flights. I have no family here, so I don't have someone I can borrow from.

The reason I am stating this, is that as much as I appreciate all the help on here, if my only real option at this point is to hire someone, I don't want people on here wasting time they could be helping others. I will however post the notice as soon as I get home.

 

[John Palmer]

I'm sorry to hear how rough a hand life has been dealing you lately, and quite understand that the last thing you may want on your plate is a legal fight with a train company. Obviously you will want to take the course that best serves your well-being, and if any further advice I can offer helps you achieve this then I am happy to provide it.

Don't discount the possibility that Northern Trains may still be amenable to reaching an out-of-court settlement with you, bearing in mind that, as matters stand, the company must act on the assumption that it will have to prove its case against you and that in doing so it may have to justify its decision to prosecute notwithstanding that such prosecution may have been barred by Regulation 11 as a result of your penalty fare appeal.

 

[Manda78]

I would be absolutely willing to settle with them, however based on the email I sent to them before I sent the not guilty plea, I took it that it was out of their hands and past that (post 69). If the forum thinks its warranted for me to try reaching out to them again, I am willing to do so.

for quick reference, this was the email

I have had a response from DRPU -

Dear xxx

Thank you for your query below in relation to the unpaid Penalty Fare Notice which was appealed.

Please find attached a copy of the cancellation letter sent to you. Northern Trains has discharged its duty under r11(3) The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

Please follow the instructions on the Single Justice Notice you have received.

Regards

Caroline

Prosecutor