Court Summons - Not being able to produce a valid ticket

[parnelli1983]

Hi Jonmorris - I assure you everything written in these threads are true - my dad spoke to my grandad who is an ex-policeman and he has said I should plea guilty with immitigating circumstances i.e. I had no ill intent and had paid for my ticket or settle out of court.

Yorkie - I will see what DaveNewcastle advises. What would you all recommend I say to them in order to settle out of court, if you feel my plea for not guilty will be rejected? Can at any point you attempt to settle out of court or once you have been provided with an adjournment and a date provided can I not attempt to settle before it goes to court?

 

[exile]

Isn't it possible to ask a conductor to give you an written authority to travel?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I hesitate to offer advice in this matter, not only because the opportunity to consider a strategic approach has passed, but because we're still a little unclear about the precise details of the Claimant's evidence.
Usually, the first thing to do is examine the Prosecution's Evidence for any technical error - its usual that a Witness Statement can be tested for technical compliance and if it fails that test then the case can be allowed to proceed knowing that the TOC's Prosecutor will drop it when that fatal error is pointed out.

Sadly, when people write their own letters and plea Not Guilty they often incriminate themselves further! Unintentionally, of course. (eg admitting to be travelling from A to B on the specified train without a valid ticket).
However, there is hope. The Prosecution's Witness Statement possibly has some error or omission which can be used to advantage; the Passenger's record of having booked (and presumably paid for) a valid ticket for the exact journey eliminates any risk of the Criminal Offence (under the RRA); the strict liability Byelaw Offence may be easier for the Prosecution to pursue sucessfully (especially if the Passenger has admitted to it in their letter), but it is also possible to negotiate a settlement.

If we assume that the Passenger has de facto admitted to the Offence in their letter, though at the same time has made a Not guilty plea, then I see three distinct avenues open, and would only advise to choose one of them but not more than one:
1. Either maintain the Not Guilty plea and request further time to obtain Witnesses, making a committed effort to get the TOC to identify the Guard / Inspector who gave oral authority to travel and engage a local lawyer to cross-examine that Witness in Court (you would expect the TOC to relent and drop the Prosecution, rather than take a front line officer off duty for half a day or more);
2. Maintain the Not Guilty plea and have a lawyer with some expertise in Railway Law (few and expensive) to represent you in Court who will present your Evidence (for what its worth) in the best possible light and, if they fail, then present your mitigating circumstances (whatever they are) in the most persuasive light, probably resulting in the lowest fine and costs that the Court can agree to;
3. Attempting to settle with the TOC out of Court. This can be done in writing and/or by telephone. The people to contact will be named on the Summons. Anyone can make their own settlement offer and have it accepted - the amount should be based on the figure which the TOC has already indicated that it is seeking from the Court. It requires some negotiation skill, as its hard to make an offer without admitting to even more certain Guilt, but it can be done. A local High Street solicitor with Criminal Defence experience will be able to do this for you for a £100 or so. Some people on here have done it themselves succesfully, (though not normally after having written their own self-incriminating letter!), it requires a balanced view of both sides' costs and benefits. A Settlement is less likely to be accepted if the Passenger has a record of prior Ticketing irregularities (or a Criminal Record).

Some of these options have considerable legal costs attached to them which may assist in reaching a decision.
I would say on balance, that there are still grounds for some optomism.

There is another option:
4. Write again to the Court and Change your Not Guilty plea to Guilty. It saves time, cost and stress. Your 'mitigating circumstances' are all that you will depend on and you can still call the TOC's Prosecutions' Manager to ask for an out-of-Court settlement while you are waiting for the Hearing Date to come round. As Yorkie mentioned, the byelaw Offence should not appear on the Police National Computer as a Recordable Offence, you'll just be fined.

The TOC cannot 'reject' your plea of Not Guilty - that is your right to plea as you wish, but its rather sterile unless you can either support the Plea with Evidence, or you can discredit the Prosecution's Evidence with counter-evidence or under Cross-Examination of the Witness(es).
The Mitigating circumstances you refer to are applicable to Sentencing (which only follows after a Guilt has been established, whether through your own admission or after the Court has listened to the Evidence and the Magistrates have determined your guilt) and will not be considered in determining Guilt.
You need to decide whether you want to pursue the Not Guilty plea and the means to sustain it, or to admit guilt and then provide as strong an argument for mitigation as possible. Courts are unlikely to by sympathetic to Defendants who are aguing innocence vigourously but who, on failing, then start to argue mitigation, though it something that Criminal Defence lawyers do day-in-day-out (without much conviction in my opinion!).
And neither of those choices are compatible with the strategy of seeking an out-of-court settlement.

Time to make a choice?

 

[parnelli1983]

Hi Dave,

The Fact the conductor before Bristol allowed this, surely that is good reason for this to not go any further? And also, I provided the ticket I bought online - I understand I am in breach of not being able to provide a valid ticket, but haven't all trains got CCTV on them so asking for this evidence will show the conductor allowing me to travel on the train?

If I was to attempt to settle out of court which is cleary the most sensible option here even though I feel I should win the case as an authorised person validated the ticket, but do not wish to go to court as in doing so will cost more money - what stage could I not do this?

 

[All Line Rover]

...also, I provided the ticket I bought online - I understand I am in breach of not being able to provide a valid ticket, but haven't all trains got CCTV on them so asking for this evidence will show the conductor allowing me to travel on the train?

I thought of that, but I am in two minds as to whether CrossCountry would agree to it (it would take a long time!). You are still being treated unfairly, though - I would be fuming if I was in your situation!

You (claim) to have got permission from the Train Manager that you were allowed to travel to Sheffield without a valid ticket in your possession. The onus is on you to prove this. But I don't see how this is possible, unless...

• A. CrossCountry check with the original Train Manager that he/she did give you permission to travel. (I'm not sure why the TM would deny this - they are allowed to show discretion and are rarely - from what I've read on hear - penalised for it).
• B. CrossCountry check the CCTV which shows you having a "discussion" with the Train Manager and then boarding the train / being allowed to remain on the train.

I have absolutely no idea whether you could force CrossCountry to do either (or both) of these things. I doubt it, even though it is extremely unfair.

 

[parnelli1983]

P.s. Dave I've no criminal record and never had train ticket issues as always allow plenty of time to collect my train ticket - travel a minimum on trains once a week.

 

[AlterEgo]

I thought of that, but I am in two minds as to whether CrossCountry would agree to it (it would take a long time!). You are still being treated unfairly, though - I would be fuming if I was in your situation!

You (claim) to have got permission from the Train Manager that you were allowed to travel to Sheffield without a valid ticket in your possession. The onus is on you to prove this. But I don't see how this is possible, unless...

• A. CrossCountry check with the original Train Manager that he/she did give you permission to travel. (I'm not sure why the TM would deny this - they are allowed to show discretion and are rarely - from what I've read on hear - penalised for it).
• B. CrossCountry check the CCTV which shows you having a "discussion" with the Train Manager and then boarding the train / being allowed to remain on the train.

I have absolutely no idea whether you could force CrossCountry to do either (or both) of these things. I doubt it, even though it is extremely unfair.

The CCTV on new stock is usually erased and reused after a week or two.

This includes Voyagers.

 

[All Line Rover]

The CCTV on new stock is usually erased and reused after a week or two.

This includes Voyagers.

What a pity. Unless it was a HST, perhaps? Would that be any different?

 

[Bungle73]

What use would the CCTV footage be anyway? All it would show would be the TM and the OP having a conversation, it wouldn't record what was actually said.

I thought the rule was supposed to be you're ok if given permission to travel by an "authorised person". The OP was and that should be the end of it. The fact that the TOC is taking the OP to court over this is disgraceful. Why should a passenger have to supply "evidence" of permission? What are they supposed to do, get written permission witnessed by a lawyer or something? It seems the way this rule is applied is designed to trip up unwary passengers, like the OP.

 

[parnelli1983]

Ok, so its my word against there's then....Well if I asked for the conductor to attend the hearing if it got that far and asked the question - did you check tickets during Bristol to Birmingham that is enough to put me in the clear as he would have checked mine and the question would be - why did he not take my info then? I just think this whole situation is ridiculous, yes it's my fault for not providing a valid ticket, but common sense should prevail here! Does that mean I can ask for a refund for the ticket I purchased online as it wasn't used?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I will have a conversation with them tomorrow and let all of you know the outcome. I was travelling during working hours, so would it be unreasonable to request legal representation via my work as they have a legal dept?

 

[AlterEgo]

Does that mean I can ask for a refund for the ticket I purchased online as it wasn't used?

Depends on ticket type, but in any case the deadline for any refund would have passed months ago. It's neither here nor there.

Your best option, I think, is to attempt to settle out of court, or to change your plea to guilty.

Unfortunately, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[parnelli1983]

Thanks Alter Ego, can I ask are you legally qualified or is it of you're opinion - don't mean to sound rude, just want to ensure I'm taking the best advice?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I've already explained why I hesitate to give advice on this matter and these recent replies have done nothing to improve confidence. A strategic consideration of the few avenues available and the costs and risks attached to each are the only areas where the information available helps me to comment.
I'm reluctant to argue the details of the Statutes concerned as I'm unable to see that they assist at this stage - the OP appears to have admitted Guilt, albeit unintentionally, in a written Witness Statement. How we deal with that is all we can do to assist without copies of the written Evidence from both sides.

The Fact the conductor before Bristol allowed this, surely that is good reason for this to not go any further? And also, I provided the ticket I bought online - I understand I am in breach of not being able to provide a valid ticket, but haven't all trains got CCTV on them so asking for this evidence will show the conductor allowing me to travel on the train?

I would be surprised if you can persuade the Operator to locate the relevant section of a specific CCTV recording at this stage, to provide it as Evidence, to provide the Witnesses who can confirm that it relates to the exact incident, that the recordings have been sealed and not tampered with, and then for that recording to confirm your 'authority to travel'. In fact it beggars belief that you really expect that all this will happen, not just that you expect that it will persuade the Magistrates that you had been granted authority.

Would the defence of an authorised person giving permission stand up, given that the OP entered a CTA without holding a ticket valid for travel?

The Byelaw Offence in S.17 is :

17. Compulsory Ticket Areas
(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

I think that 3.(iii) suggests that authority to travel nullifies the prohibition in (1), though of course your question refers to the Passenger entering the CTA before receivng the oral authority to continue.
Its not a robust defence and we wouldn't want to find ourselves arguing over this analysis in front of some busy and weary Magistrates!

To the OP, much as I'd have been be willing to assist and support you in May (which was the time to examine the semantics of Legislation and the precedents in Case Law), your position now is, I believe, one in which you should consider the limited choices I outlined above. Some of these are expensive (though probably not as expensive as the CCTV line of Defence you've introduced) and carry costs which you will pay if you fail. Some of the choices I outlined are much less expensive.

if I asked for the conductor to attend the hearing if it got that far and asked the question - did you check tickets during Bristol to Birmingham that is enough to put me in the clear as he would have checked mine and the question would be - why did he not take my info then?

This is tricky to pull off in practice, I referred to this in my earlier post, you would deal with this by Cross-Examination of the Guard/Inspector based on what they have written in their Witness Statement.
No one here can advise you on this strategy without reading the Witness Statements and other Evidence. I wonder if the Witness Statements advised to you even include a Statement from the Guard/Inspector from the first train (who alledgedly gave you authority to travel)? If not, then how, five months down the line, are we going to find that persona and get a reliable Statement from them?
Do you not think that you are clutching at straws, and rather withered ones at that?

If I was to attempt to settle out of court which is cleary the most sensible option here even though I feel I should win the case as an authorised person validated the ticket, but do not wish to go to court as in doing so will cost more money - what stage could I not do this?

I understand that you have already replied stating that your plea is Not Guilty. That means that the case WILL go to Court, for you (or your advocate) to Defend you and, if requested in your letter, to cross-examine the Prosecution Witnesses (and if you didn't request it then tey won't be in Court to be Cross-Examined). If you do not want it to go to Court then you either change your Plea to Guilty (the letter should have explained how you can change your Plea), or to seek an out of Court settlement with the TOC's Prosecutions Manager, or both.

But, if you want "to win the case" then you have to stick with your Not Guilty Plea let it go to Court.
You can't have it both ways! And you do have to decide.

 

[parnelli1983]

Hi Dave,

But the prosecution refers to 18.1/18.2. Anyways, I do not wish to frustrate you any further so wondering a few things before I admitt defeat; They have my statement tomorrow, so can I wait until they make a decision or do I have to A. Change plea to guilty B. Settle out of court or do I request this before a date to attend court is provided? Apologies for my ignorance as its not everyday I've had a court summons....

Thanks in advance

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks Alter Ego, can I ask are you legally qualified or is it of you're opinion - don't mean to sound rude, just want to ensure I'm taking the best advice?

No, I'm not legally qualified, however having surveyed your options (and your story) against the advice that DaveNewcastle has been able to give, I am not at all confident that you will be found Not Guilty.

If I were you I would offer to settle out of court (at this stage it may be expensive) or change your plea to Guilty. I don't believe that your defence, however genuine and/or impassioned it is, will work in Court. The burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence that you were given authority to travel by the Guard, which I am afraid I don't believe you'll be able to substantiate.

However, it's your choice, and I'd read, and re-read the advice from DaveNewcastle, sit down, and then make a decision.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

But the prosecution refers to 18.1/18.2

Noted, thanks. Others on this thread have been referring to a CTA area and to Section 5 Offences, which deserved a response.

can I wait until they make a decision or do I have to A. Change plea to guilty B. Settle out of court or do I request this before a date to attend court is provided?

I understood that your letter claiming Not Guilty was a reply to a Court. If so, then "they make a decision" must refer to the Magistrates and their Clerk reacing a decision after hearing the Evidence in Court.

You can attempt to reach a Settlement before the date of the Court Hearing by contacting the TOC's Prosecution's Manager. You can do this before a date has been set for the Hearing (I recall that you already have a date for this so the question is immaterial).

You can change your plea to Guilty by writing to the Court (with a copy to the TOC).

I am not going to offer further advice on this matter though will be happy to attempt to clarify anything which I can (though without sight of both the Prosecution's Evidence and your own letter, there is probably little more that can be said).

 

[parnelli1983]

Dave,

A date hasn't been set though - it was the 20th Oct - but that was prior to my appeal - sorry I am really confused now.

 

[jon0844]

What use would the CCTV footage be anyway? All it would show would be the TM and the OP having a conversation, it wouldn't record what was actually said.

There would be no sound, but I am sure that you could see if the TM was talking to the OP and not taking further action.

At the very least, it would prove that the OP had spoken to the previous TM and not simply made up the story, as some people will say 'but someone else told me it was okay'. If it hadn't been okay with the first TM, he'd have been sold the full price ticket then wouldn't he?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

but that was prior to my appeal - sorry I am really confused now.

An Appeal?

Your original and first post clearly referred to you having replied to a Court with a plea of Not Guilty and a Witness Statement. That will lead to a hearing (unless you change your Plea to Guilty or the TOC withdraws their Claim). At the Hearing, the Court should reach a Decision of either Guity or Not Guilty. Only after that can a Decision of Guilty be Appealled.

Sometimes the phrase 'Appeal' is used to refer to a letter making a claim long before it is passed for Prosecution, but that doesn't seem to be the use of the term here.
As I have repeadedly said, neither I nor, I fear anyone else on here, can advise further without sight of the documentation. As you appear to be a little unsure yourself, then I feel there is all the more reason to rely on the written documents and not on speculative interpretations of what might be available.

 

[parnelli1983]

Apologies Dave, by appeal - I meant plea. I will leave it at that and call them tomorrow to change plea or attempt to settle.

 

[bluenoxid]

So, sadly for anyone who is travelling long distance with multiple guard changes, your best bet is to ask for evidence you have been given a bye through for your journey. Is there anyway to do this with causing too many issues because there seems to a be some cases coming through that rely on goodwill that cannot be proved later in court.

 

[michael769]

Dave would there be any mileage in the OP putting the prosecution to strict proof?- ie requiring the prosecution to prove that the exception in 18(3) did not apply to the OP as he travelled without a valid ticket and without having the authority of an authorised persion.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Good question!
Not that I expect any success in challenging a Byelaw Offence such as this with an admission by the passenger which amounts to adequate confirmation of the incriminating facts.
If we were starting from the beginning, then I'd be happy to put that consideration to the test. But we're not. He's made his Statement, we don't know what it says and the Hearing is in under a week.

As I've repeated, its significant that we're without sight of the Prosecution's Evidence and without sight of the Defendant's own statement (which I can only guess was returned with his Plea and, crucially, without a list of his Witnesses).

The opportunity to call Witnesses from the TOC has passed (without starting expensive proceedings which may be justifiable in substantial cases where hundeds of thousands of pounds are at stake).
Unless the OP was to disclose the Evidence I cannot comment, and as the opportunities have passed, I doubt we can help.

He knew he'd erred five months ago and asks for help a week before the Hearing without divulging the Evidence and without arranging any Witnesses to support his plea of Not Guilty. Its hard to imagine what help or hope can be offered at this point. Can you?
If you are suggesting that he begins to prepare a Defence at this point with expert Witnesses, and professional representation, what will the cost be if he fails? Over £5k surely?

 

[michael769]

Thanks for the comments Dave!

It did occur to me that such a position would be made difficult by the fact that he has already made a (presumably different) submission to the court, and of course it is impossible to give definitive advice when we do not know what he has actually said to the court. I know very well how easy it is for inexperienced folks to shoot themselves in the foot if they don't have good advice.

The OP should certainly weight the the costs he faces in time effort and money, in an attempt to put together a viable defence at such a late stage, with potentially very limited chances of success. (as he appears to be doing).

 

[island]

Seeing this now I would argue that the TOC is estopped from pursuing the case on the grounds that the first conductor gave the OP permission to travel. But I doubt that the OP can put XC to the proof of that at this point in time.

 

[BestWestern]

I've just got to add that this stinks, the second TM appears to have gone out of his way to cause untold grief to somebody for no obvious sensible reason. Even speaking as a Guard who is often a tad p*ssed off when presented with some anonymous 'booking reference' by people who in some cases just couldn't be bothered to visit the TVM, I think particular situation has been handled very poorly.

Whilst I don't wish to muddy the comprehensive advice provided by those considerably better informed on the issue than me, surely there must be some mileage in the statement and evidence inconsistencies given by the TM here? Two different versions of events, one referring to what actually took place and one mentioning an 'old ticket' which never existed, must surely paint XC and their Guard in a poor light to begin with? Will a Court not question this if the 'defendant' raises it? As for the previous TM granting permission, if he passed through the train, which he did and is unlikely to deny doing, he must have spoken to the passenger concerned and would have either granted the permission or taken some form of action. It must have been one or the other, XC should be able to ask him about this.

I would be fuming here. Regardless of the 'rights or wrongs', permission was given and that should stand. The second TM should have used some common sense and at the worst issued a UFN. His actions have served only to undermine his colleague and damage the reputation of his employer and the wider railway in general. How sad that such aggressive revenue enforcement seems to be so rarely aimed at those who need it and instead used to batter those who ultimately have no intent to do wrong, noting the OP's assumption that XC 'is Network Rail', it would seem this passenger is not a railway buff who knows the rules off by heart, instead just another member of the travelling public who has put a foot slightly wrong :roll:

I wonder how XC would respond to the Daily Mail's hysterical reporting of such p*ss poor treatment, perhaps a letter to their customer services bods may have helped at an earlier stage.

 

[cuccir]

Re, BestWestern; I'm not sure this sort of comment is of most use at this point. The reasons for not accepting booking confirmations have been gone into before and though I think the train companies could do more, I also think their stance is reasonable. Ultimately, the second guard was correct - for all he/she knew, the OP was lying; furthermore, the OP admits that he shouldn't have got on the train and was, in effect, 'chancing it' because of a delay to his taxi. Very unfortunate and I sympathise greatly, but that's the situation nonetheless.

In my understanding, guard's have a right to use their discretion to let ticketless passengers travel. They probably should, however, be given a mechanism, or encouraged to use a mechanism, to charge zero fare excesses or some sort of token-payment ticket/on-board PERTIS, to avoid situations such as this.

If anything, what strikes me as far more 'stinky' than the action of the guard/XC is the horribly smug and unhelping world of the legal system: from the OP's posts, and indeed from all of the legal cases we see some of on this site, it sounds like Kafka's The Trial might have been a piece of well-written ethnography rather than a work of fiction!*

*With the exception of a (small?) number of experts such as Dave who are willing to spend their own time assisting others through this world!

 

[parnelli1983]

One more thing - I've seeked legal advice and been told if found guilty under the bylaw
as its criminal I would get a criminal record - is this correct?

 

[jon0844]

Over the years (admittedly more of it a long time ago), I've seen the revenue guys that seem to love going after the easy targets. Lighting their eyes up at the prospect of issuing PF even when the passenger insists the TVM at an unstaffed station was faulty - and not even making any attempt to check (or saying 'I'd know as they'd have told me' when TVMs can't self-report all faults, like the known problem with the touchscreens on some TVMs). Then, when other passengers step in (who boarded at the same station) to say the same thing, they back down.. but what if that person had been on their own?

Then there was the PF issued to someone in first class that was declassified. When I boarded, they were just finishing and went for me. I made them check the timetable and they had to sheepishly cancel the other PF. Why didn't they check before?

Or RPIs that let people board that ask them if they can buy their ticket from him, so as not to miss the train, then, as soon as the doors close, say 'you need a ticket before boarding' and issue a PF! Legal, perhaps, but almost bordering on entrapment. RPIs can sell tickets, and I've bought many ticket extensions for onward journeys, so if you'd asked before getting on the train - why then stitch them up?

These bad people are doing no favours to other staff OR THE TOC. The TOC might think it's okay to get some easy money and - like parking wardens - you can issue invalid penalties knowing that many people won't appeal or kick up a fuss, but they'll lose out in the long run. Perhaps if franchises were a lot longer, they'd realise they have to look to the future a bit more than looking out for today only.

The OP should contact customer services, or even someone higher up (http://www.ceoemail.com) and explain the situation as there's a chance someone can step in and change it to 'no further action'.

When I was MG11'd, I contacted FCC straight away and they stopped things proceeding. It can be done.

I'd do this BEFORE going to the press, as it gives them a chance to do the right thing and score some positive PR and goodwill. Obviously it was some time ago, and they may not be able to check what staff were on the service easily (and certainly not obtain CCTV) but if you are firm, but polite, they may realise that it isn't worth the effort to let it go to court - especially if they thought you may feel compelled to go to the press afterwards.

You could be doing this at the same time as preparing to go to court and doing everything else you feel you need to do.

 

[michael769]

One more thing - I've seeked legal advice and been told if found guilty under the bylaw
as its criminal I would get a criminal record - is this correct?

Offences under Byelaw 18 are not recordable.

There is a separate recordable offence for fare evasion, which may the source of the confusion for your adviser, but as you have not been summonsed for that offence it's not relevant to your case.