Search results

If, as the OP claims, he has demonstrated to the railway operator that his fare was paid, it appears that the only ground for criminal proceedings being brought against him is his refusal to present his card to the official's card reader. In the absence of exacerbating factors that appears to...

Thanks for that. I can just about see a court striving for such an interpretation in the case of the prosecution being ambushed by production of the relevant ticket at trial, but even then I would be thinking in terms of a costs penalty being applied, e.g. a wasted costs order against a...

The Appeal Panel has properly discharged its sole function of determining whether the appeal against the penalty fare should be allowed or dismissed. It did so by saying that the penalty fare notice was not completed in a way that complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of the penalty...

Taking this to be an accurate account of the interaction, I cannot see why the Thameslink official would not have recognised that the OP had reservations about his authenticity, or, if he did realise that this was the OP's concern, he then failed to produce evidence that he was lawfully engaged...

I agree. Problem is, "No, sorry, you're mistaken because of X" immediately establishes that the passenger's view is at odds with that of the staff member, and the opportunity for confrontation has been created. My strategy of making it clear that I'm not going to engage in an...

If that's representative of the staff attitude I'm likely to encounter then you make my case for me admirably.

Fair enough, I'd not heard of Lumo before. But I'm still struggling to understand the case in which NRCoT 10.1.3 can apply. If an authorised ticket seller offers to sell me a ticket valid only on a specific train, am I not justified in assuming such ticket is not subject to time restrictions...

I find it repellent that the outcome of an interaction with a railway official may depend whether I fail his attitude test, because it casts me as the subservient participant in a power relationship in which the other participant may derive some perverse satisfaction from the authority he is...

I see that I referred to 'London Road' in my previous post when I should have referred to 'Oxford Road'; been looking at too many old timetables! Looking at the page linked by @Mcr Warrior I see that Northern list the products that are not valid during the evening peak. The System One Travel...

I'm puzzled by the first post in this thread. The OP states positively that a £20 penalty fare notice has been issued, but I cannot understand any basis on which this can have been done. A condition precedent to issue of a penalty fare is that the recipient is “travelling by, present on, or...

I'm delighted to hear that the Sarah Hodgson's personal exposure to the risk of conviction has been ended, however unjustifiable any such conviction would have been. I suspect that the prospects of success in any action for malicious prosecution will be low, as one of the matters that would...

To the OP: did you plead guilty in response to the SJPN, notwithstanding that the preceding passenger's card payment of the fare failed but yours appeared to succeed? If a SJP 'Guilty' plea can be processed and a fine handed down within 3 days of its receipt by the accused then plainly the...

Can you please clarify these statements? Were you asked for your name and address by the person who asked you to produce your ticket? If so, was the address you gave your correct address at the time you gave it? Potentially this could be significant because the wording of the charge suggests...

Derek Cross' 'Double Headed Trains -1 South' affords photographic evidence that 34025 Whimple and 34036 Westward Ho did traverse the line in rebuilt form (1960 and 1959 respectively). I tracked down my previous recollection of a photograph showing 34044 Woolacombe in rebuilt form near Wincanton...

I can confirm that 34044 Woolacombe worked over the Dorset in rebuilt form at least once; see https://www.flickr.com/photos/34872266@N02/5244452929. This shot shows the locomotive at Radstock, but I recall having also seen a photograph showing the locomotive as rebuilt working a northbound local...

The OP is being prosecuted for a byelaw offence. This falls within the scope of a railway operator's authority to invoke the Single Justice Procedure, and the reality of the situation is that a criminal proceeding against the OP is in progress, regardless of whether it is an abuse of process...

I hope GWR's response does indeed represent an advance towards a satisfactory outcome, but I'm completely perplexed by the terms in which that response is written! “This case was originally in court and was resulted (!)... The provider … was not notified...” How easily the passive voice can be...

@Puffing Devil's post shows just how easy it could be for a company to take advantage of magistrates' unfamiliarity with railway law by reliance, as in this case, on a misleading Statement of Facts that refers only to the failure to produce a ticket and omits any mention of the other responses...

Unfortunately this may be all too true, and the possibility of an order 'Prosecution to pay Defendant's costs, such costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis' may hold no terrors for Merseyrail either, such are the limitations on an acquitted defendant's right to recover costs. A great deal...

For me, a mangled reference – this should work correctly: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/1709.html. The Sunderland case referred to in that judgment is helpful in fleshing out the extent of a magistrate's duty to scrutinise an information and to establish whether it is...