Search results

It's abundantly clear from the image of the penalty fare in post #24 that the OP gave her name and address at the time it was issued. Regardless of whether there's any argument about whether she also offered to pay her fare, that is clear documentary evidence that she cannot have been in default...

The statutory declaration provided by the Government website is not, so far as I can see, in a form the OP's step-daughter is obliged to follow. If there is a genuine doubt that she has been mis-identified by the DBS then it is perfectly straightfoward to change the terms of the declaration to...

Many thanks for the update. I assume you chose not to pursue the point about Merseyrail having no authority to charge a RoRA offence by means of the Single Justice Procedure – which is fine, as it was entirely your right to make that tactical choice. A telephone call in which they made a...

Your step-daughter needs to take immediate action to deal with this. This is because any statutory declaration to the effect that she had no notice of being prosecuted needs to reach the relevant court (Gloucester Magistrates Court) within 21 days of the date on which she discovered that she...

Cue comment from Windsor Davies' character in 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' If the 'want of authority' point is good then the case ends at that juncture and other flaws in it become irrelevant. A tentative enquiry about the legitimacy of Merseyrail's recourse to the SJP risks being brushed aside...

This gets murkier and murkier. I understand the suggestion being made that the OP may have deliberately selected a post-10.00 departure time for the pre-10.00 journey he proposed to make in order to obtain the 16-25 railcard discount on a fare that is less then the £12.00 threshold. If that...

But how, then, do you answer the obvious question in response: “If at the moment of boarding you didn't intend to travel on that train, why did you enter it in order to ask the train manager whether you might do so?” I too would certainly hope that boarding to speak to the train manager would...

I would be inclined to raise the matter with the court in rather different terms, along the following lines: "Case Reference XXXX In these proceedings Merseyrail endeavours to prosecute me for an offence under Section 5(1) Regulation of Railways Act 1889. It seeks to do so under the...

The ticket and conditions of issue posted by @Olympian show the conditions applicable to an outward journey commencing after expiry of the 10.00 railcard restriction. Are identical conditions displayed to a purchaser who seeks to apply the railcard discount to a ticket for an outward journey...

I could go into a shop for the purpose of buying a packet of fags and also for the purpose of stealing a carton of milk. Having a lawful purpose for entering the shop doesn't alter the fact that I also have an unlawful purpose. So, if a ticket-less person enters a train for the purpose of...

Sorry, but I can't see where you previously made reference to Section 1(1) Magistrates Court Act 1980. That subsection lays down the 'old-style' procedure where (1) a person lays an information before a justice who (2) then decides whether, on the strength of that information, to issue a...

National Rail Conditions of Travel Condition 9.5 appears to be applicable to the OP's case if the only reason for the ticket's invalidity was that it was subject to a time restriction that precluded application of the railcard discount. In that case the appropriate course would seem to have...

It's a counter-argument the Merseyrail prosecutor may choose to put forward. But it's one you would expect to see supported by some explanation of: why the legislature saw fit to create a separate offence for which intent was not an essential ingredient; how it was to be reconciled...

If Merseyrail is unable to prove that the OP neither offered to pay her fare nor supplied her name and address when requested then I am in no doubt that she should be acquitted of an offence under Section 5(1) RoRA. But I share @island's concern (post#115) that the OP runs a risk of being...

At first glance I thought that the Rozenberg reference might be to his piece about submissions made to the Court of Appeal by Attorney-General Braverman, to be found here. This thread is dealing with a proposition of law on the part of Merseyrail that is equally “striking and unusual” - judicial...

To me, there seems to be a distinct possibility that the conversation will be preceded by a pre-recorded Merseyrail rubric along the lines of "This call may be recorded for training or monitoring purposes", and that Merseyrail actively desire to have a verbatim recording of it. After all, it is...

I assume your 6 May telephone call was from Michelle McLachlan, who has made it clear that in her view Section 5(1) RoRA makes “failure to produce a ticket an offence for which a fine can be imposed, even where the officer has been given the offenders name and address” so that “the prosecution...

At first sight GTR's choice of a prosecution under Byelaw 21(2) appears to make little sense. The specification of the charge incorrectly states that the OP 'did transfer' a ticket, which patently he did not. The charge specification would make somewhat greater sense if the expression 'did...

I agree with this. Either the OP was spoken to by a member of Northern's staff as the email states or he was not. If the former, the advice given here is worthless since it is based on a false premise. If the latter, the OP cannot be expected to respond other than by saying that he was not...

In this context, I would have thought that the more relevant element of Condition 6.1.2 is “or you have received a written notice ... to this effect”, which does not have to be issued by an “authorised member of staff”. More problematic are the words “specifically permitted”, which might well...