Search results

Possibly, but the update refers to the TVM at the 'home' station, which the OP has previously identified as being Orrell. Another point on which clarification would help.

What is the date of the the relevant appeal panel's decision, and when would it have received the appeal it has rejected? I assume this was either a first or second stage appeal, rather than a final appeal, which is subject to a different rule regarding the time within which an appeal must be...

On 16th May this year The Scotsman reported that the Post Office had been stripped of its status as a Specialist Reporting Agency. The Lord Advocate was reported as saying that “I can confirm that because of its fundamental and sustained failures in connection with Horizon cases in Scotland...

Good to learn that the Court has agreed to a re-set of the case. Please keep us informed of further developments. I sympathise with your predicament, whilst counselling you not to entertain high hopes of securing redress going beyond an acquittal. But let's wait to see how matters now develop.

I certainly agree that refusal to pay an excess correctly charged under Condition 9.5 is capable of evidencing the intent ingredient of Section 5(3) RoRA 1889. However, for two reasons I can't go along with the proposition that it then becomes incumbent upon the passenger to pay the excess...

I quibble only slightly with the implication that there is a 'statutory obligation to pay a penalty fare'. The Penalty Fares Regulations 2018 do not, in terms, set out such an obligation. Instead they declare that an operator may recover any unpaid part of a penalty fare as a civil debt...

The Merseyrail Railway Byelaws 2014 are expressed to have been made under Section 46(1) Railways Act 2005, and as such appear to come within the scope of Regulation 11(4)(b)(iv) Penalty Fares Regulations 2018. They therefore seem to be subject in this respect to prosecution restrictions no...

@JohnJBC, thank you for uploading the Penalty Service decision upholding your appeal. Interesting to note that whereas on this thread much reliance has been placed on NRCoT 9.5.2, which appears under the heading 'Travelling Without a Valid Ticket', the assessor in your case has instead upheld...

A full trial had been anticipated before Sefton Magistrates, but the court had failed to notify the defendant that it would be nothing more than a case management hearing in view of the legal arguments of which she had given advance notice. Merseyrail apparently knew it would not be the trial...

The OP is blameless for the procedural chaos into which her case seems to have fallen. She didn't ask to be prosecuted. She didn't breach the rules by failing to identify the legislation creating whatever charge has been brought against her, The appearance on the court record of a charge...

Attempts to establish what is and is not agreed between the parties are premature, because as yet there is no way of telling what the issues in the case will be. The only charge currently forming the subject of these proceedings is the written charge sent to the OP with the SJPN. The...

I hope I've made clear my assessment of the OP's present position in post #156, but I'll add a couple of further thoughts that occur to me. Since the written charge served on the OP repeats in part the wording of Section 5(1) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 it is reasonable to infer that...

Short version: The only relevant charge is the one that appeared on the document headed 'Charge Sheet' that was served on the OP. That remains subject to the defect of failing to identify the legislation creating the offence charged, as required by Part 7.3(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure...

I reached the same conclusions as @tspaul26 regarding the application of Goldstein and the conjoined appeal of Rimmington, which was also concerned with the common law crime of public nuisance, now abolished by Section 78(6) Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The specification of...

Agreed. “What? that thing of silk, Sporus, that mere white curd of ass’s milk? Satire or sense, alas! can Sporus feel? Who breaks a Butterfly upon a Wheel?”

Two points on which little may turn (until it does!): (1) The Summons states that the case will be heard at a court located on Alexandra Road SW19. Meanwhile the Notice of Proof by Writen statement states that the case will be heard at a court located at 1 London Road, Bromley. I recommend...

The possibility that ancillary orders might follow conviction had occurred to me, but the question that remains is what sentences can be imposed, given that Byelaw 24(1) specifically excepts Byelaw 17 from the provision that "a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale" can be imposed...

It is pointless for the OP to continue corresponding with Merseyrail's prosecution department. I doubt that attempting to engage the attention of Merseyrail's senior management or any higher authority will resolve matters before time runs out for responding to the Single Justice Procedure...

Mersey rail have not confirmed the legislation creating the offence they accuse the OP of committing. It is a matter of pure speculation whether Merseyrail regards an offence as having been committed under its Byelaw 18, or under Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889, or under some other...

Your ticket was valid subject to payment of the due excess, and Merseyrail had no discretion to charge you a penalty fare or otherwise deal with you on the basis that the ticket was invalid. But, due to its error in specifying the charge, it is is not clear whether Merseyrail is alleging an...