Advice about court summons

[Puffing Devil]

I've looked everywhere. The only two dates are the date of the offence and the date of the court hearing.

Call the court on Monday and ask when the information was laid.

Laying an information is the legal term for notifying the court of the offence so that they can issue a summons. As you'll have gathered from the comments, the court must have been told no later than 6 months of the date of the offence, otherwise the case should not proceed.

Until we have that information there is nothing much else to be done. Some people will want to speculate on possible defences and the communications that should have come before the summons. There is little point in doing that unless there is a case to answer.

 

[js1000]

The above poster is right. It is worth calling the magistrates clerk on Monday to clarify when the information was laid.

The information could have been 'laid' prior to the 27th February and subsequently validated by the magistrate/clerk in the days following.

In deciding whether or not to issue a warrant, the magistrate or clerk should ensure that:
a. an offence known to law is alleged;
b. it is not out of time;
c. the court has jurisdiction;
d. the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute (R. v. Gateshead Justices ex p Tesco Stores Ltd. [1981] QB 470 at 478).

Additionally, can your son confirm that the instance of buying a ticket when he got off the train (that you describe in your original post) did indeed take place on the 27th August?

It is not uncommon for TOCs to put wrong dates of alleged offences when sending out of settlement letters. This incident actually occurred quite a long time ago and the TOC is really cutting it fine time-wise so I would make sure it occurred on this date and not just assume. If the fare was paid via a card payment then check your bank statements. (although beware this may have been processed a day or two later) If they're wrong, even just a few days, then this case could be invalidated.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The above poster is right. It is worth calling the magistrates clerk on Monday to clarify when the information was laid.

The OP needs to call the court, not the clerk. The Justices' Clerks that remain cover large areas and it is an executive function.

The information could have been 'laid' prior to the 27th February and subsequently validated by the magistrate/clerk in the days following.

In deciding whether or not to issue a warrant, the magistrate or clerk should ensure that:
a. an offence known to law is alleged;
b. it is not out of time;
c. the court has jurisdiction;
d. the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute (R. v. Gateshead Justices ex p Tesco Stores Ltd. [1981] QB 470 at 478).

Correct in law, adds nothing to the discussion.

Additionally, can your son confirm that the instance of buying a ticket when he got off the train (that you describe in your original post) did indeed take place on the 27th August?

Pointless question if the offence is out of time.

It is not uncommon for TOCs to put wrong dates of alleged offences when sending out of settlement letters. This incident actually occurred quite a long time ago and the TOC is really cutting it fine time-wise so I would make sure it occurred on this date and not just assume. If the fare was paid via a card payment then check your bank statements. (although beware this may have been processed a day or two later) If they're wrong, even just a few days, then this case could be invalidated.

Again, nothing to do until we know when the information has been laid.

 

[gray1404]

The above poster is right. It is worth calling the magistrates clerk on Monday to clarify when the information was laid.

The information could have been 'laid' prior to the 27th February and subsequently validated by the magistrate/clerk in the days following.

In deciding whether or not to issue a warrant, the magistrate or clerk should ensure that:
a. an offence known to law is alleged;
b. it is not out of time;
c. the court has jurisdiction;
d. the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute (R. v. Gateshead Justices ex p Tesco Stores Ltd. [1981] QB 470 at 478).

Additionally, can your son confirm that the instance of buying a ticket when he got off the train (that you describe in your original post) did indeed take place on the 27th August?

It is not uncommon for TOCs to put wrong dates of alleged offences when sending out of settlement letters. This incident actually occurred quite a long time ago and the TOC is really cutting it fine time-wise so I would make sure it occurred on this date and not just assume. If the fare was paid via a card payment then check your bank statements. (although beware this may have been processed a day or two later) If they're wrong, even just a few days, then this case could be invalidated.

This post is helpful I would say! Let us know how you get in Monday.

 

[Jason q]

Thanks for the advice people. I will let him know and get back to you.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Thanks for the advice people. I will let him know and get back to you.

Please do.

This post is helpful I would say! Let us know how you get in Monday.

How did it add anything to the OPs situation? This section of the forum is to provide advice as needed, not to speculate or over-complicate. It's too easy to post extra detail which may show your knowledge of the system, does little to help those with an issue. For example,

d. the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute (R. v. Gateshead Justices ex p Tesco Stores Ltd. [1981] QB 470 at 478).

Does not help the OP in the slightest.

 

[js1000]

How did it add anything to the OPs situation? This section of the forum is to provide advice as needed, not to speculate or over-complicate. It's too easy to post extra detail which may show your knowledge of the system, does little to help those with an issue.

I thought the advice of double checking when the alleged offence occurred is wholly reasonable given we've come across multiple instances on here of the TOC sending 'offer to settle' letters with the wrong date of when the alleged offence occurred and the fact it was also 6 months ago - not simply a few weeks ago so the OP.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Go and argue with a wall if that's makes you happy. We're here to offer advice - not to bicker.

I thought the advice of double checking when the alleged offence occurred is wholly reasonable given we've come across multiple instances on here of the TOC sending 'offer to settle' letters with the wrong date of when the alleged offence occurred and the fact it was also 6 months ago - not simply a few weeks ago so the OP.

We've established that it is a Summons, not an offer to settle. Your point is moot.

 

[gray1404]

Go and argue with a wall if that's makes you happy. We're here to offer advice - not to bicker.

I thought the advice of double checking when the alleged offence occurred is wholly reasonable given we've come across multiple instances on here of the TOC sending 'offer to settle' letters with the wrong date of when the alleged offence occurred and the fact it was also 6 months ago - not simply a few weeks ago so the OP.

I agree with you here. I can you see are doing your best to help and have added information that may be of value the OP, be that now or down the line.

To the OP: I would strongly recommend that you try and sit down with your son and get an honest and truthful account from him of what happened. This includes admitting any errors or his part. i would also establish the exact date it happened on and an approx time. If you want to report back here with a full account then that would be helpful. I personally would try and get as much detail as possible.

I would recommend this because we don't yet know if the train company is "out of time" or not. If they are not out of time then getting the above information will be helpful.

 

[ainsworth74]

Enough bickering. It helps no-one (least of all the OP) and paints those taking part in a bad light. Which is a shame as everyone has been offering helpful guidance to the OP in-between bouts of bickering.

 

[6Gman]

Hi.
Sorry for the delay but I have been trying to gather info.
It wasn't the same occaaion that he thought.
He had a ticket but the guard believed it to be a forgery. They looked at CCTV footage there and then and saw him buying the ticket, but the guard refused to believe it was him. He didn't have any money on him so couldn't pay, but gave them his name and address. This was during the day. Stupidly he didn't keep the ticket. He was stopped at Dartford.

I'm trying to understand what happened exactly. Are you saying your son bought a ticket, which was then checked (on the train? or at his destination?) by a member of staff, who thought it was a forgery? They checked CCTV - on this I'm unclear how they were able to access CCTV if he bought at Station A, but was checked on train or at Station B? (Or was he using the return portion?)

Finally, if the railway official felt it was a forged ticket wouldn't he have taken it as evidence? You seem to suggest your son retained the ticket, but then didn't keep it. If the railway don't have the ticket how can they make a case that it was forgery?

Sorry if I'm missing something, but it just seems very confusing.

 

[nuts & bolts]

I've looked everywhere. The only two dates are the date of the offence and the date of the court hearing.

Could it be the date of 'Post Mark' that is applicable here?

 

[Haywain]

Could it be the date of 'Post Mark' that is applicable here?

No, not at all useful or applicable. This will not be a problem at Radlett or on the GN stations.

 

[najaB]

No, not at all useful or applicable.

To expand on that a little bit - postmark dates are useful for proving when something was sent (items are considered delivered two working days after the postmark), but in this case the date that matters is when the TOC applied for the summons.

 

[Jason q]

They didn't retain the ticket, but said he would receive a fine in the post for the cost of the journey plus £20 fine. This never came. The statement by the guard is also incorrect. It states that he asked my son if he boarded the train without a ticket and he said 'yes'. This is incorrect because he did have a ticket. He also states that he asked him if he had the means to pay for the ticket there and then, and my son said 'no'. This is also incorrect. He told the guard that he did have the means to pay but he wasn't going to beacause he had a valid ticket. He always buys a weekly pass for work and this is what he had. So the guard is not saying anything about it being a forgery, but just pretending that he had no ticket. Which isn't true. He has basically made up a conversation that didn't happen. It will just come down to his word against the guards I suppose?

 

[nuts & bolts]

To expand on that a little bit - postmark dates are useful for proving when something was sent (items are considered delivered two working days after the postmark), but in this case the date that matters is when the TOC applied for the summons.

Thanks for the info.

 

[nuts & bolts]

They didn't retain the ticket, but said he would receive a fine in the post for the cost of the journey plus £20 fine. This never came. The statement by the guard is also incorrect. It states that he asked my son if he boarded the train without a ticket and he said 'yes'. This is incorrect because he did have a ticket. He also states that he asked him if he had the means to pay for the ticket there and then, and my son said 'no'. This is also incorrect. He told the guard that he did have the means to pay but he wasn't going to beacause he had a valid ticket. He always buys a weekly pass for work and this is what he had. So the guard is not saying anything about it being a forgery, but just pretending that he had no ticket. Which isn't true. He has basically made up a conversation that didn't happen. It will just come down to his word against the guards I suppose?

You state your son had a weekly season on him at the time, any query by the guard would have resulted in the guard asking your son to provide his Photo-card to confirm ticket validity against the bearer.

 

[furlong]

Well the normal procedure would be for the inspector to write notes of the questions and answers contemporaneously and for the person being interviewed (your son) to be invited to review the notes and sign underneath. This provides an opportunity to correct any inaccuracies and prevents changes from being made later and helps to address the "one person's word against another" problem. Did this happen?

 

[Jason q]

Furlong. No this did not happen. The guard's comments were in the summons letter.

 

[Jason q]

nuts and bolts. Yes he had a valid ticket but the guard said it was a forgery. He simply wouldn't believe it was genuine.

 

[221129]

nuts and bolts. Yes he had a valid ticket but the guard said it was a forgery. He simply wouldn't believe it was genuine.

Something doesn't add up here. You said that your son had to buy a ticket after getting the train, but had a weekly pass? When was your son stopped? On the train or at the station?

 

[gray1404]

Did you phone the court? What did they say regarding the date?

 

[nuts & bolts]

nuts and bolts. Yes he had a valid ticket but the guard said it was a forgery. He simply wouldn't believe it was genuine.

Ok, but was your son requested to show his Photocard at the time?

If your son did show a genuine issued 'Photo-card' along with his weekly corresponding 'season ticket' to the inspector then there is something amiss here!

Surely the alleged forged ticket should have been confiscated/withdrawn and TIR completed in addition to what proceedings are supposedly taking place?

 

[Puffing Devil]

On the surface, it looks like a dispute between the versions presented by the OP's son and the TOC. There are a lot of questions here and it's rapidly moving from simple advice on a forum to getting advice from a local solicitor who works in the Magistrate's Court. Providing the matter has not timed out, I would find a firm that allows a fee-free initial consultation. You'll then be in a better position to understand:

• If the solicitor thinks that you have a case
• The costs involved in running to trial vs pleading guilty
  • Loss of Early Guilty Plea discount on Fines
  • Increased Prosecution Costs
  • Legal Fees

 

[ukkid]

Are there two incidents?

One where the son bought a ticket after he got off the train because the machine didnt work, but he disposed of the ticket.

Another where he was accused of using a forged weekly?

Is the OP willing to tell us the date TOC applied for a summons for any alleged offence?

 

[Jason q]

Only one incident as I explained. The time when the guard stopped him. Still trying to get info from the court about the date. Will reply as soon as I know. Thanks.

 

[Jason q]

So the court would not tell him anything over the phone. They are sending a letter.

 

[Enthusiast]

If he cannot find out when the information was laid beforehand it is important that he attends on the due date (which I imagine will be a Friday). If he does not the matter will be heard in his absence, he is almost certain to be convicted and it will cost him £380 - a £220 fine, £130 in prosecution costs and £30 in the form of a "Victim Surcharge". He will also be ordered to pay the fare allegedly avoided.

He will be able to query the date the information was laid with the court's Legal Advisor when the proceedings begin. If it is "in time" he will have to decide whether to plead guilty or defend the matter at trial. If he pleads guilty he will receive a one third discount on the fine and it will be assessed on his means (half a week's net income, with a minimum of £120pw being used if his income is below that). If he pleads Not Guilty his trial will not be heard that day and the matter will be adjourned t a later date.

 

[Jason q]

Thanks people you have been very helpful. My step-son has a bank statement showing his purchase of the ticket on that day, so he is going to present this in court. It all seems a bit weird I know but the guard definitely seems to have thought it was a forgery, or at least pretended he did. Court is next Friday. Would you like an update then?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Thanks for the update. The court process may not be as simple or easy as you expect.

The hearing next week will be for a plea only. If your son pleads guilty, he will be sentenced on the day and that would be the end of the matter. However, there will not be enough time to run a trial and the TOC will need time to fully prepare a case and call witnesses. If you plead not guilty, the trial date will be set some time in the future - most likely months, not weeks. Your son will need to return for the trial.

Going for a trial in the Magistrates' court is not something you should do lightly. The prosecution costs, if the case goes against you, will be in the hundreds of pounds, possibly into a thousand. Your son would also lose credit for his early guilty plea, which would be 1/3 from any fine; small beer in comparison to the potential costs.

It could be that you approach the prosecutor before the case is called on and persuade them not to continue - though this is very last minutes and you have no plan B if they continue to run.

If you think you have a case, I urge you to consult a solicitor for a free initial consultation. I'm not suggesting that your son is guilty - most people need professional help for a trial, especially where they may be contested evidence.