The defndant replied to the SJP notice at lenght that the inspector said she did not have a ticket when she did have a ticket.
That could alter any sentence imposed.
She has been found guilty but not sentenced and they want her in court before sentencing so what else can it be?
A newton hearing can take 5-10 minutes,if that.
As you are aware, a Newton hearing is held when a defendant pleads guilty, but there is a significant factual dispute between the prosecution and the defence that would materially affect the sentence. The court then holds a mini-trial to determine the true facts on the balance of probabilities. For a strict liability offence, such as failing to have a valid ticket, the crucial element is that intent is not required for a conviction. The mere act of not having a valid ticket when required is enough to commit the offence. This significantly simplifies the prosecution's case.
Given this, it's highly unlikely a court would hold a Newton hearing for a straightforward, strict liability offence like the case in question. The core of a Newton hearing is a dispute over the facts relating to the defendant's culpability or the circumstances of the offence. In a strict liability offence, the "guilty mind" (mens rea) is irrelevant, so there's no factual dispute about intent to be resolved.
Defences to strict liability offences are minimal. They typically focus on whether the prohibited act (actus reus) actually occurred, or sometimes on specific statutory exceptions, such as when no ticket facilities were available. These are typically matters of direct evidence, rather than a complex factual matrix that requires a Newton hearing.
For a Newton hearing to be necessary, the factual dispute must "materially affect the sentence." For a minor strict liability offence, such as a train ticket offence, the sentencing guidelines are usually quite clear, and factual disputes that could significantly alter the sentence are rare. Mitigation might be presented, for example, as a genuine mistake or personal circumstances, but this is usually addressed in a plea in mitigation rather than a full Newton hearing. This is the recommendation I made if the court chose to continue, disregarding the provision in the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, which states that the prosecution may not be valid in circumstances where an appeal has been pursued.
While it's
theoretically possible for a very unusual factual dispute to arise in a strict liability case that might warrant a Newton hearing, it would be extremely uncommon for a simple "no valid ticket" offence. The purpose of strict liability is to streamline such prosecutions by eliminating the need to prove complex elements, such as intent.
I suggest that in this case, the court wants to hear the mitigation in person, perhaps due to the recent negative press regarding unread mitigation in many SJPN cases.
