ATW Problem

[Cardiff150508]

Hi all im writing this on behalf of my 26 year old son and would appreaciate any help you could give.On 11th July 2014 heoarded arriva Trains Wales from lisvane to Cardiff Queen Street when he got to Cardiff he realised that he didnt have enough moeny for his ticket so he attempted to buy a ticket from heath to cardiff as he needed to get to work. He was then questioned by a transport officer and he admitted he had come from from lisvane and didnt have enough money for his ticket, the transport officer told him he was caling the police and then would need to speak to him at this point my son ran through the barriers and out of the station. He has since been catching the trains and last week got stopped by them again but this time he admitted what he had done and gave them his details. The police were called but because he has apoligised and cooperated they told him it was a civil matter and left him to deal with transport investigation Ltd. He is now waiting to recieve a letter in regards to this from transport investigation Ltd but is pannicing he may well go to jail. It is totally out of charcater for him and he has been off work due to stress as his wife is due with there second child in the next 3 weeks and a member of the family has recent been diagnosed with cancer this is why when he was told the police were on there way he panniced ! Could you please help if anyone has been in this position or knows what hes up against hes only been in trouble once before in 2007 for Drink driving but recived a disqualification and a fine. CAB state that he could be charged up to £1000.00 but im more concerned about him going to jail.Thanks

 

[tony6499]

First thing is that the sob stories aren't needed and you have to stick to the cold hard facts of what he has done and he won't go to jail but it is going to cost him a lot of money.

 

[Swirlz]

And this is a CRIMINAL matter, not a CIVIL matter.

Personally, I think a conviction is perfectly justified here, but an out of court settlement will be at least three figures.

He has committed a string of offence(s) in a relatively short period of time

Imprisonment, for up to 3 months is a possibility, because of the 2 x incidences reported. It is VERY unlikely to happen though unless he was particularly abusive to the Inspector(s).

You say this is "out of character", but clearly not, if he did the same thing again on a second occasion, after escaping the first time!

Probably be stung with Section 5(3a) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (two counts) for the intentional fare evasion.

Running away is a serious aggravating factor, as is committing a similar offence again not long afterwards, so the court is likely to make an example of him.

 

[Clip]

. He has since been catching the trains and last week got stopped by them again but this time he admitted what he had done and gave them his details. The police were called but because he has apoligised and cooperated they told him it was a civil matter and left him to deal with transport investigation Ltd.

You need to clear up this for me. Did he get stopped the second time because he didnt have a ticket again or because they were looking for him and thus stopped him?

We can only help in detail as and when he receives the letter from them really but as he well knows what he did was stupid and to carry on catching the train to the same station after doing so was equally as daft. But he is in this position now so when he gets the letter and finds out what they are prosecuting him for then the people of this forum will be able to help you far better.

 

[Flamingo]

Very unlikely he'll get jail, unless he really annoys the magistrate/judge, but as said it's criminal, not civil.

I'd be pretty sure that there is more than these two incidents to be taken into account as well. Ask him to produce the tickets he's been buying five days a week, and see how many of them are the correct one.

I would be surprised if ATW do accept an out-of-court settlement on this one.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Your son will not go to jail for this offence.

The sentencing guidelines for this only run as far as a fine.

Custody is a sentencing option but simply would not be considered, even with the aggravating features you describe.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I'd be pretty sure that there is more than these two incidents to be taken into account as well. Ask him to produce the tickets he's been buying five days a week, and see how many of them are the correct one.

No doubt there are explanations such as irregular patterns of work, but if you make a regular journey where there can be difficulties in buying a daily ticket, why is it so difficult to buy a season, thereby reducing the aggravation of buying to once a week, once a month or once a year?

I suppose there is a temptation that if there aren't daily barrier checks or conductor checks to only buy a ticket when approached by someone able and willing to sell a ticket.

 

[extendedpaul]

The difference in the single fare to Cardiff between the two stations involved is only 60p.

Is the OP really saying his son had £2.60 but not £3.20 and no credit or debit card and what would have happened if the conductor had checked and sold tickets between Lisvane and Heath ?

Conductors on that route are generally very pro-active even when the train i two carriages at peak times and rammed !

 

[Class377]

Surely, as the OP's son not only intentionally gave a false starting location, but also RAN to avoid paying, this is as clear a case as ATW can hope for in a Regulation of the Railways offence?

There's a chance that, if the OP's son has been paying the correct fare every time since (and was only stopped because they were recognised from when he pulled a runner) he MAY be able to claim he has reformed and this may help towards arranging a settlement.

However, I know that ATW are very proactive and this seems a very easy case for them to prosecute (to make an example and to get publicity?)

 

[DarloRich]

Hi all im writing this on behalf of my 26 year old son and would appreaciate any help you could give.On 11th July 2014 heoarded arriva Trains Wales from lisvane to Cardiff Queen Street when he got to Cardiff he realised that he didnt have enough moeny for his ticket so he attempted to buy a ticket from heath to cardiff as he needed to get to work. He was then questioned by a transport officer and he admitted he had come from from lisvane and didnt have enough money for his ticket, the transport officer told him he was caling the police and then would need to speak to him at this point my son ran through the barriers and out of the station. He has since been catching the trains and last week got stopped by them again but this time he admitted what he had done and gave them his details. The police were called but because he has apoligised and cooperated they told him it was a civil matter and left him to deal with transport investigation Ltd. He is now waiting to recieve a letter in regards to this from transport investigation Ltd but is pannicing he may well go to jail. It is totally out of charcater for him and he has been off work due to stress as his wife is due with there second child in the next 3 weeks and a member of the family has recent been diagnosed with cancer this is why when he was told the police were on there way he panniced ! Could you please help if anyone has been in this position or knows what hes up against hes only been in trouble once before in 2007 for Drink driving but recived a disqualification and a fine. CAB state that he could be charged up to £1000.00 but im more concerned about him going to jail.Thanks

Was he stopped "by chance" the second time or was he stopped becuase he was identified as the lad who "legged it the other day"?

If it goes to court, get a decent brief, take advice on pleading guilty, keep your son quiet, let the solicitor apologise, offer some mitgation, take the fine like a man and get out! Oh and dont get caught again. Sorry not to be bale to offer any more comfort.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Very unlikely he'll get jail, unless he really annoys the magistrate/judge, but as said it's criminal, not civil.

I'd be pretty sure that there is more than these two incidents to be taken into account as well. Ask him to produce the tickets he's been buying five days a week, and see how many of them are the correct one.

I would be surprised if ATW do accept an out-of-court settlement on this one.

Whether he annoys them or not is irrelevant as they have to follow the sentencing guidelines. It's the offence he's in front of the bench for that will count if he commits another offence in front of them there are penalties that can be enforced seperately.

 

[Flamingo]

I was thinking of "Contempt of Court" type offences when up in front of the beak, which can carry custodial sentences.

I'm aware of the sentencing guidelines for ticket offences (and that there is the provision for a custodial sentence, although rarely used).

 

[Cardiff150508]

Hi all thanks for all you help and advice so far.
After he ran he continued to catch trains and was stopped because he was spotted and recongise as the boy who ran i believe they had been watching him via CCTV. To update you he has had to pay £1298.00 in damges to Arriva for repairs needed to the atomatic barrier and received a caution from the British Transport Police.

With regards to the fare evasion he has recieved a letter from Transport Investigations Ltd stating they are continuing with court action and looking to prosecute him under section 5 of railway byelaws of 1889. He has wrote to them asking to settle this out of court but they have repiled as expected stating no. I have seeked som advice on his behalf from a friend who works in the Magistrates who told me that his caution would not matter and that as its his 1st time for fare evasion he would have a hefty fine nut no chance of jail, he said he can look to pay around £700.00/£800.00 and would have to complete a means form along with his plea and if he pleads guilty (which he intends on doing) he does not have to attend court but should do to plead his case and hopefully get sympathy from the judge due to the stress hes been under. I know hes an idiot but he is really stressing about going to prison can anyone confirm what ive been told by my friend is correct and have any other thoughts? Thanks in advance

 

[Class377]

I think you mean section 5 of the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889 rather than the byelaws, as the byelaws were updated much more recently and do not carry the risk of prison!

I agree that prison is extremely unlikely, as despite the caution as "previous", it can easily be argued that this is a first offence as it was all in the same event.

Hopefully this is a massive wake-up call!

 

[Cardiff150508]

Hi its definatley the railway byelaws 1889 they are prosecuting him under are these the same as the rgulation of railways 1889 or do they differ?

Thanks

 

[bb21]

Hi its definatley the railway byelaws 1889 they are prosecuting him under are these the same as the rgulation of railways 1889 or do they differ?

Thanks

There is no such thing as a Railway Byelaws 1889. It is either the Railway Byelaws, or the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. If "Section 5" is quoted then it is pretty certain that it is the latter and not the Byelaws. Section 5 of the RoRA relates to fare evasion and ticketing offences.

I am inclined to agree that the motoring offence is not particularly relevant so this is his first offence of this nature. A conviction under the RoRA will carry a criminal record, but first-time offenders are not known to be sent to prison, which is a punishment dished out only to persistent offenders.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Again - prison is not an option in this case - even with the damage to the barrier you omitted to mention in the first place and the subsequent caution from the BTP. I would have expected both the damage and the fare evasion to be dealt with as a single item.

However, it has run this far. Your son will be looking at a fine around 67% of his weekly income + a government surcharge of 20% of the fine (min £20) + the costs applied for by the prosecution. If the costs amount to more than £100 they should be challenged to justify them in court (The CPS would charge £85 for a similar matter and an prompt guilty plea).

The Magistrate's Guidelines are here, see page 89.

 

[BestWestern]

How on earth did he damage the gateline (barrier)? They're pretty robust from my experience, though I suppose he may have forced his way through behind another passenger as the barrier was closing, thereby forcing the mechanism. I'd have thought he's fortunate not to be looking at a criminal damage charge as well?!

 

[Puffing Devil]

. I'd have thought he's fortunate not to be looking at a criminal damage charge as well?!

BTP Caution or a new Conditional Caution with a requirement to pay for the damage.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

With regards to the fare evasion he has recieved a letter from Transport Investigations Ltd stating they are continuing with court action and looking to prosecute him under section 5 of railway byelaws of 1889.

Some of the standard letters issued by Railway Prosecutions' Departments will refer to both the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act AND to the 2005 Railway Byelaws. Usually, these letters are issued at a stage at which no decision has been made what Offence if any has been suspected, and may even be asking the passenger to give their own version of events before deciding whether any offence might have been committed.

If a decision is made to prosecute, then a Summons to appear in the Magistrates Court will be issued, and at that stage, the precise offence and/or legislation will be clarified, either a RoRA Offence or a Byelaws Offence.

In exceptional cases (and your son's might just be one of these) then there may be two Offences on the Summons and this could be one from the RoRA and one from the Byelaws. This might, for example, apply when there is a suspected fare evasion Offence under the RoRA and a regulatory offence under one of the Byelaws.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Some of the standard letters issued by Railway Prosecutions' Departments will refer to both the 1889 Regulation of Railways Act AND to the 2005 Railway Byelaws. Usually, these letters are issued at a stage at which no decision has been made what Offence if any has been suspected, and may even be asking the passenger to give their own version of events before deciding whether any offence might have been committed.

If a decision is made to prosecute, then a Summons to appear in the Magistrates Court will be issued, and at that stage, the precise offence and/or legislation will be clarified, either a RoRA Offence or a Byelaws Offence.

In exceptional cases (and your son's might just be one of these) then there may be two Offences on the Summons and this could be one from the RoRA and one from the Byelaws. This might, for example, apply when there is a suspected fare evasion Offence under the RoRA and a regulatory offence under one of the Byelaws.

Either way the Mags will refer to the guidelines on p 89 - very little distinction is drawn between the Byelaws and the RoRA act for sentencing. The main impact is on the defendant's record - which is now cloudy anyway with the caution.

 

[wijit]

Just to put a little clarification on the sentencing guideline, the very best this chap can hope for is a sizeable fine now. The guidelines can be largely ignored as they are not set in stone and are not always applicable. If, in the magistrates opinion, it is "in the interests of justice" other sentencing options can be considered. The "opinion" part is important, especially as magistrates tend to not like offenders who try to avoid justice.
I don't want to overly scare the OP, but it is important to realise that there is still a lot of flexibility in courts.

 

[Delta558]

How on earth did he damage the gateline (barrier)? They're pretty robust from my experience, though I suppose he may have forced his way through behind another passenger as the barrier was closing, thereby forcing the mechanism. I'd have thought he's fortunate not to be looking at a criminal damage charge as well?!

I'm glad somebody else has said that - when they were first installed I 'forced' my way through them on numerous occasions because of kit bags getting caught etc. I think the mechanism is designed to 'give' if a certain amount of pressure is applied, so he probably must have spent some time breaking something big to incur over £1000 worth of damage!

 

[DownSouth]

I'm glad somebody else has said that - when they were first installed I 'forced' my way through them on numerous occasions because of kit bags getting caught etc. I think the mechanism is designed to 'give' if a certain amount of pressure is applied, so he probably must have spent some time breaking something big to incur over £1000 worth of damage!

Costs could stack up pretty quickly if a repair crew was called out at short notice (maybe at night) or if parts had to be fast shipped from Europe to replace what was damaged.

It could also be that the company is trying to make some fast money, and that they'll back down to a more realistic claim if it gets challenged in court.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Just to put a little clarification on the sentencing guideline, the very best this chap can hope for is a sizeable fine now. The guidelines can be largely ignored as they are not set in stone and are not always applicable. If, in the magistrates opinion, it is "in the interests of justice" other sentencing options can be considered. The "opinion" part is important, especially as magistrates tend to not like offenders who try to avoid justice.

I don't want to overly scare the OP
You are - unnecessarily in this case

but it is important to realise that there is still a lot of flexibility in courts.
There isn't. Any movement outside the guidelines without very strong aggravating or mitigating factors will most likely be appealed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . but it is important to realise that there is still a lot of flexibility in courts.

There isn't. Any movement outside the guidelines without very strong aggravating or mitigating factors will most likely be appealed.

I wonder if this difference in opinion might be reconciled ?

I have experience of exceptionally low levels of fine and more often, exeptionally low level of costs awards, if any. These usually follow from a Prosecution which the Bench agrees is technically correct, but where they have not been persuaded that the Offender has been at any significant fault, or where they have not been persuaded that a Prosecution was an appropriate remedy for the matter.
In these examples of penalties well below expectation, there would be negligible prospect of the Railway Company seeking a JR.

I do agree that there is little flexibility in exceeding the approved levels of penalty.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I wonder if this difference in opinion might be reconciled ?

I have experience of exceptionally low levels of fine and more often, exeptionally low level of costs awards, if any. These usually follow from a Prosecution which the Bench agrees is technically correct, but where they have not been persuaded that the Offender has been at any significant fault, or where they have not been persuaded that a Prosecution was an appropriate remedy for the matter.
In these examples of penalties well below expectation, there would be negligible prospect of the Railway Company seeking a JR.

I do agree that there is little flexibility in exceeding the approved levels of penalty.

Have to agree with DaveN.

Whist there is always the desire to "throw the book" at someone, very rarely does it happen. The most recent occurrence I know of was the theft of a "poppy" collection box. That resulted in a prison sentence rather than the fine that would be indicated for a low level of theft.

Benches have a lot of sympathy for those prosecuted on (sometimes) the flimsiest of grounds. Quite often this can be the private prosecutions - School Holidays and Rail Companies are the worst in this regard, where the penalties sought far outway the offence, or paper errors that lead to an almost compliant defendant in court when discretion should have been the order of the day.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating a soft touch for "bang to rights" fare avoiders - a fine in the first instance + reasonable costs + a criminal record is a fair and just punishment)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Further comment - "under sentencing" rarely sees the level of appeal as "over sentencing". Unless there is a huge public outcry led by the (insert name of politically polarised newspaper of commentator of choice here), lowball sentences will mostly stand. Defendants who are hit with a "harsh" sentence are more likely to appeal.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm glad somebody else has said that - when they were first installed I 'forced' my way through them on numerous occasions because of kit bags getting caught etc. I think the mechanism is designed to 'give' if a certain amount of pressure is applied, so he probably must have spent some time breaking something big to incur over £1000 worth of damage!

It depends on the model of gate line - even the robust ones can be forced and damaged, if it's a junky Scheidt and Bachmann device with lots of glass components forcing it will likely leave you with the paddles and frame nothing more than a big pile of shattered glass. I've seen it on numerous occasions, even after nothing more than a light collision with a bike.

 

[Cardiff150508]

Hi all

To update you all the matter is proceeding to court and is scheduled to be heard within the next week, my son has returned his "Means Form" stating his income and outgoings and also his "Plea form" where he has stated Guilty not attend court. I have seeked some advice again from a friend who works in the court who has stated that he will be looking at a fine of around £650/£700 and a conditonal discharge for 6 months.

My question is as he's already recieved a caution from BTP in November 14 is that matter classed as settled and would his caution be brought up in court? They have not mentioned his caution on the court summons however in there evidence they have metioned that he apoligised for breaking the barrier. (The charge the court summons relates to is section 5.3.A regulation railiways act 1889)

If it is classed as settled would the court know about it and that hes already paid for all cost's relating to this matter?

As he has been given the option of not attending which he has chosen would jail not be an option or is it still very much an option?

And finally with regards to the result of the hearing do the courts publish it in a local paper?

Sorry for the flood of questions and thank you for you hel in advance.

 

[Llanigraham]

From my memory of taking cases to Court, his past record may be considered at the sentencing stage.

All Court Hearings are a matter of Public Record so available to anyone. If the Press are they they may report it.