Court Case for Train Fare

[DelayRepay]

You have not been tried in court (yet?) but you have merely made a Statutory Declaration that you are not the person named in the proceedings. Your guilt or innocence is moot as you are legally stating that you are not the person concerned in this matter.

The chain of events is confusing but my reading of the situation is that the OP was tried and found guilty without his knowledge. He has now made a statutory decleration which may have said he had no knowledge of the previous conviction (as the paperwork wasn't sent to his address). Now the TOC have issued a new summons because they still believe he is the person they are looking for.

But very confusing all around. I sympathise with the OP.

 

[michaelpjdaly]

If you make a statutory declaration that it isnt you and it subsequently turns out it is you then you will probably be held in contempt of Court and a small railway fine will be the least if your worries!

Thank you. I have never been to Portsmouth, so it wasn't me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the initial assertion by the OP, I think that's a pretty defamatory statement in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I’m not going to claim to be a saint either, but I know I have never been to Portsmouth, that I know.

 

[Deerfold]

Given the initial assertion by the OP, I think that's a pretty defamatory statement in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary.

It's not. It starts with "If you have" - it describes what would happen if a statutory declaration is false.

So long as the OP is being truthful with us (and I've reason to think he's not) then there's no problem.

I read this as being additional information to that provided by reb018.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It's not. It starts with "If you have" -

Well that's OK then. Would you be happy have your honesty called into question with no foundation?

To the OP - Still need to know if you have a summons in March and is it in Portsmouth?

 

[Deerfold]

Well that's OK then. Would you be happy have your honesty called into question with no foundation?

I didn't read it as bringing anyone's honesty into question.

As I say, i saw it as adding to Reb0118's description of how a statutory declaration works - this provides additional information so that if someone else were to read this thread they would be less likely to think "Ooh, there's a way to get rid of my criminal conviction for fare dodging" if it were not appropriate.

It'd be better phrased as "If one were to..." but these days few people do phrase like that and it comes across as sounding posh.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Given the initial assertion by the OP, I think that's a pretty defamatory statement in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary.

No it isn't. It is a sensible warning. IE make sure facts are 100% before doing so.

 

[michaelpjdaly]

Thanks for all your words guys. As you see here; following my letter and email – the train company has dropped this case against me. Thanks.

 

[najaB]

That is good to hear. Thanks for letting us know what happened.

 

[talltim]

How did they prove fare evasion at court in Guilford in 2011?

 

[michaelpjdaly]

How did they prove fare evasion at court in Guilford in 2011?

I have absolutely no idea. Getting information from them when I called up was difficult. I got very limited information. I don't know what happened, how that is even possible!? Really, I don't know.

 

[DaleCooper]

It was a pretty grudging reply, not even an apology, as though they are saying "we don't believe you but we can't do anything about it". The bit about "previous good character" was particularly bad without acknowledging that your good character is not in question.

 

[Puffing Devil]

How did they prove fare evasion at court in Guilford in 2011?

Proving in absence of a defendant is easy - the prosecution usually read trough the circumstances of the case + the statement of the RPI. "I stopped Mr X on the train and asked him to produce a ticket for the journey. He was unable to do so........"

As there was no defendant, there is no challenge to the identity of Mr X and the case is normally proved there and then/ It's a hop skip and a jump to sentencing and the whole matter is completed in about 5 minutes. That's why you should never ignore a court summons!

To the OP: For your own peace of mind, I would ring the court and double check that the matter was formally dropped. For right or wrong you'll now be on the TOCs black list and you'll get no slack in the future, so make sure you're squeaky clean with future travel tickets.

 

[talltim]

Proving in absence of a defendant is easy - the prosecution usually read trough the circumstances of the case + the statement of the RPI. "I stopped Mr X on the train and asked him to produce a ticket for the journey. He was unable to do so........"

As there was no defendant, there is no challenge to the identity of Mr X and the case is normally proved there and then/ It's a hop skip and a jump to sentencing and the whole matter is completed in about 5 minutes. That's why you should never ignore a court summons!

It isn't proved tho', they are just found guilty. Different things. You can't prove something that didn't happen, you can find someone guilty wrongly.

 

[michaelpjdaly]

Proving in absence of a defendant is easy - the prosecution usually read trough the circumstances of the case + the statement of the RPI. "I stopped Mr X on the train and asked him to produce a ticket for the journey. He was unable to do so........"

As there was no defendant, there is no challenge to the identity of Mr X and the case is normally proved there and then/ It's a hop skip and a jump to sentencing and the whole matter is completed in about 5 minutes. That's why you should never ignore a court summons!

To the OP: For your own peace of mind, I would ring the court and double check that the matter was formally dropped. For right or wrong you'll now be on the TOCs black list and you'll get no slack in the future, so make sure you're squeaky clean with future travel tickets.

Oh thank you I will do that.

As for my "previous good character" - what the heck to they know about me? Very strange.

Well I will not be bunking any trains anyway and in any case, I don't ever travel by this company as I never go that far down South - as I said before, never even stepped foot inside Portsmouth. #

I will ring them to double check, thank you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It isn't proved tho', they are just found guilty. Different things. You can't prove something that didn't happen, you can find someone guilty wrongly.

Yet, that is exactly what they are saying they did, isn't it? Found me guilty - when I wasn't there.

 

[talltim]

Yet, that is exactly what they are saying they did, isn't it? Found me guilty - when I wasn't there.

That is what they did. That is not what they said they did.

 

[michaelpjdaly]

That is what they did. That is not what they said they did.

Ah well, over now

 

[cjmillsnun]

Oh thank you I will do that.

As for my "previous good character" - what the heck to they know about me? Very strange.

That just means that you were not previously known to the railway for fare dodging

 

[Puffing Devil]

It isn't proved tho', they are just found guilty. Different things. You can't prove something that didn't happen, you can find someone guilty wrongly.

Wrong. It was proved in absence, That's how it works in the absence of the defendant.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Wrong. It was proved in absence, That's how it works in the absence of the defendant.

Exactly, the company put the evidence that they had (such as it was) before the Magistrates.

The defendant who was alleged to have committed the offence was not there to rebut it and had not responded to the summons

The Magistrates found the case proven to their satisfaction.

That's how it works and as someone said earlier, why you should never ignore a summons.

 

[455driver]

Given the initial assertion by the OP, I think that's a pretty defamatory statement in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary.

As others have already stated, my post was for information only.

I will leave any advice up to you in future, you seem to know everything about everything.:roll:

 

[michaelpjdaly]

Exactly, the company put the evidence that they had (such as it was) before the Magistrates.

The defendant who was alleged to have committed the offence was not there to rebut it and had not responded to the summons

The Magistrates found the case proven to their satisfaction.

That's how it works and as someone said earlier, why you should never ignore a summons.

No, I would never ignore a summons. Goodness knows where they even sent that summons, I was moving around a lot at the time.

 

[DaleCooper]

Did you manage to finger the real culprit?

 

[michaelpjdaly]

Did you manage to finger the real culprit?

No. The person I reckon it was lived in my shared house and actually ended up attacking me just before I moved out of there and began sofa surfing in London, all before I ended up here and settled.

There is no way I could or would contact him, I would bet in fact by now he is in prison or something.

 

[talltim]

Exactly, the company put the evidence that they had (such as it was) before the Magistrates.

The defendant who was alleged to have committed the offence was not there to rebut it and had not responded to the summons

The Magistrates found the case proven to their satisfaction.

That's how it works and as someone said earlier, why you should never ignore a summons.

That's just proven to a magistrates satisfaction, not proved. As can be seen by the fact that the decision was reversed.
If I said that I thought the moon was square and no-one gave any evidence to the contrary because they didn't even know I had said it then that would be proved?

 

[Agent_c]

That's just proven to a magistrates satisfaction, not proved. As can be seen by the fact that the decision was reversed.
If I said that I thought the moon was square and no-one gave any evidence to the contrary because they didn't even know I had said it then that would be proved?

Depends where the burden applies.

Saying "Joe Blogs dodged a fare" probably isnt enough

"on X, a person identifying themselves as Joe blogs rode on Service K from Y to Z and was unable to provide a valid ticket to inspector I when confronted at time T" The Inspector can confirm that situation, as would the report written up, so there's at least a case without a defence.

At that point I would imagine the burden falls to the defendant to offer some defence, and the TOC to discredit that defence. eg "It wasn't me" - it falls to the TOC to prove it is that person who they stopped whom is in court.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Depends where the burden applies.

Saying "Joe Blogs dodged a fare" probably isnt enough

"on X, a person identifying themselves as Joe blogs rode on Service K from Y to Z and was unable to provide a valid ticket to inspector I when confronted at time T" The Inspector can confirm that situation, as would the report written up, so there's at least a case without a defence.

At that point I would imagine the burden falls to the defendant to offer some defence, and the TOC to discredit that defence. eg "It wasn't me" - it falls to the TOC to prove it is that person who they stopped whom is in court.

Exactly.

At the specified place & point in time advised by a Summons to attend a Court hearing, the alleged evidence was put to the Magistrates, along with a certificate of service indicating that the Summons, witness statement and other relevant papers had been served upon the address given and confirmed (so far as practical ) as that of the defendant.

The Magistrates heard the prosecution case and with no response from the defendant to rebut that evidence, were satisfied that the defendant was guilty of the offence and a conviction was therefore recorded.

Very occasionally someone may become the victim of an impostor and may be convicted in error through this process, but that prosecution will have been brought in good faith.

If the conviction is challenged once known about and good evidence of the mistake is put to the prosecution and the Court, then the conviction will inevitably be overturned.

It's not a perfect system, but then little in life is I'm afraid.

 

[Puffing Devil]

That's just proven to a magistrates satisfaction, not proved. As can be seen by the fact that the decision was reversed.
If I said that I thought the moon was square and no-one gave any evidence to the contrary because they didn't even know I had said it then that would be proved?

Not really. The matter was proved to the satisfaction of the court and the defendant was convicted at the first hearing.

The decision was not reversed on the basis of any new evidence. The matter was reset as the defendant made a statutory declaration that he was not aware of the court hearing. The magistrates do not need to believe the declaration, it just needs to be made. An appeal against conviction is an entirely different process.

Following contact with the TOC, the TOC made the decision not to continue with the matter - rather begrudgingly, it would appear. As it stands, the defendant's evidence has not been tested in court and will not be now, as he is not to be prosecuted.

 

[Llanigraham]

Exactly.

At the specified place & point in time advised by a Summons to attend a Court hearing, the alleged evidence was put to the Magistrates, along with a certificate of service indicating that the Summons, witness statement and other relevant papers had been served upon the address given and confirmed (so far as practical ) as that of the defendant.

The Magistrates heard the prosecution case and with no response from the defendant to rebut that evidence, were satisfied that the defendant was guilty of the offence and a conviction was therefore recorded.

Very occasionally someone may become the victim of an impostor and may be convicted in error through this process, but that prosecution will have been brought in good faith.

If the conviction is challenged once known about and good evidence of the mistake is put to the prosecution and the Court, then the conviction will inevitably be overturned.

It's not a perfect system, but then little in life is I'm afraid.

I took many cases for a Government Dept where this was exactly what happened. I can recollect only one case that was adjourned and that was because there were several previous convictions for the same offence. The accused eventually went down for 28 days.

 

[michaelpjdaly]

I took many cases for a Government Dept where this was exactly what happened. I can recollect only one case that was adjourned and that was because there were several previous convictions for the same offence. The accused eventually went down for 28 days.

Yup, it’s all worked fair enough to be honest. While I originally got a letter at my permanent address demanding £300-odd, today they have told me it’s quashed completely. So I owe nothing and the whole matter is over. While it caused me some initial stress, an email to the court and a letter to the train company sufficed in dissolving the whole matter. So overall I’m pleased with the process, and I also thank everyone here for their input.

 

[MikeWh]

Good to hear, and thanks for coming back to update us.