Fare evasion - Second time

[worried_sick]

** update **
I have now received a summons. They are pursuing a claim under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. As you can imagine I am absolutely terrified and should be grateful for any advice as to how to proceed. Thanks

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So this is serious now.

The experts on here will tell you whether or not this is a recordable offence "if" the court decide to prosecute you.

You might want to have a word with the prosecutor on the day before the court sits to see if he will offer a settlement.

If you do not turn up at court, they may prosecute you in your absence

Be prepared to pay quite a bit of money....

 

[najaB]

The experts on here will tell you whether or not this is a recordable offence "if" the court decide to prosecute you.

Yes, it would be.

You might want to have a word with the prosecutor on the day before the court sits to see if he will offer a settlement.

That's possible, but I'd also be writing back to TIL to offer a settlement again.

If you do not turn up at court, they may prosecute you in your absence.

Yes. They likely would.

Be prepared to pay quite a bit of money....

Indeed. I would expect somewhere between £400 and £800.

 

[Greenback]

The RoRA 1889 would be a recordable offence as najaB says, and I also agree that there is still time to pursue a settlement.

I'm afraid I have to agree that this is going to cost you quite a bit of money.

 

[cjmillsnun]

My recommendation is get some legal advice from a solicitor with railway experience. This is extremely serious, and whilst a settlement is still possible, the fact they have gone down this route says that they may want to use you as an example for a poster...

 

[Greenback]

They do seem set on taking you to court. Realistically, I'd say the chances of a settlement are not that great, but you never know.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Please check the date of the offence and the date of the summons. Has it gone beyond six months?

 

[najaB]

Please check the date of the offence and the date of the summons. Has it gone beyond six months?

Bear in mind that the summons wasn't necessarily issued on the same day that TIL submitted their paperwork, which is the date that matters.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Bear in mind that the summons wasn't necessarily issued on the same day that TIL submitted their paperwork, which is the date that matters.

Agreed - if it's close, it's worth checking with the court to make sure the offence hasn't timed out.

 

[cuccir]

OK, not good news. I agree that there is always scope for offering an Out of Court Settlement - indeed, this can be done in person on the day of the trial, if we get that far. Do check the 6 months too.

It may be worth considering legal representation, though it is worth noting the financial cost of this. The quote you gave for a specialist solicitor with railway experience is higher than any likely fine you'd get in punishment, unless you're very well paid at work (fines are calculated in relation to weekly earnings). A local 'high street' defence solicitor will cost less and should still be able to help. In particular at this stage they would have a higher chance of securing an out of court settlement / or mitigating any punishment in court.

My reading of the situation is that your steps to take should reflect the extent to which a criminal record would affect your future career. For many people, a criminal conviction which is spent after 12 months would actually have little impact on their lives. Even in sensitive areas such as law, the impact can often be less than you might imagine. However, if the implications are as severe as your worst fears, then clearly the money for the specialist lawyer may be well spent. Do you have any sort of mentor, friend or other contact in your industry with whom you might informally and off the record chat about this? That would help you decide whether to proceed with a rail-specialist, a lower-cost defence solicitor, or none at all.

 

[worried_sick]

Thank you all for your comments.

Unfortunately, although I received the summons after the 6 month limitation period, the actual summons is dated within the limitation period so I cannot query this.

I was tempted to contact the prosecutions team at TIL (on receipt of the summons) to discuss an out of court settelment but don't feel confident enough as I feel they are pushing this into Court and I have mentioned offers to settle in my letters to TIL previously to no avail.

I note what you say about the criminal conviction being spent after 1 year etc but am concerned about notifing my employer and/or legal governing body when I renew my subscription for my legal qualification and am worried about future employability.

I feel the only alternative I have is to instruct a specialist solicitor (at some cost) to see if they can assist and will use what little savings I have.

Thank you for your advice and I should be grateful if you have any further advice or guidance.
I will continue to keep you updated as not many people post their results of cases like this. Thanks again

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If you are working in a career that requires "Enhanced Disclosure", and you have a convinction for anything else, should Tfl decide to prosecute, the two convictions will never be spent and you will have to declare it every 3 years, or when your employer decides to ask you to review your DBS. Failure to do so may result in you being dismissed immediately.

If you have no other convictions, then this will be classed as "spent" after 1 year and you should no longer have to declare it - therefore you will have nothing to worry about. In the grand scheme of things, this would only be a minor offence

Of course, you might be able to persuade the court prosecutor before the hearing to accept a sum of money....

 

[worried_sick]

Thank you for your post.

I do not have any criminal convictions and this is the first time I have ever received a summons. I am just terrified this one mistake - with absolutely no intent involved - will cause me problems in the future.

I'm not sure whether my job and /or future career in Law require standard or enhanced disclosure but I certainly want to continue with a clear record is at all possible.

Thanks again, I will certainly attend the hearing in person should a settlement beforehand not work and do what I can to resolve this successfully.

 

[SussexMan]

....the two convictions will never be spent ...

Not that it is relevant to this case as the OP has confirmed they only have one conviction, but this isn't true. All convictions, barring ones with a custodial sentence of 4 or more years, become spent. Whether you have to declare a spent conviction is another matter.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Sorry yes, my mistake, the conviction will be "spent" but may have to be declared on an "Enhanced Disclosure" depending on what field the OP is working in.

I do not know if people working in law attract a Standard or Enhanced disclosure but if working with children or vulnerable people, then the latter will most definately apply but be "spent" after 1 year.

To the OP, how long until the hearing?

Read your contract of employment to see if you have to disclose to your employer or not. I am no expert in such matters and can't tell you what plea you should enter (as you passed 2 opportunities to pay/tap in) but see if you can talk to the prosecutor before the hearing to agree a settlement. This will stop your case being heard in court and you can be rest assured that nothing will appear as a criminal conviction - and you can relax.

Prosecutors are human and can be empathetic.

 

[cuccir]

Read your contract of employment to see if you have to disclose to your employer or not. I am no expert in such matters and can't tell you what plea you should enter (as you passed 2 opportunities to pay/tap in) but see if you can talk to the prosecutor before the hearing to agree a settlement. This will stop your case being heard in court and you can be rest assured that nothing will appear as a criminal conviction - and you can relax.

Prosecutors are human and can be empathetic.

As are employers too. The advice to check your contract and get yourself informed about the implications of a conviction is crucial. Even if you have something on your record, many employers will not be bothered by that. However, I do not work in law and there may be specific standards which apply - so check this, ideally with the confidential support of someone in the industry!

 

[najaB]

Even if you have something on your record, many employers will not be bothered by that.

And those who would have an issue would be doubly bothered if they find out second-hand.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I would argue that someone in law would require to declare their conviction immediately.. However it is unlikely (but definitely check) that there would be a requirement for an enhanced check, meaning that after a year the conviction would be spent.

However, there would definitely be an issue that if this was made public, the repetitional damage may make someone unemployable.

 

[Greenback]

Many people would see the conviction for a railway ticketing offence as enhancing the reputation of an individual and the company they work for. They would see it as sticking one to the horrible, nasty, greedy privatised railway profiteers.

Seriously, as long as they are honest about what has happened, I don't think the OP has too much to worry about.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

worried_sick, I see that you are considering instructing a solicitor who 'specialises in railway' law. I cannot see that this is a good use of your resources.

I have read and re-read this thread, and there is nothing I can find that requires any depth of knowledge or experience in railway legislation or case law.
If you instruct a local law firm which specialises in Criminal Defence work, then they will have all the expertise you need : an ability to examine the prosecution's evidence critically, looking for any defect or lack of assurances to the required standard of evidence; an ability to challenge any such opportunity to undermine the prosecution's evidence; and an ability to negotiate with the prosecution.
These competences will be available locally, and you will be in a better position to discuss any of these opportunities with a local office.

I also do not think you have anything to gain by attempting to negotiate further with Transport Investigations Ltd. Their job is to gather, prepare and assess evidence. Once it has been passed for prosecution, then the relevant railway company's prosecutor will be in a position to make a risk assessment of each case from their client's point of view, and will take into account the benefits / probabilities / costs of pursuing a prosecution, or disposing of the matter by way of an administrative settlement. That is where your solicitor's expertise will be most usefully employed.
There is nothing specialised here in terms of railway law.
And a local Criminal Defence solicitor will be less expensive.

 

[island]

Usually, employers' issues with minor criminal convictions only arise when an employee who is meant to declare those convictions doesn't do so, and it then becomes a matter of dishonesty rather than the conviction itself being a sticking point.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Usually, employers' issues with minor criminal convictions only arise when an employee who is meant to declare those convictions doesn't do so, and it then becomes a matter of dishonesty rather than the conviction itself being a sticking point.

Quite, and worried_sick will have to decide for himself whether to declare or not. He has said he works in law but we don't know in what capacity

But he's not in court yet and he could be lucky and keep his case out of court thus avoiding a prosecution altogether

 

[Greenback]

Usually, employers' issues with minor criminal convictions only arise when an employee who is meant to declare those convictions doesn't do so, and it then becomes a matter of dishonesty rather than the conviction itself being a sticking point.

You are absolutely right. That's why honesty is always the best policy. I lost count of the number of successful applicants who had some minor conviction on their DBS result and were still given the job because they had been open about it during the application process.

 

[worried_sick]

Thank you all for your comments.

Just for the record I have absolutely no previous criminal convictions and have never been in trouble before and hope that this matter can be sorted successfully.

I contacted a couple of fare evasion specialist solicitors, one said he did not have capacity to assist due to a busy workload, the other recommended I use a local criminal defence solicitor. One of these solicitor did advise me that, should the worst happen and I receive a criminal conviction, then whatever my contract says, I should let my employer know immediately as I work in the legal industry.

I am now looking into instructing a local criminal defence solicitor to assist me in either obtaining an out of court settlement or advice on how to defend this matter etc.

I shall keep you posted. Thanks again

 

[Fawkes Cat]

(New poster, but a lurker for a couple of years)

OP - you are concerned about what impact this matter might have on your career. If you're a member of a union where you work, or if you have a professional organisation (CILEX, Law Society, whatever) you may want to have a word with them to find out what damage a conviction will do. I'd hazard a guess that you're not the first person to find themselves in this position.

 

[worried_sick]

Sorry further information/ advice needed.
If an out of court settlement is not reached I am considering pleading not guilty. I agree I did not purchase a ticket before boarding the train but I would have bought a ticket from the conductor (but I did not see one on the train) or would have purchased a ticket from the train staff at the station (at the window before the barriers).
There was no intent on my part to avoid payment. I also had tickets for my separate journey home that day costing considerably more than the unpaid ticket.
Based on my circumstances, do you think a not guilty plea would be advisable and what would be the implications?
Thanks in advance

 

[Llanigraham]

A "Not Guilty" plea sounds very ill-advised!
I suggest you look up the legal definition of "intent" and then (quickly) reconsider your thoughts.

 

[najaB]

Sorry further information/ advice needed.
If an out of court settlement is not reached I am considering pleading not guilty. I agree I did not purchase a ticket before boarding the train but I would have bought a ticket from the conductor (but I did not see one on the train) or would have purchased a ticket from the train staff at the station (at the window before the barriers).

'Would have bought' isn't bought.

There was no intent on my part to avoid payment. I also had tickets for my separate journey home that day costing considerably more than the unpaid ticket.

Intent is determined largely by actions. You passed an open ticket office and/or ticket machine, that much is a fact. You say that you would have bought from the guard or at your destination, what proof can you provide to back that up?

Based on my circumstances, do you think a not guilty plea would be advisable and what would be the implications?

It's not my position to give legal advice either way, but the consequence pleading not guilty and then being found guilty is that you lose the benefit that comes with an early plea of a reduction in any fine imposed.

 

[cuccir]

NajaB's post summarizes things pretty well. I'd encourage you to have a look at DaveNewcastle's extensive overview of railway-related case law and precedent here, and explore in particular the relevance of Corbyn V Saunders 1978.

Clearly, however, the advice of your lawyer should trump anything we offer on an internet forum.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . .
Based on my circumstances, do you think a not guilty plea would be advisable and what would be the implications?

The consequences of entering a plea of 'not guilty' are:
The hearing will be deferred until a date when the prosecution can provide its evidence, which will almost definitely be in the form of oral statements by at least one witness, which would be the staff you encountered and who took a statement from you.
That deferred hearing in Court, will all add to the cost. There's the attendance of a member of staff, the time taken by the Prosecutor in preparing for the questioning, and again the time in Court in going through the Witnesses evidence, and, if you present any evidence yourself, then cross-examining your evidence.
The benefit of entering a 'not guilty' plea is that it gives you or your representative the opportunity to identify where the evidence is inadequate to prove the offence was committed. That is a vital stage in having the case against you dropped, assuming that the offence was not committed.
If, as it appears to me from what you have written here, the offence was committed, then the only point of entering a 'not guilty' plea would be where you were confident that there was a flaw in the Prosecution's evidence.
Is there?

When it comes to sentencing, you will have the opportunity to explain your circumstances, income, liabilities etc., and this opportunity will be given to you whatever plea you had made.
But as najaB has pointed out, if you are found 'guilty', then there would be a discount for having offered an early plea of 'guilty', rather than going through the process of listening to witness statements before arriving at the same conclusion.
Also, the costs claimed against a 'guilty' person will be higher if more work was involved, such as questioning witnesses in Court after a 'not guilty' plea.

If you are asking that question on here, it sounds as if you haven't discussed this with a local Criminal Defence solicitor as you were previously advised. You should do.
Soon.

In short, a plea of 'not guilty' is appropriate when the offence was not committed, or, it was committed but the evidence was not adequate to demonstrate it to the required standard.