• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Freedom Pass - fare evasion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scared

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2014
Messages
6
Hello,

I really need some advice. I've read quite a few other threads here and found you all to be really insightful so can only hope for some advice now. I will try to include all the required information however please bear me with if I have forgotten any detail. I really, really appreciate any advice that you may be able to offer.

I was stopped in the summer at Shepherds Bush station for using a freedom pass. The pass belonged to my mother who had recently passed away unexpectedly. I had taken to carrying around some of her things; jewellery and cards with her photo and signature on. I was using her travel wallet which had the pass in it and had also inserted my own oyster card in it.

The female officer who stopped me took various notes from questions she asked me. I asked her if there was anything I need to sign or review and she stated no. Another officer took both cards to review prior usage. They acknowledged that in addition to using the freedom pass I had also used my own oyster card and topped it up the day before.

The same day I emailed the prosecutions unit; I explained that it was a very difficult time due to my mother passing unexpectedly and I could appreciate how the situation looked and it was never my attempt to evade any fare, I am a supporter of TfL and even a member of the museum in London. I offered to pay any fine awarded.

I later received a letter inviting me to an interview at Stratford station. I called the officer to arrange a time and then confirmed with him by email. I also forwarded him the email I had sent to the prosecutions team. I went to the interview which had two officers and someone else observing. The interview was recorded. At one point they read the statement from the officer who had stopped me at Shepherds Bush and asked me if it was correct, I said it was except that I had asked if I needed to sign anything and was told no. I asked if they had read the email I had sent, by this point to TfL, twice. He confirmed and read the email out for the tape. I confirmed that I had made all the journeys and did not deny anything. I told them at as well as dealing with my mothers' affairs and funeral I had been off work for a long period trying to deal with everything. I also explained that after my mother passing I had had to move in to her flat to take care of it plus pets and was now faced with the uncertainty of not being able to stay. I also said that due to my work, if I am prosecuted I will lose my job. I fully accept my actions though asked them to recognise that it was in an extremely difficult period and there was no conscious effort on my part to commit any crime.

They also gave me the opportunity to write any information/comments down to accompany my case, which I did. I didn't receive a copy of this but I did get one of the recorded interview.

After they stopped the tape (of course) he said, I'm going to give you some advice. He suggested I ask my GP to write a letter in support of my circumstances and to confirm some other points. He was actually very kind/sympathetic and said he could see the mitigating circumstances. They both discussed that compared to other cases, where there were definite attempts to commit fare evasion and people denying it even with CCTV footage, my case was clearly different. They even discussed who they knew in the relevant team and said they would contact them after the interview to see what they could do with my case. They suggested that I see my GP as soon as possible to get signed off with stress/depression and this would help the mitigation.

Some weeks later I received a letter from a Prosecution Manager, let's call him MA. MA asked me to send my response and any mitigating reasons within seven days. I wrote and emailed him what had happened, describing the circumstances and my personal situation. Again, I confirmed that my job would be at risk and offered to settle any fine. I also let him know that I had recently been prescribed anti-depressants as a result of everything. I included a copy of the initial email I had sent to the prosecutions team. He responded acknowledging receipt and said he had passed my email onto the relevant team.

Late last week I received a court summons for two weeks’ time. The summons states the charge is 'did enter a compulsory ticket area without having a valid ticket'.

I received a huge pack of paperwork, please let me know if there's anything I can give you from the pack.

One thing that I note from reviewing the pack is that the mitigation I have provided is missing. The emails I have sent and the hand written note from the interview are not there. Also not included is that during the interview I did not agree the officers statement from Shepherds Bush was entirely correct. Also missing from the officers notes who conducted the interview is his view/recommendation that this not be pursued as a criminal matter, though I wonder if it is normal practice not to do this.

In short, after a lot of text (thank you if you are still reading), I am a little angry that everything I have sent in has not been included in the pack to the court and that this is being taken to court. I fully accept that I used a pass that was not mine though I have also explained that I was not myself; there were periods that I did not know what day it was, I wasn't eating or working. I had taken to carrying my mother’s ashes around with me because I could not bear to leave them if I had to go out.

I feel physically sick with worry about my job and to make matters worse, the day before receiving the Summons I received notice that I have to move in four weeks from my mother’s home and my childhood home. Everything is coming now at once, after already such an already awful period. I have no idea what to do and would appreciate any advice you can offer me.

Thank you in advance,
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,295
Location
Yorkshire
Late last week I received a court summons for two weeks’ time. The summons states the charge is 'did enter a compulsory ticket area without having a valid ticket'.
I can't help with the legal side of things (the author of our Legal section in our Fares Guide might be able to assist, his time permitting), but that very much sounds to me like a Prosecution under the Railway Byelaws, therefore would not be a recordable offence and a conviction should not be disclosed if a CRB check (Standard or Enhanced) is performed.

If that is the case, it sounds to me like your circumstances have been taken into account, as normally the abuse of a Freedom Pass would be a much more serious matter under the Regulation of Railways Act, which would be a recordable offence and therefore could have affected your job prospects.

The fine for a Byelaw prosecution would also be lower than that under the RoRA.

Try asking them again if you can settle out of court (technically if you do reach a settlement, it is a settlement not a fine, though they'll know what you mean) but if they do refuse, at least you don't have to worry about your job prospects, so I hope that is of some comfort to you.
 

Scared

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2014
Messages
6
Dear yorkie,

Thank you for replying, I appreciate it is late on a Sunday night.

The Summons letter does mention 'Byelaw', which I will research tomorrow. I've taken the liberty to type out the first page if helpful to you or others - thanks again and I hope you get some sleep.

You are hereby summonsed to appear on DATE before Hammersmith Magistrates Court to answer the following information laid today:

That you on DATE did enter a compulsort ticket area without having with you a valid ticket. Namely at Shepherds Bush station.

Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the TfL Railway Byelaws Made under paragrapd 26 of Schedule 11 to the GLA Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.

Information laid by:

Prosecutions Mgr
Address
Address
et etc

STATEMENTS ARE SERVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967. PLEASE READ THE NOTICES TO THE DEFENDANT AND THE STATEMENT(S) OF THE WITNESS(ES).

Cost applications
If you are convicted, the court will be asked to order you to pay costs in addition to any fine or the penalty imposed.

If you plead guilty in writing the application will be as shown below.

If you plead guilty in writing, the application will be shown as below.

If you disagree with the application, you should explain why when you write to the Court.

On the above date in court London Underground will be applying for the sum of £260 towards costs incurred.

It states on the following page that £260 plus 'Compensation for the outstanding fare avoided of £4.70 is claimed'.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,454
That confirms it is a Byelaw 17 case, so criminal record will not apply.

While I have an enormous amount of sympathy for you, the truth is that you were in breach of the Byelaws and no amount of mitigation can change that. As yorkie already mentioned, the silver lining is that you were not charged with more serious offences. Whilst I don't understand why people travel around with concessions that do not belong to them if there was no intent to avoid paying the correct fare, I can empathise that sometimes people do irrational things at a difficult time. That appears to have been taken into account.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I think your email etc was excluded from the court papers as TFL don't wish to present it as part of their evidence. Their evidence is evidence that you committed the offence. If you choose to attend court you will have the opportunity to present your side of the story in mitigation - this may have some effect in terms of the punishment you receive but probably won't change the fact that you are guilty.

I can't really offer any advice but I do want to offer my sympathies. It sounds like you've been to see your GP and I hope he was some help. You may want to contact these people: http://www.cruse.org.uk/ - they won't be able to help with the ticketing situation but may be able to give you more general support in dealing with the difficulties you're facing at the moment.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,617
Location
Scotland
Having read everything, it does sound as if TFL have been as compassionate as they could in this situation. There is no doubt that a ticketing offence was committed, and given your actions, they could easily have prosecuted you under the Regulation of Railways Act for which the penalties would be much harsher.

I can't give you specific legal advice, but I do not think that the omissions from the file would make any material difference to their case.

If you do plead guilty it may be possible for you to pay the fine in installments if you aren't able to pay it as a one-off.
 

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,694
Full of sympathy with this situation. Most rail companies accept out of court offers but TfL are much less keen on doing so.

It is still possible to contact them and offer a settlement; the worst that they can say is no. The offer would have to be close to the sum being applied for in court but could be a bit less. Given the timings, this might be best done by phone.

If you can't get the settlement in advance, then you need to prepare for court. Given the fine being sort, legal representation does not seem like value for money. As mentioned, a Byelaw conviction should not appear on a DBS search.

I am not a legal expert, so the following comes from common sense and from knowledge based on reading this forum only. It seems like there's no point pleading not guilty? It might therefore be sensible to prepare evidence of your own as mitigation: the emails you sent and your GPs letter. Similarly as noted above, any evidence of financial difficulties might persuade the magistrate to reduce or spread the fine. It is also possible to arrange an out of court settlement on the day - this thread contains some good advice on that.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,329
Having read everything, it does sound as if TFL have been as compassionate as they could in this situation. There is no doubt that a ticketing offence was committed, and given your actions, they could easily have prosecuted you under the Regulation of Railways Act for which the penalties would be much harsher.

I agree, as it was a deliberate act to use the pass the intention to avoid the correct payment is clear and a RoRA offence could easily be proved.
 

Tibbs

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2012
Messages
894
Location
London
Having read everything, it does sound as if TFL have been as compassionate as they could in this situation.

/snip

Given that TfL is in control of the whole process, the most compassionate they could have been would have been not to prosecute.

But it does look they've gone for a non-recordable offence, so settling out of court should be cheaper and if they do take it to court, a conviciton won't leave you with a record, it'll be like a speeding conviction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Full of sympathy with this situation. Most rail companies accept out of court offers but TfL are much less keen on doing so.

It is still possible to contact them and offer a settlement; the worst that they can say is no. The offer would have to be close to the sum being applied for in court but could be a bit less. Given the timings, this might be best done by phone.

If you can't get the settlement in advance, then you need to prepare for court. Given the fine being sort, legal representation does not seem like value for money. As mentioned, a Byelaw conviction should not appear on a DBS search.

I am not a legal expert, so the following comes from common sense and from knowledge based on reading this forum only. It seems like there's no point pleading not guilty? It might therefore be sensible to prepare evidence of your own as mitigation: the emails you sent and your GPs letter. Similarly as noted above, any evidence of financial difficulties might persuade the magistrate to reduce or spread the fine. It is also possible to arrange an out of court settlement on the day - this thread contains some good advice on that.

AFAIK, if you plead guilty you don't have to pay the full fine imposed (you get a discount depending on when you plead guilty), and costs for the other side are limited, though this is based on my experience of speeding offences, and may not apply here.
 
Last edited:

Scared

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2014
Messages
6
Thanks to everyone who responded and also your sympathies.

I'm going to contact the Prosecutions Managers tomorrow once I've got my head around this a bit more. Other forums I've read suggest a persistent/firm yet nice approach can result in them agreeing to an out of court settlement.

When speaking to the PM tomorrow I also plan to explain that I will produce historic bank statements which confirm regular top ups to my oyster to demonstrate that I have nothing done this before and it is a result of the circumstances and my emotions at the time. Does anyone else have any other advice?

Can I ask if there's any way the judge on the day might elevate the charge? So from being considered subject to the relevant Byelaw to RoRa?

I'd like to avoid legal expenses if I can as I've engaged a solicitor to help with the housing issues but I'm fairly emotional right now and will probably crumble if having to represent myself in court.

I have made an agreement with myself that if I am not prosecuted I will make a donation to charity. This whole matter is not lost on me.

Thanks to all again,
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,617
Location
Scotland
I'm going to contact the Prosecutions Managers tomorrow once I've got my head around this a bit more. Other forums I've read suggest a persistent/firm yet nice approach can result in them agreeing to an out of court settlement.
It can work sometimes, but beware that you don't come across too pushy as that can cause any goodwill to go out of the door.
When speaking to the PM tomorrow I also plan to explain that I will produce historic bank statements which confirm regular top ups to my oyster to demonstrate that I have nothing done this before and it is a result of the circumstances and my emotions at the time. Does anyone else have any other advice?
That will have little impact on the likelihood of being found guilty as the Byelaws are based strictly on what happened on the day, they don't take any consideration of intention or previous actions. It's simply a question of did you or did you not use a valid Oyster card to tap in.
Can I ask if there's any way the judge on the day might elevate the charge? So from being considered subject to the relevant Byelaw to RoRa?
To the best of my knowledge, no. It's the prosecution's job to decide what they want to charge you with, it's the judge's job to decide if the evidence supports the case.
I'd like to avoid legal expenses if I can as I've engaged a solicitor to help with the housing issues but I'm fairly emotional right now and will probably crumble if having to represent myself in court.
If you already have a solicitor, then there is no reason that he or she can't represent you in this matter. It doesn't require any specialist knowledge, particularly if you plead guilty and are only presenting mitigating evidence.
I have made an agreement with myself that if I am not prosecuted I will make a donation to charity. This whole matter is not lost on me.
While I fear the court will be getting your money this time rather than a charity, it is a admirable idea.
 

MichaelAMW

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2010
Messages
1,021
I rarely post in these dispute threads as there are experts out there who do so with far greater levels of useful information. However, I normally read them and, based on many broadly similar "cases" that have been discussed before, I would thoroughly endorse others' view that you have been treated lightly. I would just take the consequences - be that conviction or out of court - and learn from the error. We all have difficult experiences in life but there's a need to keep the practical things operating correctly, even when that is difficult. You have other things to worry about; this is now not all that serious a problem.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
You asked why some of the information you gave was omitted from the bundle of papers which the Prosecution have submitted. They are entitled to provide whatever evidence they have, in support of their claim that you committed the Byelaw Offence. They are under no obligation to submit any other facts which do not assist that claim.

If you choose to plea 'Not Guilty', then you will have the opportunity to present your evidence which would demonstrate your innocence or, you would put the Prosecution's evidence to proof (to undermine its credibility where it is defective). But with that Byelaw prosecution, in the circumstances you've described, you have very little chance of a 'Not Guilty' outcome.

If you choose to plea 'Guilty' (and I suspect that you will), or if you plea 'Not Guilty' but the Court decides that you are Guilty, then you will be given an opportunity to explain your circumstances before the Sentence is determined. This is where you explain both the special circumstances on the day of the incident, and the general circumstances of your bereavement, of your financial means and your ability to pay. The Court will take account of your means and circumstances when deciding the level of fine to apply.
It is specifically your duty to make your mitigating circumstances known to the Court - not the duty of the Prosecution.
(If you do plead 'guilty', you will not be discussing details of what happened on the day unless you have found substantial flaws in the Prosecution).

If the Court agrees that you are Not Guilty, that is the end of the matter. If the Court is not persuaded that the Prosecution is sound or that your circumstances do not justify prosecution, you will be given a Discharge, and that is the end of the matter. Otherwise, you will be found Guilty and then the level of charges will be decided. You will not receive a Criminal Record for this minor offence.

Can I ask if there's any way the judge on the day might elevate the charge? So from being considered subject to the relevant Byelaw to RoRa?
No, not at all. If the Prosecution claim to have incurred £260 in costs then that is the most that the Court will award them. But please note that there are four elements to the charges which the Court can require a Guilty Defendant to pay: 1. A Fine *(SEE NOTE BELOW) (Technically may be as much as £1000 for Byelaw offences, typically nearer £100 or more for a first-time offender, but lower with exceptional grounds of mitigation), 2. Costs (the amount claimed by the Prosecution or less than their claim if the Court is not persuaded that the matter has much merit), 3. Victim Surcharge (a sliding scale, probably £20 in this case), and 4, Damages or Losses (the Fare due).

You may attend the Court to make your plea, or you can plead either way in writing to the Court beforehand, and provide your mitigation in writing at the same time.

You may attempt to reach a settlement with the Prosecutor, right up to and including the date of the Hearing. Transport for London have little enthusiasm for such settlements, and to be attractive, they would either have considered that their claim is unsound or that your offer is more attractive than the costs they are likely to recover through the Court. (That's the £260, of which they've already notified you).

Without having the opportunity to discuss this you, I cannot be sure in this assessment, but I will guess that you may have a good prospect of a reduced fine and reduced costs if your mitigation as you've explained it on here is all there is to the incident, and there is absolutely no trace of any previous failures to pay the correct fare in any of your travel.

AFAIK, if you plead guilty you don't have to pay the full fine imposed (you get a discount depending on when you plead guilty), and costs for the other side are limited, though this is based on my experience of speeding offences, and may not apply here.
This is incorrect. The fine imposed (plus costs and VS) is the amount to be paid.
Failure to pay the amount imposed in full, can lead to very unfortunate outcomes.
I see reductions made to the costs Prosecutors apply for every week, sometimes they're reduced to zero, but the reasons relate to the merit of the prosecution, the public interest (in Criminal matters), and the circumstances of the Defendant.
Credits in sentencing follow from mitigation in 4 elements: mitigation of the Offence, mitigation of the Offender, a discount for an early plea, and recommendations of an appropriate outcome. The procedure for credit is clearly defined in Sentencing Council Guidelines, and the Court will be fully aware of these, and will apply them before imposing their Sentence.

* On the mainlines, Railway Byelaw 17 is the only Railway Byelaw which does not carry a penalty. i.e. There is no fine, just costs, so any prosecution can be argued as sterile if there is no criminal penalty to be imposed as a consequence of expending the costs in bringing the prosecution. Exceptionally, in the Transport for London Byelaws, Byelaw 17 is treated no differently from any other, and the same level of fines applies across all TfL Byelaws.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,295
Location
Yorkshire
When speaking to the PM tomorrow I also plan to explain that I will produce historic bank statements which confirm regular top ups to my oyster to demonstrate that I have nothing done this before and it is a result of the circumstances and my emotions at the time
That makes no difference. It's a strict liability offence, which you are guilty of. You are not being accused of having done this previously (irrespective of whether or not you have done so). You are not even accused of having intent (irrespective of whether or not there was)
I'd like to avoid legal expenses if I can ...
Then simply plead guilty. It's not a recordable offence and you have no defence.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
21,175
Location
0035
A couple of posts refer to "Transport for London" but as this case occurred on the Underground it will be prosecuted by London Underground (which is part of TfL). The TfL Prosecutions department only deals with buses cases (at the moment, they are to be merged in the near future). TfL buses are more likely to accept a settlement than LU (although it has been known).

In addition to the three types of charges Dave mentions, the court may also require the defendant to pay Compensation, which is the cash single fare of all fares evaded (determined from the interview at Stratford).
 

bravot

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2014
Messages
37
You asked why some of the information you gave was omitted from the bundle of papers which the Prosecution have submitted. They are entitled to provide whatever evidence they have, in support of their claim that you committed the Byelaw Offence. They are under no obligation to submit any other facts which do not assist that claim.

Along with the 6 series, they have to specifically disclose anything that may undermine the prosecution case.

You asked why some of the information
No, not at all. If the Prosecution claim to have incurred £260 in costs then that is the most that the Court will award them. But please note that there are four elements to the charges which the Court can require a Guilty Defendant to pay: 1. A Fine *(SEE NOTE BELOW) (Technically may be as much as £1000 for Byelaw offences, typically nearer £100 or more for a first-time offender, but lower with exceptional grounds of mitigation), 2. Costs (the amount claimed by the Prosecution or less than their claim if the Court is not persuaded that the matter has much merit), 3. Victim Surcharge (a sliding scale, probably £20 in this case), and 4, Damages or Losses (the Fare due).

I think they meant that can the charge be varied at court.

If so then yes, it can under certain circumstances.
 

Scared

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2014
Messages
6
Hello all, thank you once again for your advice/thoughts.

A couple of posts refer to "Transport for London" but as this case occurred on the Underground it will be prosecuted by London Underground (which is part of TfL). The TfL Prosecutions department only deals with buses cases (at the moment, they are to be merged in the near future). TfL buses are more likely to accept a settlement than LU (although it has been known).

In addition to the three types of charges Dave mentions, the court may also require the defendant to pay Compensation, which is the cash single fare of all fares evaded (determined from the interview at Stratford).

Mojo, thanks for this it's helpful to understand the difference.


I've been trying to call the main LU number to speak to someone in Prosecutions for 20 minutes but no one is answering. I don't auppose anyone has a number?
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
You asked why some of the information you gave was omitted from the bundle of papers which the Prosecution have submitted. They are entitled to provide whatever evidence they have, in support of their claim that you committed the Byelaw Offence. They are under no obligation to submit any other facts which do not assist that claim.

If you choose to plea 'Not Guilty', then you will have the opportunity to present your evidence which would demonstrate your innocence or, you would put the Prosecution's evidence to proof (to undermine its credibility where it is defective). But with that Byelaw prosecution, in the circumstances you've described, you have very little chance of a 'Not Guilty' outcome.

If you choose to plea 'Guilty' (and I suspect that you will), or if you plea 'Not Guilty' but the Court decides that you are Guilty, then you will be given an opportunity to explain your circumstances before the Sentence is determined. This is where you explain both the special circumstances on the day of the incident, and the general circumstances of your bereavement, of your financial means and your ability to pay. The Court will take account of your means and circumstances when deciding the level of fine to apply.
It is specifically your duty to make your mitigating circumstances known to the Court - not the duty of the Prosecution.
(If you do plead 'guilty', you will not be discussing details of what happened on the day unless you have found substantial flaws in the Prosecution).

.

From the Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure :-
1st para.
'Disclosure is one of the most important issues in the criminal justice system and the application of fair and proper disclosure is a vital component of a fair criminal justice system. The ''golden rule'' is that fairness requires full disclosure should be made of all material held by the prosecution that weakens its case or strengthens that of the defence.'
2nd para.
'This amounts to no more and no less than a proper application of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 recently amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.'

There is a lot more on the same lines and would seem to apply to any criminal court proceedings in this country, which we are talking about in this particular case, whether the prosecution is under a by-law or not.

I welcome your response.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
From the Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure :-
1st para.
'Disclosure is one of the most important issues in the criminal justice system and the application of fair and proper disclosure is a vital component of a fair criminal justice system. The ''golden rule'' is that fairness requires full disclosure should be made of all material held by the prosecution that weakens its case or strengthens that of the defence.'
2nd para.
'This amounts to no more and no less than a proper application of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 recently amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.'

There is a lot more on the same lines and would seem to apply to any criminal court proceedings in this country, which we are talking about in this particular case, whether the prosecution is under a by-law or not.

I welcome your response.

Disclosure refers to the Prosecution sharing evidence with the defence - not laying all unused evidence before the court. In this case the unused evidence appears to be an email sent by the OP - therefore the prosecution do not need to disclose this as it originated from the defendant.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,908
Location
0036
A couple of posts refer to "Transport for London" but as this case occurred on the Underground it will be prosecuted by London Underground (which is part of TfL). The TfL Prosecutions department only deals with buses cases (at the moment, they are to be merged in the near future). TfL buses are more likely to accept a settlement than LU (although it has been known).

Whilst true, I doubt this is of use or interest to the average passenger.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
From the Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure :-

. . . . . . .

There is a lot more on the same lines and would seem to apply to any criminal court proceedings in this country, which we are talking about in this particular case, whether the prosecution is under a by-law or not.

I welcome your response.
I agree that the Guidelines advise applying the disclosure test to all material arising from an investigation, however I also agree with DelayRepay's response, that the 'disclosure' we are discussing is the disclosure of material obtained during an investigation, and would not oblige the Prosecution to include the explanation put forward by the accused, an explanation which would be in their own bundle of papers, (unless it was likely to be helpful in a contested hearing to be able to reference the Statement, during examination of a Prosecution Witness, to have the document in the Prosecution's own bundle). And if the explanation was not of assistance to the Prosecution, then why subject it to the 'disclosure test'?
 
Last edited:

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,454
Whilst true, I doubt this is of use or interest to the average passenger.

It can be important, as according to people in the know, one of them is much less likely to settle compared to the other.
 

Scared

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2014
Messages
6
Hello all,

I have an update.

I managed to speak with a Prosecution Support Manager who informed me that TFL/LU’s concern is that because they cannot report on usage prior to 30 days, that use of my mother’s freedom pass goes way beyond the duration they can report on.

He wasn't sympathetic until I burst in to tears when talking about how I came in to possession of the Pass at which point he advised me to write in with anything additional I wish them to consider. I wrote an email confirming the date my mother passed and swore that I had not used the card prior to then as it was in her possession. I also informed him of my personal circumstances and what I have gone through since my mother passed.

In addition, because facts speak louder than words, I included credit card statements from Dec 2013 to current date detailing regular debits to ‘LUL Ticket Machine’ which were my top ups; whilst I am obviously subjective these statements clearly show that for the period prior to my mothers death, from December to April that I made regular top ups, of at least 1-2 times a week.

I received a letter from him today stating:

1. The defendant agrees to pay the sum of £620, thus covering in full the Prosecutors cost incurred to date with regard to the prosecution of the above matter.

2. The defendant will compensate London Underground with the sum of £145.70p, thus representing the fares unpaid between the 11th May 2014 and the 18th June 2014.

3. The defendant agrees to acknowledge their guilt as charged and undertake to avoid any such conduct in the future; namely, knowingly acting in a manner that ensures the train fare payment is avoided.

4. The defendant informs London Underground of their intention to proceed with this alternative disposal no later than the 4.00pm on the 11th November 2014.

5. Monies due under the agreement will be paid to London Underground between now and 4.00pm on the 11th November 2014.

6. The defendant return a signed copy of the attached agreement

7. On the receiving of the above; the Prosecutor will withdraw the case against the defendant.


To me this sum seems super high; whilst it might represent the Prosecutors costs I have put forward my case at every opportunity and tried to settle with them previously. I wonder if the level of this sum (give the Summons said £260) is because they know I’m desperate to avoid court.

Can I please ask for your thoughts?

I do think with everything I have provided the magistrate will agree the mitigating circumstances, lack of intent and that I have always paid my fare. I guess there is the chance the magistrate might increase the £260?

Thanks in advance all.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,295
Location
Yorkshire
... for the period prior to my mothers death, from December to April that I made regular top ups, of at least 1-2 times a week....
So you've been doing this since April? You are very lucky that TfL have agreed to settle out of court in that case.

To me this sum seems super high;
Given what you've now told us, the sum seems rather low, if anything!

I do think with everything I have provided the magistrate will agree the mitigating circumstances, lack of intent ...
You are misunderstanding what we are saying. I also don't think you've read any of the links I provided either.

TfL appear to have clear evidence of your intent to avoid the fare, however they have decided only to prosecute you under for a mere Byelaw offence due to your circumstances.

A Byelaw offence is strict liability matter; there is no accusation of intent involved.

Intent has nothing to do with it.

If you want to contest this, appoint a good solicitor and budget for a substantial sum in costs and fines, and you can expect to be found guilty

and that I have always paid my fare.
That's not what you posted earlier.
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
I guess there is the chance the magistrate might increase the £260?
I have already answered this question, and some of the other points you are raising. Of course it appears that the Prosecutor has now incurred additional costs, and may be making a higher claim to the court, but as I explained previously, the Magistrates do not increase a costs order above the amount requested, but there are the other amounts for the Court to consider imposing (principally a Fine).

I do think with everything I have provided the magistrate will agree the mitigating circumstances, lack of intent and that I have always paid my fare.
The mitigating circumstances should assist in reducing the amount of a fine. They do not seem to provide much use in establishing your innocence. As for the evidence that you "always pay your fare" (apart from the incident in question), this doesn't disprove the claim against you during that incident, though again might be helpful in mitigation of the accused's character (that's you!).

It is possible for the Court to challenge the amount of prosecution costs, and to impose a lower level, particularly if the defence challenge it. I agree that £620 seems high (are we sure that this isn't a simple transcription error of an amount which was £260 a few days ago?); but I don't know the details of your travel history to be able to assess how much time has had to be spent on it.

Do check that the £620 isn't a mistyping of £260 and ask for an explanation if not.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,617
Location
Scotland
So you've been doing this since April? You are very lucky that TfL have agreed to settle out of court in that case.
I read it as the OP provided evidence that they topped up their own Oyster card from April, up until their mother died. They've only used the Freedom Pass since their mother passed away. Sorry, on re-reading the post I take that back, it does sound like they were using the Freedom Pass from April.
 
Last edited:

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
21,175
Location
0035
I wonder if £620 is a Typo. I've never known costs to be so high for a case like that.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,329
I do think with everything I have provided the magistrate will agree the mitigating circumstances, lack of intent and that I have always paid my fare. I guess there is the chance the magistrate might increase the £260?

Thanks in advance all.

How is deliberately using a freedom card for a considerable time which is not yours not intent?
If I was you I would pay up as soon as possible, I think they are being extremely lenient!

If you carry on with your (rather blinkered) view can you please let us know when the Court date is as I would like to watch the proceedings, I will bring the drinks if Flamingo (I assume you will be going as well ;)) brings the popcorn!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wonder if £620 is a Typo. I've never known costs to be so high for a case like that.

Its possibly the costs of preparing and laying the papers at Court or a way of helping the OP out without their supervisor getting ars+y about them being a soft touch for a hard luck story!

I am in no way saying that anything the OP has posted is untrue, just that guilt in this case is easily proved and prosecution departments are there to make an example of fare dodgers.
 

Flamingo

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
6,806
How is deliberately using a freedom card for a considerable time which is not yours not intent?
If I was you I would pay up as soon as possible, I think they are being extremely lenient!

If you carry on with your (rather blinkered) view can you please let us know when the Court date is as I would like to watch the proceedings, I will bring the drinks if Flamingo (I assume you will be going as well ;)) brings the popcorn!

Tea, milk, no sugar please.
 

Scared

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2014
Messages
6
So you've been doing this since April? You are very lucky that TfL have agreed to settle out of court in that case.

Given what you've now told us, the sum seems rather low, if anything!

You are misunderstanding what we are saying. I also don't think you've read any of the links I provided either.

yorkie, I have indeed read everything that everyone has posted and I greatly appreciate your time and everyone else's for responding and offering advice; it is a lot to take in and I am very anxious at the moment.

To those commenting on the usage since April bit, thanks for automatically assuming the worst! According to the report in the Summons pack, usage began in mid-May - a few days before my mother’s funeral so god knows what I was thinking, or it seems not thinking - and I didn't return to work until June so I wasn't using the Pass everyday as I didn't leave the house for days on end some times, plus I was also using my own Oyster card during this period. Perhaps I will query why his letter states April.

It is possible for the Court to challenge the amount of prosecution costs, and to impose a lower level, particularly if the defence challenge it. I agree that £620 seems high (are we sure that this isn't a simple transcription error of an amount which was £260 a few days ago?); but I don't know the details of your travel history to be able to assess how much time has had to be spent on it.

Do check that the £620 isn't a mistyping of £260 and ask for an explanation if not.

Dave, thank you for pointing this out; in my panic at reading the sum it hadn't occurred to me that it could be a typo. I will indeed check this with the Manager on Monday.


Thank you again to everyone for spending your personal time helping OPs on here, if we were friends I'd definitely owe everyone a pint.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top