Help with Single Justice Procedure

[Fawkes Cat]

The simple way out of this is to plead guilty online or by post: my expectation is that you would get a fine, plus court and prosecution costs and not have to physically go to court. Having pleaded guilty you would have a 'criminal record' which you would have to reveal in some (but not all) circumstances: broadly, if you are in or apply for a job where personal trustworthiness is important. And you should also note that just because a new job wants to know if you have a criminal record, that doesn't always mean that they won't take you on if you have one,

So while that's the simple way out, it's not cheap and it's not painless. It's also (as people have already said) possible that you aren't guilty of the offence which you have been charged with. But you need to assess whether any alternative route is better.

(edited to correct typo: non > new)

 

[furlong]

Also you say you were made to purchase another ticket and you did so. Therefore you do not owe the railway any money for this journey as at no point did you ride on a train without a valid ticket? Is that correct? Do you still have that ticket you bought, or evidence of it (receipt, card statement)?

Does the paperwork (as it normally does) say anything about asking the court, if you are convicted, to order you to pay them compensation including the fare and if so what figure(s) do they give?

 

[pfanta]

Also you say you were made to purchase another ticket and you did so. Therefore you do not owe the railway any money for this journey as at no point did you ride on a train without a valid ticket? Is that correct? Do you still have that ticket you bought, or evidence of it (receipt, card statement)?

Does the paperwork (as it normally does) say anything about asking the court, if you are convicted, to order you to pay them compensation including the fare and if so what figure(s) do they give?

You are correct, however I don't have that ticket anymore unfortunately.

I haven't seen anything like that, the only part of the letter that mentions money, is a part that say "The cash fare value for this EL journey is £11.60"

 

[spag23]

Are we all missing something here? I'd been assuming the alleged offence related solely to a standalone Paddington>Heathrow journey.
But all this mention of TfL inspectors and Elizabeth Line journeys might suggest it might relate (also?) to the EL leg of the journey, ie to Paddington. Was it this journey that was on a Child ticket and challenged at the barriers?
I again confess ignorance of the station layout.

 

[furlong]

Also (unless I missed it) you need to tell us whether it is the TfL byelaws or the National Rail byelaws they are using.
As I understand it, the (shared) platforms would be covered by the National Rail ones but the trains by the TfL ones - can anyone confirm that? The National Rail ones define CTA in line with NR Penalty Fares so I don't see how they could be used as there are no NR CTA posters there. The TfL ones rely on a tiny difficult-to-read not-very-obvious notice on each ticket gate which doesn't explicitly say what is required to create a CTA but might nevertheless be interpreted as implying that one begins at the mid-point of the barrier. Neither set of byelaws encompasses an attempted breach. In any case, if the barrier prevented you from passing through it, then I don't understand how either version of 17(1) could have any relevance to the situation described if you never entered the purported CTA.

 

[island]

Also (unless I missed it) you need to tell us whether it is the TfL byelaws or the National Rail byelaws they are using.

Breaching section 17 of the National Rail byelaws isn't an offence, so it will necessarily be the TfL byelaws.

As I understand it, the (shared) platforms would be covered by the National Rail ones but the trains by the TfL ones - can anyone confirm that?

Platforms aren't "covered" by one type of byelaws or another.

The National Rail ones define CTA in line with NR Penalty Fares so I don't see how they could be used as there are no NR CTA posters there.

See previous

The TfL ones rely on a tiny difficult-to-read not-very-obvious notice on each ticket gate which doesn't explicitly say what is required to create a CTA but might nevertheless be interpreted as implying that one begins at the mid-point of the barrier.

The TfL byelaws just say a CTA is anywhere with notices that say a ticket is required to enter that area.

Neither set of byelaws encompasses an attempted breach.

Indeed.

In any case, if the barrier prevented you from passing through it, then I don't understand how either version of 17(1) could have any relevance to the situation described if you never entered the purported CTA.

Quite so – which is why several people have advised the OP to plead not guilty.

 

[furlong]

Breaching section 17 of the National Rail byelaws isn't an offence, so it will necessarily be the TfL byelaws.

It is an "offence" as per 24(1) "Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence" but one that does not attract a financial penalty under the byelaws.

Platforms aren't "covered" by one type of byelaws or another.

If an event occurs on NR property, I don't see how TfL byelaws can be applied.

"railway" means:
(a)the railways and railway premises of Transport for London and any of its
subsidiaries including any train, other vehicle, station, depot, track and any
associated equipment; and
(b)any train, or other vehicle and any associated equipment which is for the time
being used by a person or body for the purposes of providing railway services
under an agreement with Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries;

Whereas the NR byelaws include Railtrack property.

The TfL byelaws just say a CTA is anywhere with notices that say a ticket is required to enter that area

.
Indeed, and do you think the "Penalty Fare or Prosecution if you pass this point and fail to show on demand..." indirect style of wording (which is currently used in that section of the station) would be likely to meet that definition?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The TfL byelaws just say a CTA is anywhere with notices that say a ticket is required to enter that area.

Indeed, and do you think the "Penalty Fare or Prosecution if you pass this point and fail to show on demand..." indirect style of wording (which is currently used in that section of the station) would be likely to meet that definition?

This seems to be an argument about what the wording of the byelaw means. It seems to me that it would be a very brave defendant who would take this on without employing a lawyer who (a) might be familiar with whether the meaning had already been settled and so whether the argument had any chance of success, and (b) could present the argument as convincingly as possible.

 

[furlong]

This seems to be an argument about what the wording of the byelaw means. It seems to me that it would be a very brave defendant who would take this on without employing a lawyer who (a) might be familiar with whether the meaning had already been settled and so whether the argument had any chance of success, and (b) could present the argument as convincingly as possible.

Amongst other problems, I think the offence becomes self-referential and the notice only works if the reader assumes that someone prosecuted is necessarily guilty of an offence - but of course people who haven't committed any offence can be and frequently are prosecuted and found not guilty so the notice is merely a poor attempt at implying something rather than actually requiring it. I can't imagine why they obfuscated this when the byelaws already provide suitable unambiguous words. But the fact there's a physical barrier blocking the way might be enough to overcome any technicalities about the meaning.