"Intent to avoid payment" - should I bother fighting?

[najaB]

Intent is not necessarily determined by action.

Since it's impossible to know the content of someone's mind, intent has to be inferred from action. In your example, if the RPI/Guard truly believed you had overslept then that action (sleeping through your stop) would form part of the evidence used to reach a judgement.

In the case on this thread, the decision to threaten a RoRA prosecution should only have been made if they could show the OP intended to travel without a ticket.

How?

I also notice your summary of their actions omits any of the interactions with TOC staff. Those actions clearly don't show an intent to avoid payment. Unless you're discounting those claimed interactions as there's no proof they happened?

Indeed. If it had come to Court it would have been up to the OP to provide proof of what was said - simply saying "The man on the platform said..." wouldn't be enough.

 

[falcon]

I just received a letter from c2c Rail Prosecution Dept informing me that legal proceedings have now commenced against me.

They state that I was travelling between West Ham and Basildon without paying the fare due and "contend that the intention of [me] was to travel on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof". Naturally they want money: £110 (contribution towards prosecution costs) + £7.90 (the unpaid fare). Or I can pay £65 (admin fees) + £7.90 (the unpaid fare) to settle the matter without prejudice.

I accept that I was travelling without a valid ticket (though I believed I was due to incorrect advice from station staff - see below) but not that I had any intent to avoid paying (I tried to pay several times as soon as I was told I didn't actually have a valid ticket). Should I bother fighting this prosecution or should I go against all my natural instincts and just pay the settlement fees?

In (sort of) brief - I was travelling from London to Basildon, a trip I make about twice every year. I usually go via Barking but the Gospel Oak-Barking line is currently closed so I went via tube (using my PAYG Oyster Card) to West Ham and caught the c2c from there to Basildon.

At the changeover there's an Oyster tap in/out post and I tapped twice (out and then in, it wasn't very clear so I took a belt 'n braces approach) and went up to the platform. As I stood there I remembered that at Barking you have to tap out with your Oyster, buy a c2c ticket to Basildon and then go back through the same barrier with the new ticket. It seemed likely that despite the Oyster in/out post, I should do the same for this journey.

So I went back into West Ham station and went to the Assistance booth where two members of staff were sitting/standing. I told them I was transferring to National Rail from the tube and asked them if I should tap out, buy a new ticket and come back.

*I should note here that I am particularly scrupulous about this as 4 years ago I changed from the tube to National Rail at Kentish Town and was told at St Albans (along with 5 or 6 other similarly confused passengers) that my Oyster wasn't valid so I had to pay the penalty fare. (I guess that's why c2c have gone straight to prosecuting me.) It's hard to keep track as TfL are increasing their Oyster validity zones all the time so I always ask if I'm in any doubt.*

They told me I didn't have to do that as my Oyster Card was valid at Basildon. I asked them if they were sure and they said yes. I replied that TfL must have increased their Oyster Zone since I last travelled there in May, and went back to the platform - tapping in again for good measure.

When a ticket/Revenue Inspector (they were working as a gang and in plain clothes but I'm not sure what type they were) on the train asked for my ticket and I blithely showed him my Oyster Card, he looked at me as if I were mad. It turns out that I was correct and the two members of staff at West Ham station were incorrect. My Oyster Card was NOT valid at Basildon. Hence this morning's letter from c2c.

I filed a complaint with TfL that same day and they are currently looking for CCTV footage of me asking the members of staff about the ticketing procedure (though as I doubt there's sound I suppose I could have been saying anything to them).

I have (of course) written an indignant letter to c2c objecting in the strongest terms to their accusations of criminal intent on my part, which I consider defamatory, explaining the situation and informing them of the TfL complaint and CCTV evidence. I enclosed a cheque paying for the ticket.

However, I'm not sending the letter until Monday as I want to get proof of postage, and in the meantime I'm wondering if I should bother. I know that legal justice is often different to actual justice but I'm furious they've accused me of intent to avoid payment and feel that if I settle it's an admission that I did something intentionally criminal, which I did not.

I wondered if anyone here has had a similar experience and if so whether they could advise me whether I should storm the barricades or just lie down and hand over the money and seethe about it privately.

Thanks!

Contrary to some of the advice already given. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove intent NOT on the defendant to prove no intent.

If the defendant states on oath in court that he was given advice by staff that it was OK for him to travel as described the prosecution have to provide evidence to contradict that, it's a rule of law "that in the abcence of any contradictory evidence that which has been put can be believed". The defendant does not have to prove anything.

In this case if there is cctv and it cannot be produced after it has been accepted by the prosecution that cctv in fact exists it would look like a not guilty all the way. With a defendants costs order as well.

 

[sheff1]

If it had come to Court it would have been up to the OP to provide proof of what was said - simply saying "The man on the platform said..." wouldn't be enough.

Yet in post #10 you said:

Thinking about it some more, you don't need to prove that the staff member allowed you to travel, just introduce reasonable doubt that they did.

So which is it - provide proof or introduce doubt ?

 

[najaB]

So which is it - provide proof or introduce doubt ?

You are correct, 'provide evidence strong enough evidence to introduce doubt about the prosecution's case' would be more accurate. Apologies for being lazy with my phrasing.

'The man on the platform said...' wouldn't be likely to meet that requirement.

 

[exile]

You are correct, 'provide evidence strong enough evidence to introduce doubt about the prosecution's case' would be more accurate. Apologies for being lazy with my phrasing.

'The man on the platform said...' wouldn't be likely to meet that requirement.

It would if stated under oath.

 

[najaB]

It would if stated under oath.

"A man on the platform said..." would not be evidence enough as you can't cross-examine "a man". If it could be narrowed down to a specific person however, then it would have some weight.

I believe the fact that the OP in this case had filed a complaint with TfL was likely the key factor in the favourable outcome.

 

[DaleCooper]

It would if stated under oath.

That is terribly naive, it must be commonplace for courts to hear two testimonies under oath which give diametrically opposed accounts of an event.

 

[Agent_c]

It would if stated under oath.

If you're a judge and you have a defendant who says he didn't do it, and someone who has no personal stake in the outcome saying he did:

1: Who are you going to believe
2: whom are you going to place the burden of proof to prove the opposite.

Defendants I would say have an automatic credibility problem, a guilty defendant has an incentive to lie... oaths don't magically make people tell the truth.

 

[rs101]

So how is someone supposed to prove their interaction with a member of staff? Record it on their phone, ask them to sign a transcript?

Extending your logic, anything a TOC employee claims happened should be doubted unless they also have secondary evidence of it. I assume you've already campaigned for body cameras on RPIs so their evidence could have value.

 

[Greenback]

The OP has confirmed that the prosecution has been dropped, so this seems to be a good point at which to close this thread.