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!
Do we honestly think the prosecutor has even read the correspondence? I don't.
These processes are as boilerplate as they come. You even see the same grammatical mistakes in these letters time and time again. The idea that a prosecutor is carefully weighing up the evidence and making an assessment of both the evidential test and the public interest test is fanciful.
There's an entire section which you have censored and also haven't included in your extract.
The purpose of asking what this says is to see what the witness has said about a) the language used and b) the alleged smoking.
It's up to you whether you reveal what this says or not- and you should still redact any identifying information. But if the witness statement does not refer to either abusive language or smoking then that is interesting information.
Her response has made precisely zero difference to how the matter has progressed. Of course nobody (or nobody with any sense, anyway) is going to say "sure I was intending to avoid the fare".
It wouldn't stop them addressing the matter but it may come in to play now that she has asked them to settle out of court. She is asking for a favour, would they be more likely to help someone who has shown they have tried to cooperate? Why would they help someone who has lied to them and made things more difficult by being obtuse?
You say nobody with any sense would admit to avoiding the fare, but by saying she bought the child's ticket because it was cheaper IS admitting to it.
When questioned they admitted they were 18 years old, in view of their age, they were not entitled to a child rate ticket. From the reported conversation, post #28.
I could have missed something but there seems to be some confusion over the daughter's age between the conversation on the day she was stopped and the title of this thread.
I genuinely don’t understand the point of the question tbh. As you say, they don’t necessarily need the admission to prove intent (it’s what a “reasonable person” would think is dishonest). Nobody with any sense is going to agree with the premise of the question: the clever ones will say no comment and the less clever ones will say no.
Intent is irrelevant in this case anyway, as a Byelaws offence is strict liability.
I think people on here sometimes greatly over-estimate the time the prosecutors spend on these cases. They don’t sit and weigh up the pros and cons of a case and carefully assess just how contrite someone is, it’s all just a sausage machine.
I could have missed something but there seems to be some confusion over the daughter's age between the conversation on the day she was stopped and the title of this thread.
It would appear that the RPI has said the person was over 18 at the time they were stopped when the person was not over the age of 18 at the time. I can only imagine the RPI has used a template witness statement which includes that statement on it.
In this case it doesn’t affect the offence of fare evasion as the person wasn’t under the age of 16 and so not entitled to a child rate ticket. Also the SJP can be used when a person is aged 18 at charge (even if they were under 18 at offence).
If Chiltern don’t agree to a settlement and it goes to trial then it could be of some use as a way of undermining the evidence of the RPI, especially with regards to the charges of smoking and abusive language. I would point out the error (it’s easier to rely on it in a trial if you’ve highlighted it already) but I wouldn’t over-egg it at this stage though as, really, the OP needs Chiltern to agree to a settlement.
Because no comment means simply that - neither a denial, a lie, or an admission. Saying nothing when caught is sometimes in your best interests. The value of learning to shut up cannot be underestimated.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It would appear that the RPI has said the person was over 18 at the time they were stopped when the person was not over the age of 18 at the time. I can only imagine the RPI has used a template witness statement which includes that statement on it.
I agree this is most likely - I note they looked at the OP's daughter's driving licence and noted the date, would this tally with what is actually on the licence, and confirm that they are in fact 17 at the time of the stop?
The question asked by the RPI about intent is utterly ridiculous. “You were intending to avoid the fare, do you agree?”
The only sensible response to that question is “no comment”. As @AlterEgo says, when dealing with officialdom the skill is in learning when to shut the heck up.
It would appear that the RPI has said the person was over 18 at the time they were stopped when the person was not over the age of 18 at the time. I can only imagine the RPI has used a template witness statement which includes that statement on it.
In this case it doesn’t affect the offence of fare evasion as the person wasn’t under the age of 16 and so not entitled to a child rate ticket. Also the SJP can be used when a person is aged 18 at charge (even if they were under 18 at offence).
Unless I am missing something, it also appears the Op implied had been vaping, but stopped now, in the witness statement conversation. Not a good look if under 18 (isn't it illegal under 18). The first time fine for vaping is usually £50-200 so should budget to pay top amount (£200) plus admin fee too.
I can see why Chiltern are unhappy, one minute wants to act as a child (buying child ticket), then admitting doing adult things. I do wonder if the version given to the parent reflects what actually happened, or has since been toned down and changed now court is threatened.
However vaping- antisocial as it may be- isn’t illegal under the Byelaws, because the Byelaws haven’t been updated to reflect the use of electronic cigarettes.
The Byelaws say it is unlawful to carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter or other lighted item and a vape quite simply doesn’t meet that definition.
The question about intention to avoid paying the correct fare should have been worded " was it" not "is it" in my opinion. Answering no to the "is it " question to me means that at this moment I do not intend to avoid paying the correct fare and will pay whatever is due. Being guilty to the charge of not having a valid ticket is unchanged by this but it should not be used to indicate any disrespectful behaviour IMO.
I received this today. I guess the best option is to plead guilty. As she clearly didn’t purchase the correct ticket. I know the foul language and vaping is challenge-able but either way she’s guilty of the first point. Can I just confirm that the criminal record won’t be on the police database though?
It certainly seems as thought the associated charges have meant that they are taking a hard line. Your daughter's only options now appear to be to seek the advice of a solicitor or plead guilty to any or all of the charges against her.
Your daughter should only plead guilty to offences that she is guilty of. If she is adamant that she isn't guilty of using foul and abusive language then she should plead not guilty. The vaping is an interesting one and would be subject to legal argument about the exact wording of the byelaw, but if she's pleading not guilty to the abusive charge then she should plead not guilty to that too and have the legal argument in court.
(In simple terms, the Byelaw says you mustn't use a lighted item and vapes are not lighted items. This is also why vapes aren't covered by the indoor smoking ban.)
If she does, on reflection, accept she is guilty of all offences then she should also make sure she provides full details of her income, otherwise any fine will be set based on an assumed income. As she's 18 her income is likely to be far lower than this assumed income. She may also wish to provide mitigation, such as her mental health difficulties, although the problem is that under the SJP these mitigation statements are frequently ignored.
If the TOC have evidence that she was abusive then this would explain their stance.
I received this today. I guess the best option is to plead guilty. As she clearly didn’t purchase the correct ticket. I know the foul language and vaping is challenge-able but either way she’s guilty of the first point. Can I just confirm that the criminal record won’t be on the police database though?
No, unless the BTP were involved and / or similar complexities beyond what has been mentioned in this thread so far. However it is a criminal record, which will be spent 1 year after paying the ensuing fine and costs. It is also very unlikely to appear on a DBS or Enhanced DBS, but for the Enhanced DBS no-one can totally guarantee that, since it is role specific. The bigger issue will be that employers, voluntary organisations, some educational establishments may ask the question along the lines of "have you been cautioned or received a criminal conviction?" There is a framework around this in terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders, and lots of complexities. Mostly employers won't be too bothered by the ticketing offence, or I suspect vaping. Abusive language could cause further enquiries but being 17 at the time will help. In Protected, Regulated and some voluntary sector roles it's a bigger problem to fail to mention a criminal record than the contents of the record itself. However for a big majority of job roles, after 1 year she need not mention it even if asked.
My commiserations to you and your daughter, I wish we didn't do things like this, even accepting that if she is old enough to vape, she is old enough to face up to her responsibilities.
She might also not be guilty of 18(2) either - the company has paraphrased it to add the word "valid" that does not appear in the original:
18.
Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
...
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
Was she asked to hand over her ticket (for the stated purposes)?
Did she do so?
Normally, a different offence is charged when someone's ticket is presented but found not to be valid.
Where exactly did this happen at Birmingham Moor Street? On a platform? After passing through the ticket barriers? Before there?
If she'd passed through the barriers using that ticket, it could be interesting for the company to argue what she used to pass through the barrier and presented to the inspector was not her ticket.
Birmingham Moor Street may be considered to have a Compulsory Ticket Area [see other threads for the debate] so it may also be arguable whether or not 18(2) is applicable. [But 17(2) is identical and it's only the ignorable heading that distinguishes them, so I suspect this wouldn't be fatal to the charge.]
Those are two technical points upon which you might wish to take legal advice.
Then are you saying no evidence has been offered in support of the abuse charge so far, providing no basis for a court to convict?
And vaping falls outside the scope of the third charge (which is surely something any prosecutor would be expected to know)?
Does that amount to three flawed charges? What is going on?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
On the 18(2) point, the company's evidence concedes that she "produced *a* ... ticket". So I think the only room left for argument is whether "a" ticket was, in law, "her" ticket?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And also on the smoking point, a reminder that the court has to be satisfied about the notice before it can impose a penalty so it would have been sensible for Chiltern to have included evidence of the specific notice in question that lead to the charge:
24(4) Notices
No person shall be subject to any penalty for breach of any of the Byelaws by disobeying a notice unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court before whom the complaint is laid that the notice referred to in the particular Byelaw was displayed.
I received this today. I guess the best option is to plead guilty. As she clearly didn’t purchase the correct ticket. I know the foul language and vaping is challenge-able but either way she’s guilty of the first point. Can I just confirm that the criminal record won’t be on the police database though?
A conviction under the Railway Byelaws (whether it is dealt with under the SJPN system or in peron at a Magistrates Court) is a criminal conviction. My understanding is that byelaw convictions aren't normally recorded on the Police National Computer and ordinarily won't show on DBS checks. That said, a criminal conviction is a matter of public record and there are other ways for organisations to check convictions so it is possible that a byelaw conviction could be disclosed in certain situations.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
