Is your goal here to avoid prosecution altogether? Did the solicitor write the first mitigation letter or did you? It’s very unusual but not unheard of for TfL to withdraw cases after a requisition or SJPN has been issued.
TfL may place a lower weight on any medical mitigation if it wasn’t raised at the first instance. Any letter you get from the GP will need to be very specific, refer to a diagnosis, and explain in detail how either:
- it would not be in the public interest to prosecute you for the offending because you were less culpable owing to your condition, or
- it would not be in the public interest to prosecute you because your condition means the consequences for you would be so wildly disproportionate
You don’t need to tell us your medical history, but “I have mental issues and trauma” probably wouldn’t cut it - you will need something very detailed from the GP. For example, if they diagnose you with PTSD they can explain how this specifically affects your judgment.
Are you attending court in order for the other offences to be taken into consideration?
TfL prosecute the vast majority of cases involving high value passes or child Oysters; they consider these offences of the highest seriousness and repeated offending of this nature (33 is still a LOT of fare dodging!) is an aggravating factor when it comes to making a decision to prosecute. About 20,000 people are prosecuted by TfL every year for similar offences, to give some perspective. It’s a big prosecution machine and they don’t have much time for excuses unless they are especially compelling. However, the use of a solicitor may increase your chances of a warning and withdrawal of the case somewhat.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, just for some context this is the mitigation letter written by my lawyer and the response from the prosecution:
"We are instructed by the above-named client.
We ask that you consider disposing the matter by way of paragraphs 6.3, 8.3e, 8.3f, 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6a-f.
We request that you apply all of the above criteria in this matter as potential outcomes to resolve the matter by way of formal warning or settlement on terms as approved by you.
Applying the above to the facts of this case to the policy, we submit as follows;
There is attached to this letter an indexed and paginated bundle of documents. Numbers in square brackets [ ] are references to this bundle of documents.
Our client is willing to admit the irregular travel and is deeply remorseful for his actions [3]. He has taken this matter extremely seriously and is at very low risk of reoffending. We have made it clear to our client that his conduct was unacceptable, no matter what he was going through at the time, and he has taken that feedback on board. He accepts full responsibility and is committed to ensuring this does not happen again. He has been through an acutely trying time, as set out below. It is important to note that our client used a child Oyster card on 17 occasions only; a spreadsheet of these journeys is attached for reference [4]. Outside of these isolated incidents, he has a clear and consistent record of paying for his travel, as shown in his attached journey history [9-14]. Our client states: “I have spent a lot of time reflecting on what happened, and I honestly feel ashamed of how I handled the situation. I didn’t just break the rules of a public system… I went against my own values. Values like honesty, fairness, and taking responsibility, which I now realise I let slip more than once.” He continues, “What I did was wrong… I made this choice more than once, and I accept that completely… The truth is, no personal situation justifies repeatedly making the wrong choice.” He also reflects: “I realise now that paying for travel is not just about following a rule… by choosing not to pay, I was not only acting selfishly, I was letting others down.” He writes that the experience has “forced me to properly stop and reflect… I will never put myself in this position again,” and that he is “truly sorry that my behaviour has affected others and led to this situation.” Our client further acknowledges the personal impact of his actions, noting, “The card I was using was only ever for getting to and from university, and now I see how my own actions have put the very future I am working so hard for at risk. I will never, ever jeopardise that again.”[3] Our client has assured us that this will never happen again, and he has shown genuine insight and remorse for his actions.
Our client has been carrying a significant burden of responsibility within his household, acting as a primary source of support for his mother and three younger siblings. His mother suffers from severe osteoarthritis and underwent a bilateral knee operation due to the early and debilitating onset of the condition [15]. Despite the surgery, she continues to experience substantial pain and restricted mobility, only able to walk approximately 150 yards before needing to rest [15]. Dr Patel, describes her condition as “severe and constant and therefore prevents her from working.” [15]. As a result, the family has no stable source of income and is reliant on benefits [16 - 21]. Mrs Bhat, our client’s mother states that our client “takes on a lot of responsibility for his younger siblings,”[22] helping to care for them day to day while managing his own challenges. The financial instability caused by her inability to work was a key factor in the family’s eviction from their home on 6 November 2024 [23 – 24]. They are now living in temporary council accommodation [25 – 31], and despite being out of work and facing significant personal strain, our client showed determination by securing a place as a first-year law student at London South Bank University [32], with the goal of building a stable and meaningful future. The combination of these ongoing pressures and responsibilities put our client under immense emotional and financial stress potentially effecting our client’s decision making at the time of offending.
It was during this period of instability and heightened pressure that our client made the decision to travel using the child Oyster card, solely for the purpose of commuting to and from university [33 – 40]. While he fully accepts that this conduct was wrong, it occurred in the context of serious personal hardship, ongoing uncertainty, and a sense of obligation to support his family. He has taken full responsibility and expressed deep remorse, as outlined above [3]. Should he receive a conviction, the consequences would extend well beyond legal repercussions. It would likely prevent him from pursuing his intended career in law, where integrity and good character are fundamental and could result in disciplinary action or potentially expulsion from his university under its student code of conduct and disciplinary procedure [41 - 70]. These risks would not only jeopardise his future but also compound the difficulties already faced by the family who depend on him. In light of everything he has endured, it is clear that his conduct was due to a lapse in judgement made under considerable strain, rather than a reflection of our client’s character.
In addition to the above, our client was recently granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme [71 – 76], providing a long-awaited sense of stability following years of uncertainty. While a conviction may not directly result in the loss of ILR, it can still carry adverse consequences, particularly in relation to future applications for British citizenship, which require the applicant to be of “good character.” Should our client receive criminal conviction this could seriously impact future steps towards naturalisation and undermine the progress he has made in establishing a secure and lawful presence in the UK.
Our client is young, he is 21 years old further to 8.2(c) of the policy. He has a bright future. He has accepted his guilt and shown remorse. We all make mistakes in our lives and hope that our mistakes can be forgiven in most circumstances. This young man deserves a second chance in circumstances where the public interest will be upheld and served by an alternative approach.
Having referred to the Public Interest Stage of the Prosecutors Code, you will note 4.9 sets out that the public interest must be considered in every case. 4.10 sets out, ‘It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. In some cases, the prosecutor may be satisfied that the public interest can be properly served by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal rather than bringing a prosecution. We would suggest this is the appropriate remedy in this case given their circumstances.
Our client has no previous convictions and is of good character.
Ms. Bhat, our client’s mother, expressed that she was “very disappointed” upon learning of our client’s conduct, emphasising that she has always raised him “to value honesty and to take full responsibility for his choices.” She observed that she has “never seen our client so ashamed” and that he “could not even look me in the eyes” when discussing what had happened. She described the emotional toll this has taken on him, stating, “he has been scared, ashamed, and overwhelmed by the real possibility of losing everything he has worked so hard for.” Despite her disappointment, she believes this has been a turning point for him, concluding that “he has not taken this lightly and has the ability to come out of this a better person.” [22].
Our client is young, he is 21 years old. We understand that our client has brought this upon himself by being so careless, but it is clear he has faced significant challenges. We ask that you be kind to him and give him a second chance as we found him to be a very pleasant person who is trying his best at life. We are sure he will not cause you any further issues in the future. This was not premeditated or planned in any significant way.
It is clear that our client will not reoffend again given the specific circumstances of this case and their apologies to you.
You will note under the Code you must consider if prosecution is a proportionate response. We submit that this would not be proportionate given the above.
You will note under paragraph 7.1 that an out of court disposal can take place if appropriate. You have an admission of guilt and the public interest would be served by such disposal.
We attach supporting documents for the above.
Our client shall of course be willing comply with any terms and conditions that the manager decides is reasonable in the situation should 8.3 or 8.4 be deemed applicable of your policy. They would like the chance to make amends. They appreciate this is down to your discretion.
We wait to hear from you whether the matter can be resolved through section 6.3, 8.2d, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6a-f of your prosecution policy. We thank you for your time spent reviewing these submissions.
Yours faithfully"
The response from the prosecution (rejection):
"Dear Holly,
Thank you for your representations regarding your above named client.
On 20/02/25 he was spoken to by a member of the revenue team at Liverpool Street mainline station. He had entered through the ticket barriers into the compulsory ticket area using a child’s 11-15 Oyster Zipcard. This zipcard did not belong to him and he was not entitled to use it.
Further investigations indicate the pass had been used on a 159 other occasions. He admits that when he was stopped, it was not the first time he had used it for travel and says he used it on 33 occasions. A small degree of planning was involved as this was not a one off mistake.
TfL take very seriously the misuse of concessionary passes and the pass used contained a photo and the name of the registered holder and was clearly not transferrable. There are numerous notices around the TfL system warning of the consequences of fare evasion.
Whilst the value of individual fares may seem low, the cumulative effect to TfL is significant. The sustained misuse of concessionary non transferrable tickets is an area of high revenue loss and TfL loses circa £120million per annum due to fare evasion.
I further note his circumstances that you have described concerning a conviction. It would be inappropriate for TfL to pursue a policy not to prosecute in certain types of professions which would lead to discriminatory policy for certain professionals as opposed to other members of the public. As a law student he would have been acutely aware of the need to preserve his good character.
We intend to continue with the prosecution.
Yours sincerely
Alana Simpson
Investigator/Prosecutor
Investigations Appeals & Prosecutions | Compliance Policing Operations & Security
9G4 Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ"
-
My goal is to avoid prosecution altogether if possible, though I understand that given the circumstances (especially the number of offences), this might be difficult.
-
Once again appreciate you guys reading this and giving advice. 
