Thank you.
I wouldn't laugh about things if I were you, I'm not sure you appreciate the seriousness of the consequences
-
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!
TIL Letter recieved
- Thread starter narnz
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn't laugh about things if I were you, I'm not sure you appreciate the seriousness of the consequences
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As Flamingos question is still unanswered I will ask it again!
Just because it isnt stamped or anything doesnt mean you can use it again!
The ticket is valid for one journey whether it is stamped or not!
Had you used the ticket to travel though?
Just because it isnt stamped or anything doesnt mean you can use it again!
The ticket is valid for one journey whether it is stamped or not!
Last edited:
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
I think that we've established the balance of probabilities is that he had used the ticket before, and in the fullness of time we will have another thread (possibly under another username) concerning the forthcoming prosecution for multiple journeys using unstamped tickets...
Yeah because i really need to hide behind seperate usernames also. I came here for help and advice.
I made a mistake and i am not the only only person, nor will i be the last.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am not laughing at the situation but a simple smile to that reply. I do understand the seriousness of the offence.
Narz, could you do me a favour and confirm that the sequence of events was as I outlined in my reply to your original post. Also, could you answer if you had or had not used the ticket previously. It's impossible to give you any useful advice without all the facts.
Thank you.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I can't agree with najaB, Flamingo or 455driver that narnz needs to explain any more about the details of the incident before appropriate advice can be given. I am satisfied that enough has been said.
I can expand slightly on the advice I've already given : the Courts will no longer tolerate any attempt to surprise the Prosecution with a defence that hasn't been disclosed and explained to the Prosecution both in its outline argument and in terms of its evidence. Any technical 'errors' in the Summons cannot be the subject of a last minute excuse. This situation cannot arise if errors are corrected at the appropriatel time, and that means that any discrepancy of date or station will be clarified to ensure that the Prosecution proceeds based on the actual Evidence.
If the facts are not borne out by Evidence then the matter should not proceed.
The 'letter' is not the Summons.
Hopefully this provides a little more detail in answer to the actual question which narn has been asking on here.
I will add that any Defence, no matter how innocent or culpable the Defendant was, nor how helpful or silent they are in providing evidence, can benefit from putting the Prosecution Evidence to proof.
Sadly, many Railway personnel are as 'forgetful' or 'innatentive' as their passengers. Where the Prosecution Evidence fails on lack of robust and substantiated fact by the time it gets to Court, then it fails.
This is the advice that narnz needs at present.
And I don't think there's any more to be said right now. Sorry to disagree with some of my good forum colleagues.
I can expand slightly on the advice I've already given : the Courts will no longer tolerate any attempt to surprise the Prosecution with a defence that hasn't been disclosed and explained to the Prosecution both in its outline argument and in terms of its evidence. Any technical 'errors' in the Summons cannot be the subject of a last minute excuse. This situation cannot arise if errors are corrected at the appropriatel time, and that means that any discrepancy of date or station will be clarified to ensure that the Prosecution proceeds based on the actual Evidence.
If the facts are not borne out by Evidence then the matter should not proceed.
The 'letter' is not the Summons.
Hopefully this provides a little more detail in answer to the actual question which narn has been asking on here.
I will add that any Defence, no matter how innocent or culpable the Defendant was, nor how helpful or silent they are in providing evidence, can benefit from putting the Prosecution Evidence to proof.
Sadly, many Railway personnel are as 'forgetful' or 'innatentive' as their passengers. Where the Prosecution Evidence fails on lack of robust and substantiated fact by the time it gets to Court, then it fails.
This is the advice that narnz needs at present.
And I don't think there's any more to be said right now. Sorry to disagree with some of my good forum colleagues.
Last edited:
Dave is exactly right of course.
On a forum such as this we always only see one side of the dispute, that of the accused person.
What forum users do not have the benefit of is any evidence that the inspector may have recorded and reported.
If that report & statement is challenged at Court then a trial will take place at which both the defendant and reporting inspector will give live evidence on oath and the Magistrates will make their decision.
If the inspector has recorded evidence, which confirms that the traveller knowingly attempted to use an invalid ticket to travel, thereby attempting to avoid the correct fare, an offence contrary to Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act [1889] can be pursued
To prove that offence the prosecutor will need to show that the traveller knew that a fare was due and that the ticket being used was invalid. If the claim is that the ticket had been previously used, the inspector should have reported evidence to support his or her claim.
It has repeatedly been said that the defendant will be judged on their words and actions at the time, not what they might decide to say much later, nor what may have appeared in subsequent correspondence.
If the prosecution cannot prove the offence, then any Court will acquit.
Narnz, you have received some excellent advice. I agree with DaveNewcastle that you don't have to answer all of the questions here, but you may well have to at some point.
As has been said, none of us know what evidence the company may have, and it's not a certainty that any evidence will fail the test of proof should matters ever get to court.
That being said, I think that it's not likely that this will proceed to court unless there is very clear and good quality evidence that it wasn't a genuine mistake and you have done this before.
While 'traveled without a valid ticket' might be shorthand for 'traveled or attempted to travel without a valid ticket' (which is very poor) the fact remains that the OP's letter says that he was apprehended at the destination station. If what he says is correct then this is a blatant lie on behalf of the TOC or their enforcement company
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,579
It's far more likely to be a mistake than a lie, but it does appear to be careless. The OP is at liberty to point this out to TIL, and I am sure that if the OP does so then TIL will be happy to send out a letter with the correct information on it. The point being that while the letter may be wrong, that does not mean that an offence has not been committed and cannot be prosecuted.
- Status