I suspect that such a prosecution would be unlikely to succeed in future
Presumably the level of costs implies an offence under the RoR act?
The OP forgot the railcard. The OP would likely be able to prove previous possession of the railcard. This rules out intent.Any particular reason why?
fair point.I understand and agree with the sentiment Flamingo, but the only 'letter' that really matters so far as the Court will be concerned is the original Summons. Other letters have no relevance at that point.
If Ms/Miss aaq1 makes a Statutory Declaration it will be to say that she 'was unaware of the prosecution against her until after the Court had begun to try the said evidence'
She will need to state on what date she became aware of the Summons.
If that is done satisfactorily the Court will set aside the original conviction and will advise the Prosecutor that they may start the case afresh without time constraint in respect of a 'new' Summons.
At that point she may wish to put mitigation to the prosecutor and ask if the matter might be resolved without Court action.
It might help to know which rail company was involved to see if it is possible to assess how likely that approach is to succeed.
The OP forgot the railcard. The OP would likely be able to prove previous possession of the railcard. This rules out intent.
Before you do that, do you know under which legislation you were convicted?
You need to be aware of the impact of your actions.