Notice of fine & Collection order

[DaveNewcastle]

Can I just remind forum members of the question we are being asked?
It's in abixo's opening post, and includes

I have until 8th February to raise payment.

. . .

How did they get my details if I failed to give it?????

. . .

Is there any way I can appeal this, or is that it? What are the prospects of success in this matter? Appeciate any advice or guidance.

That was five days ago. It seems to me that we might still have some advice and guidance to give?

 

[455driver]

Of course he doesn't know it or have anything to do back it up. They are hypotheticals, things that could possibly happen, which is why he used the word could.
:roll:

Is D&P the correct place to air hypotheticals?

 

[jkdd77]

I...still believe that it would be worthwhile to ask for CCTV footage from Mossley on the date of travel.

This is not good advice.

I stand by my advice.

For an example of a reported case where a court apparently ordered that CCTV footage be produced, and then acquitted after the TOC admitted destroying the footage, see: http://www.shrug.info/THE ASTONISHING HISTORY OF SWT UNDER STAGECOACH [AUTUMN%202015%20UPDATE].html

* In October 2008, a commuter arrived at Southampton Central with his bike and found the gates unattended (a common problem), contrary to legal requirements. He therefore opened the manual gate, to avoid missing his train to work. Staff appeared and he politely showed his valid season ticket, but was given a £55 penalty.

He refused to pay, so was prosecuted and threatened with a £1,000 fine, 3 months in prison or both. A criminal record would have prevented him from continuing his charitable work with vulnerable serving and former service men and women.

In April, the Court directed SWT to release CCTV images to the passenger, along with details of the gate and its signage. SWT sent him just a polaroid image of the gates and confirmed in writing that they had looked at the CCTV images and destroyed them.

In July, the passenger had to come back from holiday in Spain to attend court. SWT pulled out all the stops, producing three members of staff to give evidence against him.

The passenger considers that their evidence was partly false. The court found him not guilty, said the case should never have been brought, and admonished SWT for wasting court time.

If the OP is indeed being honest and truthful, (including in relation to Mossley's lack of purchase facilities), and I am advising on that basis, one presumes that Northern will have no other evidence as to where the OP boarded besides the RPI's witness statement claiming that he was told by the OP that he/ she boarded at Ashton, which the OP needs to cast reasonable doubt upon.

Anything that tends to support his/ her own credibility in relation to his/ her own sworn evidence that he/ she boarded at Mossley cannot be harmful to the OP, and may be of assistance. In this context, evidence of past similar journeys, car park tickets for the day in question, etc, are not compelling evidence in their own right as to where the OP boarded, but nevertheless enhance the credibility of the OP's direct evidence. From the point of view of a magistrate, it is *possible* that a defendant might be using a friend's ticket, or similar, but the more likely conclusion must be, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the defendant is telling the truth rather than perverting the course of justice by producing and relying on false evidence.

In any case, TOCs are happy to use similar circumstantial evidence as to other journeys when prosecuting, so why should a defendant not use it?

In summary, asking for CCTV evidence is not a magic bullet guaranteeing the instant dismissal of the byelaw 18, but it is unlikely to cost more than the cost of a stamp; furthermore, making the request will not harm the OP's credibility, and may help it.

 

[najaB]

For an example of a reported case where a court apparently ordered that CCTV footage be produced, and then acquitted after the TOC admitted destroying the footage...

Perhaps you have heard of the post hoc fallacy?

 

[jkdd77]

Perhaps you have heard of the post hoc fallacy?

I never said that the destruction of CCTV footage was the only reason why that defendant was acquitted, (presumably on a byelaw 9 charge) but, since the court ordered that the footage be produced, it stands to reason that:
1) the magistrates considered the CCTV footage to be at least potentially relevant, and;
2) the magistrates must therefore have been unimpressed when SWT admitted that they had destroyed it.

 

[najaB]

...it stands to reason that:
1) the magistrates considered the CCTV footage to be at least potentially relevant, and;
2) the magistrates must therefore have been unimpressed when SWT admitted that they had destroyed it.

I agree with your first point, not sure that I'd agree with the second.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Hi everyone

I today received in the post a Notice of Fine and collection order from Bolton Magistrates' Court. It is broken down as follows:

- 1 / Board a train in non compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket - railway bye law. Fine of £220, "Comp" of £3.60, victim surcharge of £22.00 and costs of £150.00.

- 2 Fail to give name and address when suspected of breach or attempted breach of railway byelaws. Fine of £220.

I have until 8th February to raise payment.

Firstly I wish to say I never received any notice of hearing or summons, or any information at all in relation to this case.

It is certain that the Legal Advisor will have been provided a certificate of service by the prosecution confirming how the Summons was served upon your address, otherwise the case would not have been heard.

There is very likely to be evidence in the prosecution file of how and when any earlier letters were sent to you too

To explain the background situation, I boarded a train at Mossley which was unmanned at the time. The ticket officer did not come round on the train as he sometimes does. I got to Manchester Victoria and asked the man for a return from Mossley to MCV. I was asked to go and speak to the revenue officer who was just off to the side about 10 metres away. At this point I knew what was going to happen but as Mossley was unmanned I was fine about it and knew it wouldn't be a problem.

I tell the revenue officer I got on the train at Mossley, then after speaking to the person selling the ticket (as I obviously shouldn't have been stopped considering it wasn't manned at the time) I was accused of saying I boarded at Ashton Under Lyne, which is 2 stops after Mossley. I completely denied and again, said I boarded at Mossley. The revenue officer wasn't really happy with this and said he would call the British Transport Police, which he did.

Had you been asked for your name and address by the inspector at this point?

I was asked for my date of birth, phone number, address etc. I queried if I needed to provide all of this information and was told I did. I gave him my drivers license and he got on some cheap phone which I am assuming was to confirm who I was.

I'm not sure why it is felt necessary to refer to the quality of the mobile telephone used as long as it worked, National Railway Byelaw 23 (2005) makes it a strict liability requirement to give your name and address when asked by a member of railway staff in relation to investigating an allegation of travelling without a valid ticket. The inspector had already told you that he believed you had travelled from a different station to that which you had offered to pay from and was therefore justified in asking for your details.

You were not obliged to give your date of birth, but many will say if there is nothing to hide, why would that be an issue.

This leads me to the question of why I was fined £220 for failing to give my name and address? How did they get my details if I failed to give it?????

Because you were required to give those details to the railway inspector when asked by him and that is why I asked whether you had failed, or refused to do so before he called for BTP assistance.

The way your post reads it seems likely that he called for BTP assistance because you had failed to provide details when asked and he wanted BTP to assist in identifying you in order to report the offences that he believed evident .

Next, the revenue officer wrote down his version of events on his notepad. The main points were that I failed to buy a ticket at Ashton Under Lyne and that I boarded the train without purchasing a ticket before when there was no reason for me not to. In the presence of the BTP he asked me to sign the notepad to confirm. I refused, saying my signature was an admission of guilt by confirming his events as true. He got extremely mad and in the end again went over to the BTP who confirmed I did not have to sign it at all. I didn't sign it and was on my way.

That is correct, you were not compelled to sign his notes, but he did have to show that the opportunity for you to read, check and sign them was offered to you. It is likely that the inspector will have asked the BTP officer to countersign those notes confirming that you were given that opportunity, but declined. That is good practice for an inspector in such circumstances and will ensure that the Police officer will also have made a brief note for further reference and to assist any statement that the officer may also be asked to give.

So here we are now. Is there any way I can appeal this, or is that it? What are the prospects of success in this matter?

Appreciate any advice or guidance. This is about principle really for me, should I be looking at hiring some form of lawyer?

Cheers

I'd say that you have been given some excellent advice, particularly by DaveNewcastle and one or two others.

CCTV is a bit of a 'Red Herring' in my view. As this case has already been heard by a Court it is likely to be an event that occurred some months ago and the standard practice of recording over unwanted CVTV records is well-known and accepted. It is unrealistic to expect that every minute of every day recorded by every camera can be stored indefinitely.

If no-one had requested that any footage that may have existed be retained, there would have been no reason to do so and in any case, footage of the interaction between you and the inspector would not have had an audio that could confirm what fare you offered.

Footage showing you entering at Ashton-under-Lyne or at Mossley would be a different matter, but again, unless specifically requested at the time, it would be unlikely to have been retained for more than a few days or weeks at most.

If you genuinely did not receive any letters, but more importantly the Summons you could go to the Court and make a formal Statutory Declaration to that effect and see if the matter can be re-opened. This would start the case again at the point of issue & service of the Summons and will give you an opportunity to challenge the inspector's evidence.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is D&P the correct place to air hypotheticals?

One would need to ask Llanigraham that. My comment was in direct reply to him, who was trying to claim that any evidence of car parking receipts, etc, would be worthless as they could have been obtained dishonestly after the event by the OP.

If we want to go down that route, then yes, all evidence could be similarly tainted. Especially as there have been isolated examples of dishonest RPIs before now on here, from trusted forum members.

It is certain that the Legal Advisor will have been provided a certificate of service by the prosecution confirming how the Summons was served upon your address, otherwise the case would not have been heard.

There is very likely to be evidence in the prosecution file of how and when any earlier letters were sent to you too

I would guess that it was served by first class post, which is deemed as having being served two days after sending. It doesn't mean it ever actually arrived though.

If you genuinely did not receive any letters, but more importantly the Summons you could go to the Court and make a formal Statutory Declaration to that effect and see if the matter can be re-opened. This would start the case again at the point of issue & service of the Summons and will give you an opportunity to challenge the inspector's evidence.

This would be the way forward, although IIRC it would usually only be re-opened if the OP has some additional evidence to show the original conviction was incorrect. That's true for civil cases, I'm sure DaveNewcastle can clarify whether the same principle applies in the criminal courts.

 

[najaB]

One would need to ask Llanigraham that. My comment was in direct reply to him, who was trying to claim that any evidence of car parking receipts, etc, would be worthless as they could have been obtained dishonestly after the event by the OP.

It's probably an overstatement to say that car park receipts, etc. would be completely worthless, it would be more accurate to say that a single item wouldn't - in itself - be compelling evidence. Definitely not worth reopening the case if that is the only evidence that the OP intends to present to support a not-guilty plea. If they had several pieces of evidence to counter the TOC's case then by all means go ahead.

This would be the way forward, although IIRC it would usually only be re-opened if the OP has some additional evidence to show the original conviction was incorrect. That's true for civil cases, I'm sure DaveNewcastle can clarify whether the same principle applies in the criminal courts.

I'm pretty sure you can make a statutory declaration even if your intent is to plead guilty as it would normally result in the lower level of fine being imposed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . IIRC it would usually only be re-opened if the OP has some additional evidence to show the original conviction was incorrect. That's true for civil cases, I'm sure DaveNewcastle can clarify whether the same principle applies in the criminal courts.

I'm pretty sure you can make a statutory declaration even if your intent is to plead guilty as it would normally result in the lower level of fine being imposed.

Yes, the SD is a statement which stands by itself, and makes no presumption of how a Defendant might wish to plea.

If, following a contested hearing with a finding of Guilt, the Defendants financial circumstances are such that a Court would impose a fine from a lower 'fine band' than the two fines already imposed in their absence, then that would reduce the burden of the total penalty. (Where no information had been provided, the relevant level of weekly income would have been assumed to be £400 per week).

Or, following an early admission of Guilt in response to a re-issued Summons, the Court, then the fine level would normally be reduced by a third. This suspicion has informed my earlier posts on this incident.

There are other factors which apply to setting fines.

But if abixo incurs some legal costs in achieving either of these reductions in fines, then there may be no net benefit - perhaps even higher total costs.

I can see one possible way forward, on this basis of trying to reduce the ultimate cost, which involves making a SD, making a early plea of guilty to the first charge and 'not guilty' to the failure to provide a name an address, and try to persuade the Prosecutor that this can be disposed of quickly and simply by accepting the one admission of guilt and by not pursuing the other.

 

[Llanigraham]

One would need to ask Llanigraham that. My comment was in direct reply to him, who was trying to claim that any evidence of car parking receipts, etc, would be worthless as they could have been obtained dishonestly after the event by the OP.

I did not state they could have been obtained "dishonestly". Please read what I actually wrote.
It would be circumstantial evidence unless there was strong proof that they had been issued to the OP.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re Dates of Birth:
If you provide a copy of a driving licence to someone, and they write down the number of it, then your date of birth can be worked out in seconds.

 

[exile]

I did not state they could have been obtained "dishonestly". Please read what I actually wrote.
It would be circumstantial evidence unless there was strong proof that they had been issued to the OP.

"Strong proof"? It's either proof or it isn't. Perhaps you mean "strong evidence". Which it would be as the prosecution would then have to prove you came by the receipt dishonestly in an attempt to avoid conviction. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything in a criminal case.

 

[najaB]

The defendant doesn't have to prove anything in a criminal case.

That is the general principle. However in this specific case it would appear that the court has been presented a report from the RPI which says that the OP stated they boarded at Ashton. The OP disputes making that statement, hence the putative parking receipt would support (but not in itself be sufficient evidence of) their position that the RPI's report is mistaken.

Bear in mind though that we haven't been addressing the real issue (and in all the talk of CCTV, etc. I've been caught up in this mistake as well).

The the prosecution rests on the fact that there was a mis-match between where the OP claims to have boarded and where the RPI's report says he claimed to have boarded. Even if the OP were able to provide irrefutable evidence of having boarded at Mossely, it wouldn't contradict the RPI's report that he short-fared by attempting to purchase a fare from Ashton.

The OP either needs to provide evidence that they did, in fact, board at Ashton (in which case no short-faring occurred) or if they did board at Mossely they need to raise doubt about the veracity of the RPI's report. Proving their boarding point without discrediting the report will just make the TOC's case stronger.

 

[John Palmer]

I am at a loss to understand why this discussion is continuing. The OP has already told us, in post #59, that he would be seeing a solicitor 'on Thursday' (presumably 21st January) to make the requisite statutory declaration. No doubt the solicitor concerned will advise him as to the merits of doing so and as to the course the matter will then take. The OP has also indicated that he is prepared to lay out some additional funds upon contesting the total liability of £615.00 he faces.

One point I would make about DaveNewcastle's suggestion that the OP plead to the Byelaw 18 charge but deny the Byelaw 23 breach. The OP has, throughout, been adamant both that he boarded at Mossley rather than Ashton-under-Lyne, and that he denied having said to the ticket seller that he boarded at the latter station. That account is inconsistent with a guilty plea to the Byelaw 18 charge. Therefore, he needs to be advised that if he adopts DaveNewcastle's suggestion, he is accepting that he is guilty of the Byelaw 18 offence and cannot complain that considerations of expediency obliged him to do so notwithstanding his professed innocence.

I do agree with najaB (surprise!) about the the significance of the discrepancy between the accounts of where the OP says he boarded. Again, the OP clearly states that he asked for a return from Mossley to Manchester Victoria. He remonstrated with the RPI that he boarded at Mossley, but apparently the case made against him is that he boarded at Ashton-under-Lyne. Since, on his own admission, the OP says that his journey started at the more distant Mossley, I am surprised that the prosecutor's case is not based on an allegation of short-faring. In that respect I imagine the summary of evidence on which the prosecution case is to be based will be vital to an assessment of where the OP's best interests lie.

 

[talltim]

That is the general principle. However in this specific case it would appear that the court has been presented a report from the RPI which says that the OP stated they boarded at Ashton. The OP disputes making that statement, hence the putative parking receipt would support (but not in itself be sufficient evidence that) their position that the RPI's report is mistaken.

Bear in mind though that we haven't been addressing the real issue (and in all the talk of CCTV, etc. I've been caught up in this mistake as well).

The the prosecution rests on the fact that there was a mis-match between where the OP claims to have boarded and where the RPI's report says he claimed to have boarded. Even if the OP were able to provide irrefutable evidence of having boarded at Mossely, it wouldn't contradict the RPI's report that he short-fared by attempting to purchase a fare from Ashton.

The OP either needs to provide evidence that they did, in fact, board at Ashton (in which case no short-faring occurred) or if they did board at Mossely they need to raise doubt about the veracity of the RPI's report. Proving their boarding point without discrediting the report will just make the TOC's case stronger.

Unless Northern has evidence we don't know about, then surely its just two statements against each other, neither of which has any evidence for being correct. Can you convict beyond reasonable doubt on that?

Edit: just had a thought, the OP says

I got to Manchester Victoria and asked the man for a return from Mossley to MCV

Could 'the man' provide a statement?

 

[najaB]

Unless Northern has evidence we don't know about, then surely its just two statements against each other, neither of which has any evidence for being correct. Can you convict beyond reasonable doubt on that?

When presented with two contradictory statements the court will have to decide which, if either, to believe. It comes down to a simple consideration: the OP has a reason to lie, the RPI (one would assume) does not.

 

[talltim]

Again, that comes down to the hypothetical. Is the RPI (or the RPI's team) on some sort of incentive scheme or have to meet targets?

 

[najaB]

Could 'the man' provide a statement?

He could. Good luck finding 'the man' and hopefully 'the man' will remember the details of an arbitrary, non-eventful evening some months ago.

 

[talltim]

He could. Good luck finding 'the man' and hopefully 'the man' will remember the details of an arbitrary, non-eventful evening some months ago.

Unlikely, probably. However the fact that the BTP were involved may make it more memorable.

 

[sheff1]

Can I just remind forum members of the question we are being asked?
It's in abixo's opening post, and includes
That was five days ago. It seems to me that we might still have some advice and guidance to give?

abixo told us three/four days ago that they were meeting their solicitor yesterday (Thursday). I would certainly hope that they have gained the advice and guidance they needed at that meeting.

It comes down to a simple consideration: the OP has a reason to lie, the RPI (one would assume) does not.

Why would one assume anything of the kind without hearing the statements/evidence from both parties?

 

[najaB]

Why would one assume anything of the kind without hearing the statements/evidence from both parties?

Are you really saying that you can't see why the defendant in a criminal matter would have a reason to lie?

 

[sheff1]

Are you really saying that you can't see why the defendant in a criminal matter would have a reason to lie?

Are you really saying that if a defendant was not guilty of the offence they were charged with then they would have a reason to lie in court ?

 

[najaB]

Are you really saying that if a defendant was not guilty then they would have a reason to lie in court ?

Let's try this again... The defendant and a prosecution witness give diametrically contradictory statements. If the defendant's statement is believed he will be found innocent.

Which of the two, prima facie, has the greatest incentive to lie? Note, I'm not saying that either one or the other is lying.

 

[talltim]

I would like to hope that no magistrate, judge or jury goes into court with the attitude that the defendant is more likely to be lying than anyone else. Probably a forlorn hope...

 

[najaB]

I would like to hope that no magistrate, judge or jury goes into court with the attitude that the defendant is more likely to be lying than anyone else. Probably a forlorn hope...

"More likely" and "having reason to" aren't the same thing.

We have in this case the situation where, to the best of our knowledge, the case turns on the RPI's report. The defendant is in turn claiming that the RPI's report is false. So, without any other evidence, the question that a magistrate would have to ask himself while evaluating which, if either, statement to believe is this: 'The defendant has something to gain if they are lying, does the RPI have anything to gain by lying?' If there is any hint that he does then both statements have to be discarded.

 

[sheff1]

Let's try this again... The defendant and a prosecution witness give diametrically contradictory statements. If the defendant's statement is believed he will be found innocent.

Which of the two, prima facie, has the greatest incentive to lie? Note, I'm not saying that either one or the other is lying.

That's better.

My point was that, initially, you said "one would assume" the prosecution witness has no reason to lie. There have been many court cases where prosecution witnesses have lied and it has been proven they have done so. They clearly did have some reason to lie and anyone assuming, in advance, that they did not would have been wrong.

Rather than assuming anything, far better to wait until the statements/evidence have been presented, and any cross-examinations have concluded, and then make a judgement based on what one has heard.

 

[island]

I would like to hope that no magistrate, judge or jury goes into court with the attitude that the defendant is more likely to be lying than anyone else. Probably a forlorn hope...

I wager such an attitude arises most days that speeding offences are heard. The evidence of one police officer will invariably convict in the absence of any procedural errors.

 

[John Palmer]

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the OP's account of events is correct in all respects. In particular, that he boarded at Mossley at a time when he could not purchase a ticket there, that he endeavoured at MCV to buy a return ticket to there from Mossley, and that this was his first opportunity to buy such ticket.

Unfortunately an RPI mistakenly believes he heard this passenger say he boarded at Ashton-under-Lyne, and accosts him on that basis. The passenger disputes the RPI's allegation and refuses to sign the RPI's interview note as an accurate record of events. Subsequently, when invited by letter to do so, the passenger responds by maintaining that he boarded at Mossley and requested a return ticket from there at Manchester. Notwithstanding this, the TOC decides to prosecute him.

And how, according to posters in this forum, is the innocent passenger to protect himself in these circumstances? Bear in mind that he starts out under the disadvantage that he has a reason to lie and the RPI does not, so a presumption is already in place that less reliance can be placed upon the account he gives in evidence than that given by prosecution witnesses.

He could give evidence that he is a regular Mossley-Manchester traveller and has as pattern of travelling between these stations, proved by his monthly seasons. But no, proof of such a pattern is no evidence that on this particular day the passenger either travelled instead from Ashton or short-fared from that station.

Perhaps production of receipts for purchases in Mossley close to the departure time of his train from there might help? Oh no, he could have conveniently borrowed these from a friend to bolster a false defence! Or a car parking ticket at Mossley station? No, no, could be any car, even his own car driven by someone else who somehow manages, after the event, to provide a ticket bearing a timestamp consistent with the passenger's account.

Plainly this isn't going to be good enough, so our passenger must resort to other measures to ensure his peace of mind if an RPI should mishear him. Well, he can ask the guard before he boards the train whether he may do so, but of course he'll need the guard to make a careful note of the conversation, so that he can, after the passage of a few months, identify and summon the guard to corroborate his account. In addition, he's going to have to stand in line whilst every other passenger joining at that station adopts the same precaution.

Alternatively, and presupposing that he has about him a camera enabling him to do so, he can take a photograph of the closed ticket office window to add to his collection of pictures of closed ticket office windows. Chances are, of course, following the pattern of posting in this thread, he will be treated as a skilled hacker of the device’s storage system and manipulated the datestamp on the photograph to support his defence.

Only slightly embroidered, this sorry tale reflects a selection of the posts on this thread addressing the position an innocent traveller is liable to find himself in when he faces criminal charges as a consequence of a mistake made by an RPI. As a lifelong enthusiast of rail travel, I begin to wonder whether its legal risks are such that I would be better to go by car.

 

[najaB]

As a lifelong enthusiast of rail travel, I begin to wonder whether its legal risks are such that I would be better to go by car.

You could similarly find yourself accused of speeding (or of committing some other traffic offence) when you did not.

 

[exile]

I wager such an attitude arises most days that speeding offences are heard. The evidence of one police officer will invariably convict in the absence of any procedural errors.

No it will not. I was told this by a police officer - he would need either (1) evidence from a second officer or (2) evidence from a speed gun.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You could similarly find yourself accused of speeding (or of committing some other traffic offence) when you did not.

Hopefully you wouldn't be accused of speeding in Ashton when you were in Mossley at the time....