I thought that because its not 'Strict liability' that it would not mean a criminal record? or so ive read.
That is incorrect.
Whether or not a Conviction leads to an entry on the Criminal Records computer that might be disclosed during a DBS check depends on whether the offence is listed in
National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 as amended, or is a caution, warning or conviction for and offence which is capable of a custodial sentence, or is an offence listed in the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
Code D.
The Regulation of Railways Act Section 5 is listed there.
. . . . the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 states 'knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond the distance paid for without previously paying additional fare for the added distance, and with intent to avoid payment'.
But at no point have I said that I would not pay it, I just could not afford to at that time.
You've got the crucial point just there! The offence is travelling
without having peviously paid your fare. The offence has been committed. But it seems to me, that in your desperation to avoid a prosecution, that you're missing this simple fact. (I'm hopeful that I'm wrong in this perception of you).
Perhaps you do have a basis for some successful defence - sadly, what you have written on here has not persuaded me of this; perhaps there has been some failure by Cross Country in preparing the file of Evidence against you. But that is not a defence. It might, if anything substantial really is missing or wrong, then it might frustrate the prosecution, and Cross Country do have an inconsistent standard of pre-trail admin.
. . . then put forward for prosecution, but then the policy of XC for prosecution must come into place;
I won't comment on the merits or failings in that policy and its practice, but it has no bearing on whether or not their prosecution against you will succeed or not. If this goes to a contested hearing in Court, then the two things that will be considered in decising guilt or innocence are: 1) the Law (the statute and
its case law), and 2) the Evidence of facts which relate to that Law (the prosecution's and the defendant's).
. . . . and if I plead not guilty will the hearing date be changed? I will have to provide dates which I am not available to be in court which would be from May - September.
Written statements would be useful for achieving a settlement, but if you are intending to plead not guilty and present your case in Court then they would need to be available to be questioned.
Many Courts will hear a long list of fare evasion cases in the one sitting, and if any of them plea 'not guilty', then they simply set another date for the contested hearing by asking both parties for their availability and the availability of the Witnesses from both sides that are to be called. Sometimes, a Court will have made time available for the contested hearing at its first hearing - so you need to be discussing this with the Court's Clerk's Office to be sure what you need to do for the date of the first hearing. Going to Court (if that is really what all this is leading to) benefits from proper case management, and both parties should be discussing their evidence and which Witnesses really need to be present for oral Evidence and Cross-Examination.
But even if you are going to be given another date for the full hearing, you do need to be ready with that list of Witnesses from both side who you require to be present (as opposed to Witnesses whose Witness Statements will be accepted without cross-examination).
I've not seen much prospect of success in anything you've written on here, but I'm sure you have impressive grounds for mitigation in Sentencing. And I can't see any reason not to negotiate an alternative disposal of the offence - but that requires you to enter into a constructive and concilliatory negotiation with the Company's prosecutor.