some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
(in side-discussion)
Agreed.You can also pull in general abuse of process arguments
Agreed.You can also pull in general abuse of process arguments
It isn't clear that @AsherImran replied to the company's demand for money. It would be good to see all the paperwork/correspondence.I am thinking whether GTR's PF system has failed to record OP's payment to penalty fare on spot, and caused such chaos.
I was referring more to fraud in terms of the information given to the TOC - e.g. false origin station details as alluded to by @furlong. Such false information could naturally give rise to a prosecution for any number of railway offences.The regulations list the legislation in 11(4); these are normal railway offences.
Breach of a contract in which it is promised not to prosecute could give rise to abuse of process concerns. Whether or not such concerns were substantiated and accepted, the TOC would be liable for any and all resultant losses. This would include the imposed fine and costs etc., as well as a general sum in recognition of the damage to reputation, employability etc. from having a "wrongful" criminal conviction.If they fail to refund, would a breach of contract under condition 9.2 necessarily mean they are barred from prosecuting, or just liable for the refund?
Yes. Arguably, that's one reason why the regulations shouldn't bar prosecution just because of a failure to refund. It could be argued that the drafters of the regulations were sensibly protecting the public interest in prioritising the right to prosecute over the refund (see below).Such false information could naturally give rise to a prosecution for any number of railway offences.
Yes, if there is a specific promise. I don't think the regulations provide this, because "if you prosecute you must refund" doesn't necessarily mean "if you don't refund you can't prosecute".Breach of a contract in which it is promised not to prosecute could give rise to abuse of process concerns.
Yes, if there is a specific promise. I don't think the regulations provide this, because "if you prosecute you must refund" doesn't necessarily mean "if you don't refund you can't prosecute".
Because, of course, the CPS has never had a case fall apart because the evidence didn't support the charges.A staggering level of incompetence and yet more evidence that TOCs should not be allowed to bring their own prosecutions.
Because, of course, the CPS has never had a case fall apart because the evidence didn't support the charges.
You must refund it in order not to breach the regulations. I think @AsherImran has enough without this discussion, because of the appeal decision. But to answer the point:You can't prosecute if a PF has been charged and paid. If you change your mind about charging the PF, you must refund it.
The offence is failing to produce a valid ticket - meaning at the time of challenge.a PF serves as a valid ticket to the next station stop. So if a PF has been charged and paid, the passenger has a valid ticket. Ergo, if you don't cancel it and refund it, you can't bring proceedings.
It's exactly the same. It's almost certain that the TOC's copy of the PF was not attached to the file when it reached the prosecutions department. In the same way, the CPS has had cases fall apart because they lost evidence.There's a difference between "evidence not supporting the charges" and issuing proceedings for non-payment of a PF using, as evidence, a PF that *specifically states it was paid*.
It's not complicated, a 5yo could comprehend that it had been paid.
This isn't actually what I was suggesting. I was merely pointing out that the fact that the Regulations provide for such a possibility, doesn't mean that it is automatically the right of the TOC to cancel and refund a Penalty Fare. Penalty Fares are inherently a form of binding out of court settlement, which can only be reopened if there is new evidence that comes to light that the passenger lied about. That is what must be implied from the circumstances.The regulations don't spell out that failure to refund bars prosecution.
It's almost certain that the TOC's copy of the PF was not attached to the file when it reached the prosecutions department
It is. But they can only check the evidence that they have, not the evidence that they don't. They also likely had copies of the letters that had been sent chasing up the (already paid) penalty fare. Absent any evidence that the PF was paid, they concluded that it had not been, as per the statement of facts.Surely the most basic, fundamental task of a competent prosecutions department is a check of the actual evidence?
Indeed, but one imagines that the actual PF itself was considered ancillary evidence that didn't need to be looked at before issuing the SJPN. Instead the basis of the matter being brought to the prosecution department's attention was probably the database record purporting to show the PF as unpaid, together with the RPI's witness statement claiming such.Well it bloody well should be!
Surely the most basic, fundamental task of a competent prosecutions department is a check of the actual evidence?
But they can only check the evidence that they have, not the evidence that they don't.
You can't prosecute for non-payment of a PF if you don't know why the PF was issued, by whom, or where it was issued. So you need to see the PF, to see why it was issued, by whom, where and when. And someone with the reading age of a 6 year old can see this PF was paid there and then.
No excuses for this one at all.
I would also want to know why the RPI is writing out a witness statement that they know, or should reasonably know, to be false. Lying on a witness statement is an interesting attitude to take. It screams perjury to my untrained eye.
Unfortunately we all know that perjury convictions are exceedingly difficult to come by, because a significant amount of leeway is made for "honest mistakes". The RPI might say they were overloaded with work and mixed up different cases, or that they were simply following standard practice (whether endorsed by the company or de facto).You can't prosecute for non-payment of a PF if you don't know why the PF was issued, by whom, or where it was issued. So you need to see the PF, to see why it was issued, by whom, where and when. And someone with the reading age of a 6 year old can see this PF was paid there and then.
No excuses for this one at all.
I would also want to know why the RPI is writing out a witness statement that they know, or should reasonably know, to be false. Lying on a witness statement is an interesting attitude to take. It screams perjury to my untrained eye.
Thank you for this and the uploads - so after the demand, you wrote to the company as well as the appeal service. It may be helpful if you upload photos/text of the letters you wrote, as well as the other material (with identifying details removed as you have done).I ended up writing a letter to them
Yup, making sure that the media are made aware in advance and perhaps invite your MP to attend the hearing. A vile, incompetent, money grabbing company that deserves to be utterly shafted and humiliated. Hopefully some heads will roll...Even with My own untrained eye I can see this shows it as paid. If you also have a bank statement showing it at that time and on that date as well.
I hope this gets thrown out. Perhaps the OP ought to speak to a solicitor and either get it overturned or attend court with the PF notice showing it as having been paid and basically show them up in front of the court. I know which I would prefer. Also call the RPI as a witness for good measure and maybe ask him why he committed perjury. Definitely go for damages and costs.
They also put me through to the prosecution department.I called GA Customer Services and after an initial response that the prosecution department aren't operating, was given this number:
It's completely their fault. There was no good reason to pay again, and I think it's very understandable that we would have an instinct not to.kicking myself I should’ve paid whatever they asked for again and should've got it done with.
They might drop the case and confirm by email while you're on the phone, depending on how easily they can find the records.
As the company is in a weak position, what are your priorities - for example to end the criminal case quickly, seek compensation and/or take action which might mean they behave better in future? As you say you've been worried (unsurprisingly), does that mean you would prefer to get the case dropped soon rather than force the company to admit its failings in court?
Thank you for this and the uploads - so after the demand, you wrote to the company as well as the appeal service. It may be helpful if you upload photos/text of the letters you wrote, as well as the other material (with identifying details removed as you have done).
The text could be for example,
I've called GTR Customer Services. After a bit of discussion the man said that if you call them with the information and the department has delayed answering by a few weeks customer services will send an email through. You may find the best options to choose are 2 for Thameslink, later 0 and then 8. If you'll be available on the phone on Monday, maybe call today and ask CS to request that the department call you.