Accused of disorderly behaviour. Now received SJPN.

[Faf]

In Sept last year my 19 yr old son was using the monument metro station ( Newcastle City Centre).
As he was maybe a quarter of the way down the escalator he realised his friend was stuck behind the barrier, he impulsively went straight back up the (down) escalator to help his friend but was immediately stopped by a nexus agent and asked for his details because by running up a down escalator he was being disorderly. At the time he was so shocked he didn’t question anything. At no point was anyone at risk, he was completely alone on the escalator. His only focus at that time was helping his friend.

I should also mention he was both undiagnosed & unmedicated for ADHD at that time. Impulsiveness is one of his biggest symptoms.

A few weeks later we received of offer of an out of court settlement of £120 which we didn’t pay. I phone up nexus legal department and made them aware that I/we don’t believe he acted in a disorderly manner. When stopped by the agent, he was polite and didn’t cause a scene.

I was told they would make a note of my phone call. A few days ago he received a single justice procedure notice. This just feels so unbelievably petty. So he has the choice to plead guilty or not guilty. If he pleads guilty he gets a 33% reduction on any fines. We still don’t believe he committed a crime so will be pleading not guilty. Is this a good idea?

What are the chances of him ended up with a criminal record? He hasn’t gotten out of bed for days, he’s getting more & more depressed by the day. This may seem extreme to some but the kids never been in trouble in all his 19 yrs and to be taken to court for his impulsive need to always help is just ridiculous.

 

[AlterEgo]

You say your son is getting more and more depressed by the day. I am sure the injustice hurts and it is not for me to comment on whether he’d stand a chance in court, but in this situation I would be looking to settle out of court - if it would be best for his welfare.

Once that’s done you can try and gain some redress.

 

[Parham Wood]

This is an utterly draconian and unnecessary approach by Nexus to issue a fine for such an action in such a situation in my opinion. A simple warning would be enough. However running on an escalator and going in the wrong direction on an escalator is against their bylaws so is disorderly behaviour but this is not defined. So probably you will not have much of a defensive case except perhaps for your son having ADHD for which you would need to consult a good solicitor. Others may be more knowledgeable.

 

[Snow1964]

Unfortunately if you are guilty of a bylaw, then regardless of how old, obscure or petty it may seem. Then just have to put it down to bad luck that got caught breaking that rule.

Pay it, which closes it, and then can move on and not worry or stress any more. If you want to fight it, you will need a solicitor and possibly a medical expert, which won't be cheap.

 

[ainsworth74]

This just feels so unbelievably petty. So he has the choice to plead guilty or not guilty. If he pleads guilty he gets a 33% reduction on any fines. We still don’t believe he committed a crime so will be pleading not guilty. Is this a good idea?

(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice)

I can certainly sympathise, if the escalator was truly empty and he was motivated by going to assist a friend it's hard to find too much fault with the behaviour but it does feel like it's a bit of an open and shut case from a legal point of view. The Byelaw (you can find a copy here) that they've accusing him of breaching is 9(1) which states:

9. Stations and Metro premises
(1) No person shall use any escalator except by standing or walking on it in the direction intended for travel.

Which is fairly straight forward. He was running in the opposite direction than it was intended for travel therefore an offence has been committed. Now personally I feel like that is probably intended to be use in situations where someone is doing so in a way which will cause inconvenience or put others at risk of harm. So is a massive over-reaction by the Nexus staff member at the station, assuming all is as described by your son (I'm not trying to suggest he's lying, but it's not unknown for a child, even adult children, to not be totally upfront about the full context of a situation with a parent!). But we have to go with what's written and it's fairly straight forward.

So if you plead not guilty I'm not really sure what your defence would be to the charge. Your points could be raised in mitigation and might go some way to reducing any consequent fine from the Magistrates Court but I don't think they'll actually enable a successful defence of the charge. Indeed I have a feeling (but I'm not certain) that this is a strict liability matter. You either did it and are therefore guilty, or you didn't and are therefore not guilty. Intent, motive or similar don't come into it (same logic that applies to speeding offences for instance).

If it were me I'd be reaching out to Nexus again and seeing if that settlement is still on offer as I don't personally see how you could successful defend against the charge if you plead not guilty.

On the positive side I believe (again I'm not certain) that isn't recorable so would be considered immediately spent and he would therefore not have a criminal record. But I'm more familiar with the Railway Byelaws (where that is the case) than the Tyne & Wear Metro byelaws (where I'm not certain).

Pay it, which closes it, and then can move on and not worry or stress any more.

It's not clear to me that that offer is still on the table! It might be but as they've laid charges it is no longer a sure thing.

 

[Gloster]

I am no expert, but a look at the nexus Metro byelaws seems to make it quite clear that he was in breach of Byelaw 9 (1). Even if it appears petty, it is my opinion (but note that I am no expert) that they have a rock-solid case. I would advise paying the matter as soon as possible in order to prevent it escalating.

EDIT: Ainsworth74 above seems to have said the same and more thoroughly.

 

[Snow1964]

The other part on letter bylaw 31(1) is

31. Enforcement
(1) Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws, except Byelaws 17, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 commits an offence and shall be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

https://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/default/files/byelaws_namless_2019_0.pdf

Level 3 standard fines are currently maximum £1000

9. Maximum fines – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

 

[Enthusiast]

I would advise paying the matter as soon as possible in order to prevent it escalating.

It's already escalated. The OP's son has a summons to appear in court.

 

[ainsworth74]

The other part on letter bylaw 31(1) is


https://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/default/files/byelaws_namless_2019_0.pdf
Level 3 standard fines are currently £1000

9. Maximum fines – Sentencing

Though to be clear unless OPs son's income is very high any fine is unlikely to be £1,000 as the actual fine will be with referrence to his weekly income. The £1,000 is a maximum.

 

[Faf]

The out of court settlement was a 14 day offer only. My son doesn’t work, the only income he has is his student loan. My husband and I are in heavy debt due to the COVID situation so £120 is not an amount we could have paid anyway.

So would it be better to plead guilty? From a legal perspective I guess he is indeed guilty but even the friends who were with him were shocked at the reaction of the agent. Surely a caution would have sufficed?! As naive as it sounds, he wasn’t aware he was doing something wrong. I would assume he wouldn’t have done so knowing an agent was standing feet away from him.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's already escalated. The OP's son has a summons to appear in court.

There is no reason the OP can't retract their previous phone call and telephone again though.

 

[WesternLancer]

There is no reason the OP can't retract their previous phone call and telephone again though.

It may be worth a try - tho phoning was a waste of time last time and I fear will be again - no written record etc. So maybe asking in writing (explaining the same as in the original post accompanied by an apology) might reinstate the offer to settle, or at least generate a written reply compared with hoping someone you speak to on the phone will alter the SJPN notice and withdraw it - which I doubt they will because you can rarely get thru on the phone to someone with the power to do that in my experience. So even tho "they made a note of your phone call" it had naff all impact on the situation.

But if you do phone, I would strong recommend following up the call in writing to basically ask whatever you ask on the phone.

BUt - I see from post #10 that the OP @Faf fears even £120 is unaffordable. The problem here is that, if what people are saying is accurate, any court penalty is going to be more than £120 I would think, with the only plus side being an ability to pay a court fine in instalments (which the £120 settlement offer will not permit), but overall more money. Can your son access funds via the student loan or the college student hardship fund to try to raise the finance?

 

[Enthusiast]

The problem here is that, if what people are saying is accurate, any court penalty is going to be more than £120 I would think, with the only plus side being an ability to pay a court fine in instalments (which the £120 settlement offer will not permit), but overall more money. Can your son access funds via the student loan or the college student hardship fund to try to raise the finance?

A "Conditional Discharge" (CD) is a very likely disposal. That would leave the question of costs and "Victim Surcharge" (VS). The court has discretion over the claimed costs (£120) and may well reduce them. It has no discretion over the VS (which, when sentenced to a CD, is £26). The minimum payment by instalments the court would normally accept is £5 per week.

EDIT: In fact, if the ADHD aspect is sufficiently evidenced and bearing in mind the seemingly petty nature of the offence (provided the account we have is accurate) I can even see the court stretching to an Absolute Discharge.

 

[Parham Wood]

From a quick look at sentencing guide lines (I am no legal expert) it seems that ADHD has to be considered when sentencing. One of ADHD's presentations is in compulsive behaviour. So this should be considered by the court and could lead to a reduced fine or a dismissal. If the son does plead guilty it should be accompanied with evidence of his ADHD and its implications in this case. You would need a solicitor to write this and some medical evidence I believe. If he has to appear in court to do this then I believe he should be accompanied by legal representation as he may say the wrong things. You would have to pay for this unless you qualify for legal aid so not a good option.

If still time you should try to contact asap Nexus and push the ADHD case if necessary go to their CEO. I would certainly email and send a signed for letter.

 

[some bloke]

I phone up nexus legal department and made them aware that I/we don’t believe he acted in a disorderly manner. When stopped by the agent, he was polite and didn’t cause a scene.

I was told they would make a note of my phone call. A few days ago he received a single justice procedure notice.

The image is of a document headed "Summons" rather than SJPN - could you please clarify?

They may be more responsive to a communication from your son rather than yourself, and written rather than by phone. They may have thought "well, she wasn't there so how can she know what his attitude was?".

I believe (again I'm not certain) that isn't recorable so would be considered immediately spent

When convictions are spent depends on the sentence rather than the offence. A fine results in the conviction being spent after a year.

Rehabilitation Periods

A table of rehabilitation periods for the most common sentences and disposals, and example scenarios.

www.gov.uk

If your son is a current student, he can see if there is useful advice from the university welfare service, or the student union which in addition to welfare services may offer some free legal advice.

A "Conditional Discharge" (CD) is a very likely disposal.

Is that perhaps a bit difficult to predict given that we don't know how the company would present the picture of his behaviour?

 

[island]

Though this seems astoundingly petty and I am surprised that this was reported for prosecution unless the passenger spectacularly failed the attitude test, the offence of using an escalator in the wrong direction is one of strict liability and the passenger would inevitably be found guilty.

I very rarely recommend this but it might be one for the local media, the Chronicle would probably do a piece on it if you were willing to let them use the ADHD angle.

 

[some bloke]

It seems to me that on an empty escalator, a fit 19-year-old may be reasonable to go back up even if they don't have ADHD, depending on the circumstances.

 

[WesternLancer]

A "Conditional Discharge" (CD) is a very likely disposal. That would leave the question of costs and "Victim Surcharge" (VS). The court has discretion over the claimed costs (£120) and may well reduce them. It has no discretion over the VS (which, when sentenced to a CD, is £26). The minimum payment by instalments the court would normally accept is £5 per week.

EDIT: In fact, if the ADHD aspect is sufficiently evidenced and bearing in mind the seemingly petty nature of the offence (provided the account we have is accurate) I can even see the court stretching to an Absolute Discharge.

Thanks for your comment on my post. It's not a level of knowledge I have so hopefully this will help the OP weigh up that option.

 

[some bloke]

he was both undiagnosed & unmedicated for ADHD at that time.

Has he since been diagnosed with it, and if so when? If he doesn't want you to go into the detail here, it may be something for him to think about in relation to how to approach the company and the prospects of a conditional or absolute discharge.

a quarter of the way down the escalator

Then it just sounds like what many young people might do. It seems puzzling why the staff would report him for prosecution unless they or he had an attitude problem.

If you upload the rest of the correspondence, redacted again, with a witness statement that may have useful information.

 

[Enthusiast]

Is that perhaps a bit difficult to predict given that we don't know how the company would present the picture of his behaviour?

Indeed it is. But since we can only go on what we're told and since the only options are a discharge or a fine, it's not an unreasonable guess. Of course if the prosecution's version of events is so different to the OP's son's, he can always offer a basis for his plea and see if they argue the toss. If they do, the court must either accept his version of events or hold a Newton Hearing if they think the prosecution's version would result in a significantly different sentence. Personally I cannot see that happening.

 

[Faf]

The image is of a document headed "Summons" rather than SJPN - could you please clarify?

They may be more responsive to a communication from your son rather than yourself, and written rather than by phone. They may have thought "well, she wasn't there so how can she know what his attitude was?".


When convictions are spent depends on the sentence rather than the offence. A fine results in the conviction being spent after a year.

Rehabilitation Periods

A table of rehabilitation periods for the most common sentences and disposals, and example scenarios.

www.gov.uk

If your son is a current student, he can see if there is useful advice from the university welfare service, or the student union which in addition to welfare services may offer some free legal advice.



Is that perhaps a bit difficult to predict given that we don't know how the company would present the picture of his behaviour?

This is the first side of the letter. I’m note really sure wether it’s a SJPN or a summons.

 

[Faf]

On the first page it says single justice procedure notice, the other side of the letter says summons. I’m not really sure which it is.

This happened in September and my son was diagnosed with ADHD in December. His case was so severe & obvious, it took the psychologist 30 minutes to formally diagnose him. He is now medicated and it’s had a huge impact on his

In term of how long the escalator is, he says it’s average sized. He had gone down maybe 10 steps. Absolutely no attitude problem, this kid is polite & kind to a fault. I’ve never (not since he was 2!) heard him raise his voice in anger. He hates confrontation of any sort.

I have contacted the head of nexus and if need be will contact the chronicle too. He’s friends (all white) who witnessed what happened are adamant him being stopped was racially motivated.

 

[some bloke]

He’s friends (all white) who witnessed what happened are adamant him being stopped was racially motivated.

Perhaps he can get them to write statements as witnesses, including on that part. Prosecution for going up 10 steps sounds ludicrous.

it's not an unreasonable guess.

Well, it sounds like the right sentence would be zero - an absolute discharge. The question then may be whether to write to the company saying that if it proceeds to court he will ask for an absolute discharge.

if the ADHD aspect is sufficiently evidenced and bearing in mind the seemingly petty nature of the offence (provided the account we have is accurate) I can even see the court stretching to an Absolute Discharge.

if the prosecution's version of events is so different to the OP's son's, he can always offer a basis for his plea and see if they argue the toss. If they do, the court must either accept his version of events or hold a Newton Hearing

It seems that won't apply, though, for ADHD arguments (even if they are accepted despite the lack of a diagnosis at the time):

"Where the defence raises an extraneous issue in mitigation which you are not in a position to refute because it is wholly within the knowledge of the defendant (for example, the defendant's state of mind when the offence was committed), this issue will not usually be in conflict with the prosecution evidence, and a Newton hearing is therefore not appropriate ... In such a situation, the defence may choose to support their assertion by calling evidence on oath. The burden of satisfying the court in such a case lies upon the defendant"

The hearing - Court Stage - Enforcement Guide (England & Wales)

This Guide sets out the law and legal practice relevant to the criminal enforcement of health and safety duties.

www.hse.gov.uk

A summons would be to court on a particular date. If you upload the redacted correspondence that may help.

 

[Faf]

I have added additional pictures to my first post. Sorry, I’m not really answering post individually, my brain is really not working today!

 

[some bloke]

Please obscure his name from the second image.

 

[Enthusiast]

It seems that won't apply, though, for ADHD arguments (even if they are accepted despite the lack of a diagnosis at the time):

I wasn't referring to the ADHD mitigation. I was suggesting a basis of plea could be offered if there was a significant difference between the prosecution's version of events and that of the defendant - simply a dispute on matters of fact.

 

[Faf]

Please obscure his name from the second image

Thank you. I didn’t realise I’d missed some details

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thank you. I didn’t realise I’d missed some details

Should probably also obscure the name and badge number of the member of staff, at the top.

 

[some bloke]

So it is an SJPN, though one page wrongly says "Summons".


It seems there may be at least two areas of disputed facts:

1. I read your first post as meaning he had entered Monument station to travel, whereas the witness says he made a journey from Jesmond to Monument.

2. "I observed the defendant...Ran up escalator 1" seems reasonably read to mean "ran up the whole of", which would have been an act with no reasonable purpose.

a basis of plea could be offered if there was a significant difference between the prosecution's version of events and that of the defendant - simply a dispute on matters of fact.

The question was about how confident we can be of a discharge given how the company might present his behaviour, rather than how they would present events. ADHD arguments are relevant to behaviour. As emerges from the witness statement, the company's version of events can be challenged, or at least put into proper context, and they aren't alleging other disruptive behaviour. Perhaps it's still reasonable to ask how sure we can be that a discharge is "a very likely disposal".

 

[Faf]

So it is an SJPN, though one page wrongly says "Summons".


It seems there may be at least two areas of disputed facts:

1. I read your first post as meaning he had entered Monument station to travel, whereas the witness says he made a journey from Jesmond to Monument.

2. "I observed the defendant...Ran up escalator 1" seems reasonably read to mean "ran up the whole of", which would have been an act with no reasonable purpose.



The question was about how confident we can be of a discharge given how the company might present his behaviour, rather than how they would present events. ADHD arguments are relevant to behaviour. As emerges from the witness statement, the company's version of events can be challenged, or at least put into proper context, and they aren't alleging other disruptive behaviour. Perhaps it's still reasonable to ask how sure we can be that a discharge is "a very likely disposal".

Sorry, yes he was making a journey but it was the other way round. It was from the monument to Jesmond.

He wasn’t even half way down the escalator. If he had run up the whole escalator then I wouldn’t have an issue with them stopping him or even fining him because he would have deserved it for being recklessly stupid.

When I first phoned them up I asked them to check their CCTV to confirm our version of events but apparently they don’t keep copies and it gets recorded over. I don’t believe that at all. They must have to keep CCTV footage For a certain length of time?

So essentially it’s their word against my sons. Unless this CCTV footage is not in actual fact deleted like they said.