some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
It's the witness who has it wrong - they seem to have thought that he ran up the whole escalator having got off a train.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Accused of disorderly behaviour. Now received SJPN.
- Thread starter Faf
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Faf
Member
Absolutely not the case. I think I will phone them up tomorrow to dispute their version.
If relevant facts are disputed and the content of the CCTV would have resolved the disputes, then Nexus self-evidently should not have destroyed such evidence. They should routinely take steps to preserve CCTV evidence when they prosecute as, even if they don't use it themselves, the defence may be entitled to have access to it. In practice, that may mean they lose the ability to dispute your son's account to the extent that the CCTV would have confirmed it. (The defence says "the CCTV evidence which the prosecution destroyed would have shown X" and the prosecution has no way to say it wouldn't unless they can pull in alternative evidence.)
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
What a lazy witness statement. How long is CCTV normally kept on Tyne and Wear Metro? It seems bizarre they have destroyed the tape when they suspected someone of committing an offence on it.
OP, do let us know how you get on with the Chronicle. It’s amazingly pathetic that someone can get sent to court for going up a down escalator.
OP, do let us know how you get on with the Chronicle. It’s amazingly pathetic that someone can get sent to court for going up a down escalator.
Escalators are specifically mentioned as a target for valid byelaws, and the wording is quite precise - stand or walk in the direction intended for travel. The direction of the journey doesn't strike me as relevant. On the face of it this response appears ludicrously out of proportion to the situation described - might it be considered wasting the court's time? Why wasn't a simple telling off felt sufficient? Might proceeding risk bringing ridicule on the prosecuting authority and/or the court, even before you consider the ADHD aspect?
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
It's relevant because of the context - not to innocence but mitigation. The passenger said he was just going back up a short way, which may seem reasonable rather than going down and up again. The witness claimed that he arrived on a train from Jesmond, which would seem to imply he chose to go up the whole escalator rather than choose the easier, correct one.
@Faf, perhaps your son not saying much contributed to the staff member not understanding why he was going up that escalator. If the staff member thought he had just chosen to do that having come off a train, that could at least partially explain Nexus' attitude.
It's probably better to write, after getting comments on a draft on here. One advantage is that you then have an exact record of the communications. The SJPN doesn't need a response yet. And your son could include, for example, evidence of the journey and provide the names of people who could act as witnesses. Unless there's a special reason for his authorising you to respond, it seems more natural for your son to be making the points himself, and if he does it in writing there isn't the same problem as on the phone.
Last edited:
Also was it proper to offer that sort of out-of-court settlement (versus merely issuing a warning letter)? Where's the direct financial loss? If it proceeds, the court might also want to consider that. (The general principle is you can't make profit by threatening criminal proceedings.) On the face of it, their costs would go up if they proceed to court, so even if some costs were justified how could they have been seeking the same amount for calling it off? There might be grounds for an investigation here.
Last edited:
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,326
I would strongly recommend not phoning them up to discuss this - if you wish to dispute it - it is best to do so in writing and let them respond to a written 'dispute' of the statement.
Ref the CCTV - you can do a written subject access request for it (but really that should have been done at the time) - they will indeed probably have destroyed it by now - the incident was quite some time ago. Realistically it would not be of much use anyway, apart from context. The bye law seems to be specifically written to say you can not go the wrong way up an escalator, but your son did do that, even just a few steps, and you are not disputing that, so nexus don't have to get into much by way of prooving it. I'm not saying their reaction isn't disproportionate.
But having read the thread and what you say about this, I think I'd be putting my efforts into writing to them in the hope they will re-instate the settlement offer and finding a way to pay that.
If you go to the press, I fear you may have to wave goodbye to that option.
There is some v helpful info and advice on here ref if it gets to court and how to minimise the potential penalty - but in practice can your son / you navigate that process without help / representation? Who can offer that representation - could the student union welfare service help? Has your son asked them? They may have access to free legal advice for example. I think these are the things to weigh up. You may have time to prepare to go down that route if efforts to write to Nexus fail.
Last edited:
Class800
Established Member
I just want to express my sympathy to the OP and say how this adds to the many challenges disabled people face on the railways, always at risk of discriminatory and failing to offer reasonable adjustment behaviour. And congratulations to the many disabled people who still managed to use the railways, you are very brave and it is to be congratulated. I can't really help OP here. I hope the judge would flip the case into a discrimination one, but I see no precedence that judges are really in tune with equality and its relevant legislation.
Indeed. And the witness statement is also inconsistent with the reason the OP gave for what happened - he turned and went back up the down escalator because his friend was struggling/stuck at the gates. That just couldn't have happened if he was arriving at Monument rather than departing
DarloRich
Veteran Member
No advice given however this seems like a massive misuse of extremely limited court resource and time.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I seem to recall Merseyrail saying that they would like the option of a non-criminal fixed penalty for behavioural issues (like this, feet on seats, soiling the train by e.g. urinating or vomiting, pulling the communication cord when there's not an emergency etc) more like a Penalty Fare, but that that option isn't open to them, so the options are a ticking off or prosecution (or a threat thereof to obtain a settlement).
Having been in the staff member's shoes before, I can at least see why they'd be unhappy at the OP's behaviour - the last thing you want is an escalator accident on your station. However, I'm stunned that they went so far as issuing an MG11, especially for such a split-second incident that they'll probably struggle to recall months later.
Monument is a very busy station and things like this would happen all the time. Unless someone's intoxicated/actively endangering others, you'd tell them off and leave them be. I can't imagine this has changed in the past two years.
The inconsistencies in the witness statement also suggest that whoever's written it up has either done it in a rush or finished it well after the event took place. If it emerged in court that the basic facts of the incident were wrong, it'd probably not end well for Nexus (or the staff member concerned). However, that's a big "if".
Monument is a very busy station and things like this would happen all the time. Unless someone's intoxicated/actively endangering others, you'd tell them off and leave them be. I can't imagine this has changed in the past two years.
The inconsistencies in the witness statement also suggest that whoever's written it up has either done it in a rush or finished it well after the event took place. If it emerged in court that the basic facts of the incident were wrong, it'd probably not end well for Nexus (or the staff member concerned). However, that's a big "if".
The OP was offered an out of court settlement, which is effectively a fixed penalty, however chose not to pay it. My advice would be for the OP to contact Nexus and see if this is still on the cards, explaining the mitigating factors of their sons disability, and offer to pay immediately.
Travel operators' CCTV footage has indeed been known to "not exist" where it might have supported the Claimant.
From personal experience with a bus company, even getting company confirmation on the same day that the relevant CCTV footage will be retained, doesn't stop the company claiming three months later that "Oh dear, none of the cameras were working!" And when asked about the [mandatory] impact-detecting system that they'd been adamant supported their defence. "Oh dear, we've only just discovered it was actually turned off at the time of the accident".
Even they realised that all these inconsistencies wouldn't look well in Court. And they settled the claim instead.
Faf
Member
It was 23.30pm, station was practically dead. He saw my son come through the barrier and go down. He would have known exactly what was happening. He heard my son call out to his friend to ask what was wrong.
He was arriving. He’d just left the gym with friends, arrived at the station, purchased tickets, went through the barrier and down the escalator.
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
@Faf - I don’t mean to sound sceptical because I’m not, and I don’t know you or your lad. But is your son a reliable witness? Do you trust everything he says? Are you 100% sure it’s what happened and he didn’t kick off?
I know when I was his age I was economical with the truth, so just a question!
One thing in your advantage is the frankly pathetic, lazy witness statement on the part of the member of staff. My reaction if I read that is “what, that’s it? That’s what you’re sending someone to court for?”
In the event it does go to court it will require him to actually say things in his defence. I am sure nobody wants for this to happen, hence my original advice to just settle, but if it does, he will need to be motivated and have the confidence to speak up for himself.
You’ve also received advice here from other seasoned and reputable posters who have encouraged fighting it. Those are also worth considering, although I am not sure in your situation it would be within my appetite to do so. It’s up to you to choose what to do, but do please keep us updated. This one seems a gross overreach of Nexus’ power.
I know when I was his age I was economical with the truth, so just a question!
One thing in your advantage is the frankly pathetic, lazy witness statement on the part of the member of staff. My reaction if I read that is “what, that’s it? That’s what you’re sending someone to court for?”
In the event it does go to court it will require him to actually say things in his defence. I am sure nobody wants for this to happen, hence my original advice to just settle, but if it does, he will need to be motivated and have the confidence to speak up for himself.
You’ve also received advice here from other seasoned and reputable posters who have encouraged fighting it. Those are also worth considering, although I am not sure in your situation it would be within my appetite to do so. It’s up to you to choose what to do, but do please keep us updated. This one seems a gross overreach of Nexus’ power.
I would agree with this wholeheartedly and the previous suggestion that someone made that this might be one of those rare occasions when, if you're sure of your sons behaviour, it might be worth seeing if the media are interested.
This might be a bit tricky as the OP says their son is undiagnosed. They can still seek medical advice however.
They were undiagnosed at the time of the incident, not now (which is my reading anyway).
I've read the witness statement several times. It comes across as a plain vanilla statement saying that he observed the defendant running up a down escalator. He makes no assumptions about the defendant's journey direction or anything else. Unless I've missed something, I don't think there's anything there that can be picked on for the defence.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
From where did he observe it? How many steps did he see the accused run up? What else did he see? Does he know the reason why he accused run up the escalator? Was anyone else inconvenienced or hurt? What did the accused say when challenged?
There’s loads there for the defence to ask and form mitigation.
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
@Faf , I hope your son can see that there are ways forward based on what he has said. Examining the witness statement or other apparent failings by Nexus doesn't have to mean confrontation - it can give pointers as to how to help the prosecution department understand the situation.
If you can afford the lump sum, offering to pay the £120 is the safest option. Your son could then, as @AlterEgo said, try to seek redress later.
It is conceivable that when your son explains in writing, they will drop the case with no need to pay.
It may be that a local politician would be interested.
Your son might call these:
If he's a current student, his university welfare service; separately, the student union which may provide some free legal advice as well as welfare services.
- and/or one or both of these:
www.northumbria.ac.uk
"Northeast Law Centre Adviceline. A new advice service that will be available every Friday between 10am-2pm by calling 0191 2304777, where you can get one-off advice and support. Casework or representation at court will not be provided."
https://www.nelawcentre.co.uk/our-services/criminal-law
Please seek legal advice, or at least advice on here on what to write, before contacting Nexus.
If you can afford the lump sum, offering to pay the £120 is the safest option. Your son could then, as @AlterEgo said, try to seek redress later.
It is conceivable that when your son explains in writing, they will drop the case with no need to pay.
It may be that a local politician would be interested.
Your son might call these:
If he's a current student, his university welfare service; separately, the student union which may provide some free legal advice as well as welfare services.
- and/or one or both of these:
Student Law Office
"Northeast Law Centre Adviceline. A new advice service that will be available every Friday between 10am-2pm by calling 0191 2304777, where you can get one-off advice and support. Casework or representation at court will not be provided."
https://www.nelawcentre.co.uk/our-services/criminal-law
Please seek legal advice, or at least advice on here on what to write, before contacting Nexus.
The witness wrote the stations in the wrong direction. He wrote "I observed the defendant...ran up escalator 1" which might have misled the prosecution department, and could mislead a magistrate, that he saw the passenger run up the whole way. The passenger clarifying these things would be part of mitigation rather than defence.
Last edited:
You are correct. Apologies.
I agree that there's loads that the defence could ask about that would potentially help mitigation, but the inspector was probably doing exactly what he's been trained to do in the event of a prosecution, just state the actual offense, date, time and place, and the relevant byelaw, and not clutter it up with excess detail. It's a strict liability issue, so there is no defence, just potential mitigation and it's up to the defendant to provide that information.
My point was that we shouldn't get carried away with the idea that the inspector got anything wrong with regard to his evidence.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
It doesn't matter and is irrelevant The witness statement quite correctly states that he saw the person running UP the DOWN escalator. Nothing more than that is required. In the past I've written hundreds of similar statements and in Court the Magistrates accept that as the FACTS. Nothing else is needed, especially when the wording of the By-Law is taken into account, and very rarely have those facts been questioned, even when the accused had a legal representative.
I do wonder how many responders here have actually gone and sat in the public gallery at a Magistrates Court and viewed a few cases. I suggest that they need to and see what really happens.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I clearly state in the post you quoted that this was for mitigation.
I'm not saying anything was wrong, just that it is extremely brief with very few details. As the witness has chosen not to provide anything beyond a basic "sketch" of what happened "well I saw him going up the down escalator" this means there's quite a lot of scope for the accused to actually fill in those gaps without realistic challenge.
"I only went up 10 steps, not the whole escalator. I wanted to go back to the top as fast as possible as I was helping my friend who was stuck in the barrier. I didn't push past anyone or cause anyone any harm, in fact there was literally nobody else about at all" is quite a lot of "colouring in" for the incident!
Falcon1200
Established Member
I agree, it seems a gross overreaction, and a fine of £120 is excessive too. However;
Indeed, and while the escalator was clear when the young man started going back up, it would not necessarily have been when he reached the top. So the rule against it is necessary and justified. Being wise after the event of course, could he not just have continued to the end of the down escalator and gone back up on the ascending one?
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
The point is it's a load of old cock. There are escalators in tens of thousands of public buildings in this country and only at a few hundred railway stations is it a criminal offence (lol, lmao!) to run up a down escalator. Any other business would have dealt with this by challenging the behaviour and letting them get on with their day, or if they continued to be a nuisance, ask them to leave the premises.
This is Chronicle gold, the newspaper will love it and it should give the paper and nice big stick to hit the Metro with. And to be honest they deserve it in this case. Preposterous by Nexus.
- Status