South Western Railway court summons

[Monkeymoo]

Afternoon all and firstly, as a new member, thanks for this forum!
This is probably a FAQ but advice needed. I committed the heinous crime back in Feb this year of travelling without a valid ticket on a SWR train from Waterloo to Gillingham .
I was (in retrospect, unwisely) trying to save a few £s as I'm on a low income, by stating that I had a Network Railcard when buying my ticket (off peak return), which I didn't, and was found out by one of their 'Revenue Protection' officers on the train. I owned up to my misdemeanor and gave all my details to the Inspector.
Then back in April I received a letter from them offering me the option of either paying £120 fine plus the cost of the ticket (£59.20), OR having a hearing in court, which I chose to opt for, thinking - as I still do - that I could argue my case that this fine, as well as the general tone of their correspondence ie. that I'm some kind of felon, is completely disproportionate to the so-called 'crime' of saving about £10 on the cost of a return ticket. However, having read some of the other similar cases on here, I see that arguing about the 'fairness' of their action doesn't apparently get you very far.
I've now received the court summons with the option of paying a £180 fine plus fare, if I plead guilty, OR, I can plead NOT guilty which would presumably need an explanation of any mitigating circumstances, of which there aren't really any. Alternatively, I can ignore them and they'll enter a plea in my absence, which I presume is not recommended!
In view of all the recent negative publicity in the media about 1000s of people having their cases annulled, due to train companies not following correct procedures when prosecuting people, can anyone advise whether this has any bearing on my case, and what my best course of action might be, going forward? Obviously I would prefer to avoid a criminal conviction! Many thanks in advance.

 

[Titfield]

Please upload the letters you have received with your name address and any reference numbers obscured so the forum members can see the exact state of affairs.

 

[methecooldude]

I was (in retrospect, unwisely) trying to save a few £s as I'm on a low income, by stating that I had a Network Railcard when buying my ticket (off peak return), which I didn't, and was found out by one of their 'Revenue Protection' officers on the train. I owned up to my misdemeanor and gave all my details to the Inspector.
Then back in April I received a letter from them offering me the option of either paying £120 fine plus the cost of the ticket (£59.20), OR having a hearing in court, which I chose to opt for, thinking - as I still do - that I could argue my case that this fine, as well as the general tone of their correspondence ie. that I'm some kind of felon, is completely disproportionate to the so-called 'crime' of saving about £10 on the cost of a return ticket. However, having read some of the other similar cases on here, I see that arguing about the 'fairness' of their action doesn't apparently get you very far.

By claiming you had a Network Railcard and obtaining the railcard discount when you didn't in fact process the railcard is open and shut fraud. There is no "so-called 'crime'" here, it's crime full stop which you are guilty of.

Could you please provide copies of paperwork received from the railway, with personal details redacted, in order for the experts here to assist further

 

[30907]

In view of all the recent negative publicity in the media about 1000s of people having their cases annulled, due to train companies not following correct procedures when prosecuting people, can anyone advise whether this has any bearing on my case

Short answer: no.
Longer answer: those cases relate to using the Single Justice Procedure for offences which were not allowed to be dealt with that way. It is very unlikely that this would apply in your case, though without sight of the correspondence we can't be 100% sure.
All things being equal, go for the out-of-court settlement you have been offered.

 

[swt_passenger]

Short answer: no.
Longer answer: those cases relate to using the Single Justice Procedure for offences which were not allowed to be dealt with that way. It is very unlikely that this would apply in your case, though without sight of the correspondence we can't be 100% sure.
All things being equal, go for the out-of-court settlement you have been offered.

But he’s already turned that option down though, as per the first post? Why would the TOC go back to that option now?

 

[High Dyke]

But he’s already turned that option down though, as per the first post? Why would the TOC go back to that option now?

The fine has increased, from the original letter, if the OP pleads guilty, as they've explained.

 

[swt_passenger]

The fine has increased, from the original letter, if the OP pleads guilty, as they've explained.

I suspect that’s actually SWR‘s costs, and not a fine. I don’t think SWR can say in advance what the court will charge as a fine, it will have to be means tested.

 

[Haywain]

I've now received the court summons with the option of paying a £180 fine plus fare, if I plead guilty

That's the amount you'd be paying on top of the fine imposed by the court. You need to get a letter off to SWR asking if they'll allow you to settle and apologising for your previous response.

 

[skyhigh]

In view of all the recent negative publicity in the media about 1000s of people having their cases annulled, due to train companies not following correct procedures when prosecuting people, can anyone advise whether this has any bearing on my case

Absolutely none.

I would suggest that a swift recalibration in your attitude to the matter is required. You've committed a criminal offence, regardless of how serious you think it is, and been caught. You've turned down the option of avoiding court and are now heading for a conviction with no defence to the charge. It's a slam dunk prosecution for the train company.

The only way you're going to get out of this is apologising, telling the company you didn't understand the seriousness and asking to pay their costs incurred. But those costs will have increased since the previous offer you declined.

 

[AlterEgo]

I committed the heinous crime back in Feb this year of travelling without a valid ticket on a SWR train from Waterloo to Gillingham .
I was (in retrospect, unwisely) trying to save a few £s as I'm on a low income, by stating that I had a Network Railcard when buying my ticket (off peak return), which I didn't, and was found out by one of their 'Revenue Protection' officers on the train. I owned up to my misdemeanor and gave all my details to the Inspector.

So you accept what you did was wrong, and cheating. Regrettably you are about to find out this is also a criminal offence, which you are guilty of.

Then back in April I received a letter from them offering me the option of either paying £120 fine plus the cost of the ticket (£59.20), OR having a hearing in court, which I chose to opt for, thinking - as I still do - that I could argue my case that this fine, as well as the general tone of their correspondence ie. that I'm some kind of felon, is completely disproportionate to the so-called 'crime' of saving about £10 on the cost of a return ticket.

Unwise.

However, having read some of the other similar cases on here, I see that arguing about the 'fairness' of their action doesn't apparently get you very far.

Well no, because this is a criminal offence, and also one people don't tend to commit only once either.

I've now received the court summons with the option of paying a £180 fine plus fare, if I plead guilty, OR, I can plead NOT guilty which would presumably need an explanation of any mitigating circumstances, of which there aren't really any.

Mitigation is not a defence - you don't plead mitigation if you plead not guilty, you have to provide a defence in law. Which you don't have. Mitigation is what happens if you plead or are found guilty. It is an argument for lesser consequences, but it will not acquit you and you will still be guilty, fined, and have to pay the cost of the fares plus a surcharge.

Alternatively, I can ignore them and they'll enter a plea in my absence, which I presume is not recommended!

It is not recommended, no!

In view of all the recent negative publicity in the media about 1000s of people having their cases annulled, due to train companies not following correct procedures when prosecuting people, can anyone advise whether this has any bearing on my case

It does not, if you are being prosecuted under the Railway Bylaws under SJPN, which I presume is what is happening here, although we haven't seen the paperwork.

, and what my best course of action might be, going forward? Obviously I would prefer to avoid a criminal conviction! Many thanks in advance.

It would be to write to the train company and retract whatever letter you sent to them the first time, apologise sincerely for attempting to evade the fare, and ask them if they would kindly consider withdrawing the criminal prosecution in lieu of you settling with them out of court. Unfortunately this will prove more expensive than had you just apologised in the first place, as they have now gone to the expense of taking you to court and preparing papers.

A salutary lesson for you, I'm afraid.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

It's a shame you didn't post here back in Fenruary when you were first caught....

However wrong it might feel travelling without the correct ticket is a criminal offence and if the case ends up in court you will not win. If you plead guilty (or are found guilty) you will have to pay:

- A fine based on your income (usually discounted by a third for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity)
- A surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- Compensation for the fare avoided
- A contribution toward SWR's costs in dealing with the issue

It's not 100% clear what you have been sent that mentions £180. It might be a final offer to pay SWR an out of court settlement of £180 in return for them dropping the court case. On the other hand it could be the amount of costs SWR intend to ask the court to tell you to pay.

In order to give you appropriate advice we need to see this paperwork. Can you upload a copy of it in this thread, but so remove any personal detauls and case reference numbers before doing so.

 

[Monkeymoo]

Thanks for replies. I attach (edited) copies of the initial letter and court summons from SWR. I hope they're clear enough, if not will repost. Any further advice on the best course of action would be greatly appreciated, and pls let me know if any other info needed.
Thanks again.

 

[AlterEgo]

The prosecution is out of time. A good lawyer can get this thrown out. They had six months from the date of the offence but took six months and ten days.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The summons has been issued just over the six month limit for prosecution so it shouldn’t succeed

Whether that will require legal representation that costs £££ I do not know - others may well know more about the process

So the OP may have dodged a bullet here, but should be aware that a repeat of this will almost certainly mean a trip to court

[EDIT] @AlterEgo beat me to it

 

[island]

A lawyer would help but isn't necessary; it should suffice to write to the court and SWR stating that the court is prohibited by section 127 of the Magistrates Court Act from trying the information, and asking them to confirm by return that the case won't be proceeding and that your attendance will therefore not be required on the given date.

If you do not get positive confirmation in writing before the date of your case, you must attend court and state the same thing. The court will have to dismiss the case.

 

[furlong]

I'm astonished that something like this can happen in spite of all the current publicity. This case needs to be drawn to the attention of the authorities (DfT/HMCTS) to ensure the scope of the current audit of procedural irregularities in rail prosecutions encompasses this class of error and is extended to include this particular train company, which was so far not mentioned publicly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2024 ==

(Is there any way the date under the 'Information laid by' section might be misleading, with it actually having been previously laid within time and the date given being that of a summons issued later?)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2024 ==

(And train companies really shouldn't be leaving this to the last minute. The previous letter was in April and talked of 21 days! Why wait till August?)

 

[SWT_USER]

I'm astonished that something like this can happen in spite of all the current publicity. This case needs to be drawn to the attention of the authorities (DfT/HMCTS) to ensure the scope of the current audit of procedural irregularities in rail prosecutions encompasses this class of error and is extended to include this particular train company, which was so far not mentioned publicly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2024 ==

(Is there any way the date under the 'Information laid by' section might be misleading, with it actually having been previously laid within time and the date given being that of a summons issued later?)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2024 ==

(And train companies really shouldn't be leaving this to the last minute. The previous letter was in April and talked of 21 days! Why wait till August?)

Totally agree with this. Astonishing that SWR have proceeded with prosecution in this case. Adds to the argument that TOC's should not be allowed to launch private prosecutions - they have shown thousands of times across various TOC that they can't do it properly.

OP has got lucky in this case.. hopefully they learn their lesson.

 

[Monkeymoo]

A lawyer would help but isn't necessary; it should suffice to write to the court and SWR stating that the court is prohibited by section 127 of the Magistrates Court Act from trying the information, and asking them to confirm by return that the case won't be proceeding and that your attendance will therefore not be required on the given date.

If you do not get positive confirmation in writing before the date of your case, you must attend court and state the same thing. The court will have to dismiss the case.

Thanks again for replies...so just to be clear, are you saying that if there is a gap of more than 6 months between date of offence and court summons, that the case can not proceed? If so (last request as I can see how busy you all are helping others) as I'm not quite clear what to say when I reply to SWR and the court...is there a template letter available for such cases that I can use? Much obliged

 

[Snow1964]

Thanks again for replies...so just to be clear, are you saying that if there is a gap of more than 6 months between date of offence and court summons, that the case can not proceed? If so (last request as I can see how busy you all are helping others) as I'm not quite clear what to say when I reply to SWR and the court...is there a template letter available for such cases that I can use? Much obliged

Yes, the type of offence has to be laid before the court within 6 months. It wasn't so cannot now be heard as out of time.

Just need simple 2 sentence letter pointing this out and mentioning section 127 as above. Then second sentence asking for confirmation that attendence at court is no longer required.

 

[furlong]

However you should check the date with the court first. It seems just possible they sent the papers to the court earlier and narrowly within the time limit then used misleading wording on what they sent you.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's not 100% clear what you have been sent that mentions £180. It might be a final offer to pay SWR an out of court settlement of £180 in return for them dropping the court case. On the other hand it could be the amount of costs SWR intend to ask the court to tell you to pay.

At least since the letter was posted we now know that the £180 was definitely SWR’s intended “Costs Application“, as that’s the sub-heading it’s under.

 

[Monkeymoo]

However you should check the date with the court first. It seems just possible they sent the papers to the court earlier and narrowly within the time limit then used misleading wording on what they sent you.

Oh now I'm confused... the date for the hearing is Sept 18th as stated on their correspondence, why would I need to check this?

 

[swt_passenger]

Oh now I'm confused... the date for the hearing is Sept 18th as stated on their correspondence, why would I need to check this?

You don’t need to check the date of the hearing, it’s the date further down on the left, just after the section starting with “Information laid by Susan Gray” you’ll see 19 Aug 2024 - it is that date in question as it is more than 6 months after the incident date.

 

[Hadders]

SWR have to lay information before the court within 6 months of the offence taking place if they want to prosecute you.

The offence took place on 9th February and the summonds is dated 19th August which is longer than six months, so on that basis the case should not proceed. We are assuming that 19th August is the date the information was laid before the court, it is possible that they were laid before the six months was up but the summons dated a few days later. This is why you should check with the court and find out exactly when the papers were laid.

If the papers were not laid before 9th August then SWR are out of time and you should write a short, concise letter to SWR following @island advice in post #15.

 

[Snow1964]

If the papers had been laid with court by 6 month deadline (9 August), but the summons letter shows them as laid 19th August then there is a procedural irregularity.

At very least the court should be asked to demonstrate the papers were in time and can try the case, not assume they were in time and proceed anyway. That is why magistrate has a legal advisor so they can advise on questions of procedure.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is grounds for arguing the summons is wrong and would need to be done again, and should really not be messed about like this so they should drop the case because it has been (or it will be by then) over a month since papers were filed and no correct summons was issued. It is also strong argument for costs reduction because shouldn't have to pay for their poor admin.

 

[mdann52]

We are assuming that 19th August is the date the information was laid before the court, it is possible that they were laid before the six months was up but the summons dated a few days later.

Normally, the date on the summons won't be the same date as information was laid, as it's not as automatic process unlike other ways of starting a case. Unless the OP has been taken into custody when they were charged, or a few other cases which don't apply here given this is a private prosecution, they can't be given a court date at the same time as the information being laid on the courts

I suspect the information was laid sometime before then, the court took their merry time getting round to authorizing it, and the 19th will be the date the summons was authorised by the court. I'm not convinced SWR would be an authorised prosecutor or public prosecutor within the meaning of CPR 7.2, so they cannot issue a written summons without the courts permission.

As long as information has been laid in time, the summons doesn't have to be immediately issued as soon as approved by the court, but must be done in a timely manner

 

[Monkeymoo]

Evening all,
re the above case, I got this reply from SWR Prosecutions date today:

Thank you for your letter, I am responding by email to ensure that you receive our communication prior to the court hearing.

I can confirm we have reviewed your case and the matter will be withdrawn from court on 18th September 2024.

Kind regards

Jane Turnham

Prosecutions Case Officer

South Western Railway

So it appears my friends, that SWR decided that by proceeding, they would indeed be in breach of Section 127 of the MCA and have dropped the case!

I thank all of you who have advised on this....rest assured that it has been a salutary lesson: that trying to save a few £s on a train fare really ain't worth all the hassle and stress caused!

 

[island]

Glad to hear it.

I am sure you will understand that you have been "saved by the bell" here and it is essential that you pay the correct fare going forward.

 

[Hadders]

Moderator Note:

I've moved a number of posts about the requirement to notify the court and defendant of the reasons why a case is withdrawn, into a new thread,

Requirement To Tell The Court and Defendant When a Court Case is Withdrawn

Split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/south-western-railway-court-summons.273380/ The Criminal Procedure Rules say, "1.2.—(1) Each participant, in the conduct of each case, must ... (c) at once inform the court and all parties of any significant failure (whether or not that...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Monkeymoo]

Morning all,
Re the above case, seems as though I may not have been 'saved by the bell' after all....
Having followed your advice on here to write to TOC and Magistrates Court advising them the case should not proceed, and after having received this confirmation from SWR:

Dear Mr.....

Thank you for your letter, I am responding by email to ensure that you receive our communication prior to the court hearing.

I can confirm we have reviewed your case and the matter will be withdrawn from court on 18th September 2024.

Kind regards

Jane Turnham

Prosecutions Case Officer

South Western Railway

It appears that the Court were NOT informed of this, and as I - perhaps unwisely - assumed that they had, and did not attend the court hearing, I've now received a Notice of Fine and Collection order from the Court to the tune of £547.20, to be paid by 16/10/24!
I have written to the London Collection and Compliance Centre explaining the situation, and had this reply:

Good Afternoon,

RE: A/C No

Thank you for your emails.
Please be advised, this is the criminal debt enforcement unit for HMCTS London. We are not a court and cannot comment on your conviction (finding of guilt) or sentence (penalty). We cannot cancel, withdraw, waiver, reduce or offer a discount on your fine.

Having checked the court case records, I can confirm that it does not appear the court received communications from the prosecution confirming that they would be withdrawing the case. Therefore, the court heard the case on 18/09/2024 in your absence, and sentenced you for the train offence.

As the court has imposed a fine against you, a Notice of Fine & Collection Order was issued to you as this is sent in every instance that a fine account is registered on our system as confirmation of the penalty imposed by the court.

Therefore, unfortunately you are liable for the fine imposed by the court, and are expected to pay this in full by the deadline ordered by the court.

You can either contact the prosecution directly to query this matter, or if you are unhappy with the outcome of your Magistrates’ court case, or if you were unaware of the Court proceedings and did not receive any court summons, then you need to contact the Courts and Tribunals Service Centre (CTSC). Please contact the CTSC on 0300 303 0656. Monday to Thursday, 8am to 5pm and Friday, 8am to 4pm.

Alternatively, you can email the CTSC at [email protected]. Please provide your Court Case Number or Unique Reference Number to the CTSC.

If this unit is notified by the court that the matter is being listed for your dispute to be considered, we will hold enforcement (deduction orders will continue) until told of the result; if you lodge an appeal, however, in most cases enforcement will continue. Any money received will be refunded, as per court order, if your appeal is successful.

To be clear, unless the court directly instructs/orders us to hold enforcement, you are expected to pay the court fine imposed against you; and failing to pay your court fine will result in further enforcement being actioned against you to collect the outstanding court fine balance owed on account.

As it stands, you are expected to pay your court fine of £547.20 in full by 16/10/2024.

If you are unable to pay your fine in a lump sum, then we can arrange a payment plan to stop your account tripping to further enforcement. If this is the case, please propose a monthly instalment rate that you can afford, and a date of first payment, so that we might consider setting a payment plan in place.

Please review the above. In the meantime, should you require a payment plan, please provide your proposal for our consideration as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

Melissa

Administrative Officer

London Collection & Compliance Centre

This obviously came as quite a shock, as I'd assumed the matter was closed.
Please can anyone advise whether I have grounds for appeal here, given the correspondence from SWR, and if so, how should I proceed?
Many thanks.