Advice please re conviction

[Lillyjane_1234]

Hi everyone
I wonder if I can have some advice?
My daughter age 19 was using Northern Rail to get to her previous job. A 5 min journey costing £1.30 one way. In November she bought her ticket as normal online before boarding, however what she didn't realise was instead of selecting that day (20th) she accidently bought one for the 28th. When the inspector checked her ticket, she realised what she had done. She tried to explain but was issued with a fine. At that time, she did not know why she was not offered to pay for a valid ticket there and then. She uses the trains regularly to and from London to see her boyfriend but the train company isn't Northern Rail. On that line, you are able to buy on the train.

Annoyingly only a few weeks later, she saw another person not buy a ticket and the inspector said don't worry, have it as an early Christmas present!

She appealed 3 times and lost the appeals. The responses from Northern Rail were just box standard replies each time.
After the last rejection letter, she went onto the website to pay £104. (Seems disproportionate for a £1.30 ticket hence the appeals). At this point she was earning £6.60/hr as an apprentice. No where near minimum wage.
She tried to put the claim ref in and said it was invalid. After several attempts, she then emailed asking what to do. She didn't get a reply. She then did nothing else' about it.
I wasn't aware she hadn't paid it and obviously that would have saved all the subsequent action she is now facing. She struggles greatly with her mental health and was (still is) struggling day to day. Not an excuse but it's prevented her from dealing with what she should have and done without her telling anyone.

Fast forward to April, she had a letter from Northern rail saying they'd canceled the fine and she 'may' be taken to court. The very next day she received a Single Justice Notice which caused a huge amount of stress.

She sent in all the paperwork straight away by recorded delivery and ticked 'plead guilty and not attend court'. She wrote a long statement explaining her situation as the statement from the inspector basically said she hasn't bought a ticket. It did not say she has bought a ticket but was not the correct day. (I know this is irrelevant now). She sent every email she had sent to Northern Rail.
She was prepared to receive a fine after sending this all to the court.

Today, she has been sent a court summons to appear for sentencing. Obviously it's arrived on a weekend so unable to get any legal advice so far.
We are shocked at this outcome. The letter states she has been convicted under section 18(1) and a full hearing will now be held in the magistrates court next month. They have not sent anything to offer her to pay a fine and by ticking the box to say guilty and not to attend court, we are confused why she now needs to.

She is doing an apprenticeship for the NHS. She requires DBS checks and obviously not financially able to pay a hefty fine. I have spent all day trying to understand the legal system on this and will be contacting a solicitor on Monday.

I won't go into how unfair this all feels based on a human error of a £1.30 train ticket but it feels so wrong.
This is going to destroy her mentally, she will not be able to stand up in court and speak hence seeking legal advice that no one can afford.

Does anyone have any advice please?
.
Thank you in advance.
(Please no lectures on what she has done wrong and what she should have done! She knows)

 

[methecooldude]

She appealed 3 times and lost the appeals. The responses from Northern Rail were just box standard replies each time.
After the last rejection letter, she went onto the website to pay £104. (Seems disproportionate for a £1.30 ticket hence the appeals). At this point she was earning £6.60/hr as an apprentice. No where near minimum wage.
She tried to put the claim ref in and said it was invalid. After several attempts, she then emailed asking what to do. She didn't get a reply. She then did nothing else' about it.
I wasn't aware she hadn't paid it and obviously that would have saved all the subsequent action she is now facing. She struggles greatly with her mental health and was (still is) struggling day to day. Not an excuse but it's prevented her from dealing with what she should have and done without her telling anyone.

The question I would ask is what was the time gap between the last appeal and the attempt at payment. I surmise the time may have run out after the last appeal...

 

[Lillyjane_1234]

Sadly yes it was outside of the appeal time. From what I can gather is she's tried to sort things herself and, again not an excuse, but being only just 19 she has not realised the severity.
I just can't understand why she has received a court summons after saying she pled guilty to the offence. The 3 options were plead guilty and attend court, guilty and not attend or plead not guilty.

 

[MotCO]

Hi everyone
I wonder if I can have some advice?
My daughter age 19 was using Northern Rail to get to her previous job. A 5 min journey costing £1.30 one way. In November she bought her ticket as normal online before boarding, however what she didn't realise was instead of selecting that day (20th) she accidently bought one for the 28th. When the inspector checked her ticket, she realised what she had done. She tried to explain but was issued with a fine. At that time, she did not know why she was not offered to pay for a valid ticket there and then. She uses the trains regularly to and from London to see her boyfriend but the train company isn't Northern Rail. On that line, you are able to buy on the train.

Annoyingly only a few weeks later, she saw another person not buy a ticket and the inspector said don't worry, have it as an early Christmas present!

She appealed 3 times and lost the appeals. The responses from Northern Rail were just box standard replies each time.
After the last rejection letter, she went onto the website to pay £104. (Seems disproportionate for a £1.30 ticket hence the appeals). At this point she was earning £6.60/hr as an apprentice. No where near minimum wage.
She tried to put the claim ref in and said it was invalid. After several attempts, she then emailed asking what to do. She didn't get a reply. She then did nothing else' about it.
I wasn't aware she hadn't paid it and obviously that would have saved all the subsequent action she is now facing. She struggles greatly with her mental health and was (still is) struggling day to day. Not an excuse but it's prevented her from dealing with what she should have and done without her telling anyone.

Fast forward to April, she had a letter from Northern rail saying they'd canceled the fine and she 'may' be taken to court. The very next day she received a Single Justice Notice which caused a huge amount of stress.

She sent in all the paperwork straight away by recorded delivery and ticked 'plead guilty and not attend court'. She wrote a long statement explaining her situation as the statement from the inspector basically said she hasn't bought a ticket. It did not say she has bought a ticket but was not the correct day. (I know this is irrelevant now). She sent every email she had sent to Northern Rail.
She was prepared to receive a fine after sending this all to the court.

Today, she has been sent a court summons to appear for sentencing. Obviously it's arrived on a weekend so unable to get any legal advice so far.
We are shocked at this outcome. The letter states she has been convicted under section 18(1) and a full hearing will now be held in the magistrates court next month. They have not sent anything to offer her to pay a fine and by ticking the box to say guilty and not to attend court, we are confused why she now needs to.

She is doing an apprenticeship for the NHS. She requires DBS checks and obviously not financially able to pay a hefty fine. I have spent all day trying to understand the legal system on this and will be contacting a solicitor on Monday.

I won't go into how unfair this all feels based on a human error of a £1.30 train ticket but it feels so wrong.
This is going to destroy her mentally, she will not be able to stand up in court and speak hence seeking legal advice that no one can afford.

Does anyone have any advice please?
.
Thank you in advance.
(Please no lectures on what she has done wrong and what she should have done! She knows)

First of all, you have come to the right place for good non -judgemental advice. There are plenty of people on here who can give legal and ticketing advice (but I am not one of these exalted experts), but the usual request is to upload all relevant paperwork. I think in this instance that the paperwork regarding the Court case is the important part since she has already entrted a guilty plea.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

This sounds like an unfortunate incident but sadly I think it's going to be very difficult to unpick it.

My daughter age 19 was using Northern Rail to get to her previous job. A 5 min journey costing £1.30 one way. In November she bought her ticket as normal online before boarding, however what she didn't realise was instead of selecting that day (20th) she accidently bought one for the 28th. When the inspector checked her ticket, she realised what she had done. She tried to explain but was issued with a fine

This sounds like an 'honest' mistake and it seems as though your daughter was issued with a Penalty Fare. A Penalty Fare isn't an accusation of fare evasion, it is a higher than normal fare issued to people to have made an 'honest' mistake - a bit like a parking ticket.

A Penalty Fare is £100 plus the appropriate fare but it is reduced to £50 plus the appropriate fare if paid within 21-days. You are entitled to appeal against the Penalty Fare which stops the clock on the 21-days to pay at the discounted rate.

Note that technically a Penalty Fare is not a fine. Only a court can impose a fine as a punishment upon conviction. Paying a Penalty Fare might feel like a fine but technically it isn't a fine.

Annoyingly only a few weeks later, she saw another person not buy a ticket and the inspector said don't worry, have it as an early Christmas present!

This isn't relevant. It's a bit like complaining that you've been given a ticket for speeding but 'everyone else does it'.

She appealed 3 times and lost the appeals. The responses from Northern Rail were just box standard replies each time.

This is extremely important. Have you got copies of the appeals submissions and, more importantly, the rejection letters or emails. if you have keep them very safe.

Historically, it was the case that train companies were barred from prosecuting people who did not pay Penalty Fares, but had appealed them, in the Magistrates Court. But they were able to recover the outstanding money via the Civil Courts. The Chief Magistrate ruled last week that, in his opinion, train companies are entitled to prosecute people who do not pay Penalty Fares even if they have appealed.

Given the timelines involved it sounds as though Northern might have been in breach of the law here - as long as your daughter did submit appeals correctly. Other forum members, such as @Puffing Devil @John Palmer @KirkstallOne and @furlong who are far more knowledgable in this area than me will probably be along in the next few days with advice on how you might be able to proceed, if my understadning is correct.

What you can do in the meantime is upload redacted copies of all the paperwork relating to the case, which will assist us in understanding what has happened and when so that we can give you the correct advice.

After the last rejection letter, she went onto the website to pay £104.

That is what should happen after the appeals process has been exhausted. The key thing here is how long after the final appeal did she try to pay.

Fast forward to April, she had a letter from Northern rail saying they'd canceled the fine and she 'may' be taken to court. The very next day she received a Single Justice Notice which caused a huge amount of stress.

I'm not 100% certain that Northern are able to prosecute in the Magistrates Court given what I said above.

She sent in all the paperwork straight away by recorded delivery and ticked 'plead guilty and not attend court'.

This is a bit of an issue because by pleading guilty your daughter has said she comitted the offence and will be convicted.

She was prepared to receive a fine after sending this all to the court.

If you've been convicted (i.e. you plead guilty (which is what your daughter did) or you plead not guilty and are found guilty following a trial) then you would normally be given a fine as a punishment.

Today, she has been sent a court summons to appear for sentencing.

We could do with seeing the paperwork to understand why she's been asked to attend. There are normally two options when pleading guilty - one is an option to be dealt with by post, the other is an option to attend in person for sentencing. Although you can give mitigation on the SJPN form some people like to give their mitigation in person.

Did your daughter inadvertently ticket the wrong box?

The letter states she has been convicted under section 18(1)

If your daughter pleaded guilty then this results in a conviction.

To summarise, it is possible (if your daughter was issued with a Penalty Fare and she submitted the appeal correctly) and notwithstanding the Chief Magistrates ruling (which was only last week and could not have applied back in April) that Northern were not able to prosecute this offence in the Magistrates Court.

The problem is your daughter has pleaded guilty and, as things stand, has been convicted. If my understabnding is correct and Northern were barred from prosecuting then the conviction will need to be nulled. I would need to defer to others on the best way to proceed.

 

[KirkstallOne]

A copy of all the paperwork would be helpful (please blank out all personal details / references etc).

In the meantime there is a lot of discussion in this thread about whether Northern can prosecute someone who has appealed a penalty fare:

Chief Magistrate ruling on prosecuting appealed Penalty Fares (February 2025)

Pleased to upload the attached ruling for discussion amongst the forum. I have to admit I don't fully follow the logic so I hope some wiser legal heads can clarify the implications. My reading is it doesn't really take us much further and regulation 11 really needs to be tested in court...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Pushpit]

This is rather topical at the moment.

Some of us where under the impression that if a Penalty Fare is issued, and then appealed, then the legislation - as written - would mean that Northern would have to follow the civil court process to recover the funds. This costs them money to initiate, whereas a criminal case is "free", so less attractive. Clearly it would have been better to pay the PF on the final appeal, and swiftly. However recently the Chief Magistrate, giving a non-definitive opinion, has suggested that rail companies can pursue unpaid PF by cancelling them and launching a criminal case instead.

This is a complex area now, by way of advance apologies, and here is the recent thread here about this issue :

Chief Magistrate ruling on prosecuting appealed Penalty Fares (February 2025)

Pleased to upload the attached ruling for discussion amongst the forum. I have to admit I don't fully follow the logic so I hope some wiser legal heads can clarify the implications. My reading is it doesn't really take us much further and regulation 11 really needs to be tested in court...

www.railforums.co.uk

Because of this, seeing a solicitor may be a good idea, normally it wouldn't be necessary. I would assume the solicitor would be aware of the above, but by all means bring it to their attention.

However the SJP has to be for a byelaw offence, these are non-recordable and so from a DBS point of view won't show up. They are unlikely to show in the Enhanced DBS in most circumstances too, but there will be exceptions. Her issue will not be DBS, it will be a more straightforward issue of having to disclose convictions (along with cautions and Recorded Police Warnings) to employers, since they have a legal right to know. But the good news is that it is highly, highly unlikely to be a barrier. Almost all jobs in the NHS are under-staffed and recruitment is a huge headache. A minor rail evasion case is unlikely to be a problem. You mention "apprentice" - some colleges misunderstand the way the NHS works and assume, incorrectly, there is a massive problem here. There isn't, but it may need a bit of dialogue for this to be resolved.

That said, it is important that your daughter focuses very carefully to ensure that things like fares are paid - all clinical roles do understandably put a high value on personal integrity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Saturday at 23:01 ==

As an extra point as to why an in-person appearance with the Magistrates is needed for sentencing: I wonder if the mitigation or the wording used by your daughter meant that the SJP magistrate spotted something that changed their sentencing options. I think it more usually happens when the letter is basically saying "Yes I did it but I should be let off for these reasons..." and that gets in the way of a simple and immediate conviction - is the person really pleading guilty or not? In this case there may be a simple question or two that the Magistrates want to resolve, I wouldn't particularly worry about that aspect, even though it clearly is not what your daughter wanted to do.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sadly yes it was outside of the appeal time. From what I can gather is she's tried to sort things herself and, again not an excuse, but being only just 19 she has not realised the severity.
I just can't understand why she has received a court summons after saying she pled guilty to the offence. The 3 options were plead guilty and attend court, guilty and not attend or plead not guilty.

What else did she say in the response to the summons? It sounds like she may have made what’s called an equivocal plea, which would then require her attendance. This is where someone pleads guilty but says in prose elsewhere why they believe they actually are not guilty or did nothing wrong.

 

[Lillyjane_1234]

Thank you so much everyone. I'll go through the posts you've indicated. I saw there had been a change last year re SJN so that confused me why they have gone down this route.
I was not aware there has been further information last week.

It says in the letter the court summons is for sentencing. But it also says based on the information provided, a full court hearing has been requested. She has to attend in person.

She has all the emails sent as appeals, their replies plus the email she sent when the fine reference number was not recognised on the page you submit the money through.

Valuable lesson learned for her all this but with a high level of stress attached!

 

[Hadders]

Thank you so much everyone. I'll go through the posts you've indicated. I saw there had been a change last year re SJN so that confused me why they have gone down this route.
I was not aware there has been further information last week.

It says in the letter the court summons is for sentencing. But it also says based on the information provided, a full court hearing has been requested. She has to attend in person.

She has all the emails sent as appeals, their replies plus the email she sent when the fine reference number was not recognised on the page you submit the money through.

Valuable lesson learned for her all this but with a high level of stress attached!

Thanks for updating.

As I indicated this isn't going to be easy to resolve but you've found the most knowledable group of people who know about this sort of thing.

We could do with knowing when the court date is so that we know how much time there is to play with.

The widely publicised SJPN issue last year is a bit of a red herring in this case. Without getting too technical, tain companies can use SJPN for some of their cases, the problem is that they used them for cases when they shouldn't have done and, if that wasn't bad enough, they prosecuted people for offences they could not have been guilty of!

This case is nothing to do with the SJPN, a prosecution under section 18(1) of the Railway Byelaws can be bought using the SJPN process. The issue is under the Penalty Fare Regulations 2018, Northern are statute barred from prosecuting (notwithstanding the Chief Magistrates ruling).

 

[Pushpit]

Valuable lesson learned for her all this but with a high level of stress attached!

Yes, it is in my view wicked that train companies do this for tiny sums, and it has been going on for years. It's those who are vulnerable - and essentially not criminals - that feel the pain and stress of these processes. But I would really underline that this can and will be sorted out, and though it has a high nuisance value right now, then with guidance and help from this forum, both you and your daughter will get through this. It won't cause any long term damage to your daughter, it is just the stress of getting there. This too will pass.

 

[Lillyjane_1234]

What else did she say in the response to the summons? It sounds like she may have made what’s called an equivocal plea, which would then require her attendance. This is where someone pleads guilty but says in prose elsewhere why they believe they actually are not guilty or did nothing wrong.

Ah yes that probably does make sense. The plea was guilty basically because she did not want to go to court and was agreeing to a fine. It states a 30% reduction if you plead guilty which almost forces you to select that option.
It asked for any supporting evidence to be written in a statement and I am now thinking, that is an equivocal plea. I have never heard of this term, I have no knowledge of the law or ever experienced anything like this. At that stage we did not feel we needed legal advice, plus you have 21 days to send off which makes you panic and submit asap. , in hindsight I wish we had.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Saturday at 23:15 ==

Thanks for updating.

As I indicated this isn't going to be easy to resolve but you've found the most knowledable group of people who know about this sort of thing.

We could do with knowing when the court date is so that we know how much time there is to play with.

It's the 7th July.

 

[Hadders]

It's the 7th July.

Ok that gives a bit of time to get some opinions from others on the best way to proceed.

 

[Lillyjane_1234]

Yes, it is in my view wicked that train companies do this for tiny sums, and it has been going on for years. It's those who are vulnerable - and essentially not criminals - that feel the pain and stress of these processes. But I would really underline that this can and will be sorted out, and though it has a high nuisance value right now, then with guidance and help from this forum, both you and your daughter will get through this. It won't cause any long term damage to your daughter, it is just the stress of getting there. This too will pass.

Thank you, that's very kind.
She's never not had the right ticket and like I said, she's been travelling to London and back very regularly for 3 years.
She isn't a criminal, she didn't even get in trouble at school! This is why she's struggling so much.
The job she had when this happened was her 1st job after A levels, minimum wage, rubbish hours, bus and train to get there and back and she found it difficult. I think it just feels worse because she had actually bought a ticket. If she had just dodged paying it, it wouldn't have felt so harsh. (I know none of that counts in law).

 

[The Sorcerer]

How did the penalty fare get to £104 when 3 appeals were ongoing.

My understanding is the penalty fare fee of £50 is frozen whilst the appeals process takes place?

Also sounds like there has been a plea of guilt and the Magistrate had read the defendants mitigation and it amounts to a conflict with the plea of guilt.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Ok it doesn’t sound like she has been convicted yet but we will need to see the paperwork to be sure.

Have you contacted Northern since receiving the paperwork? They may well agree to withdraw this for a settlement.

 

[WesternLancer]

How did the penalty fare get to £104 when 3 appeals were ongoing.

My understanding is the penalty fare fee of £50 is frozen whilst the appeals process takes place?

Also sounds like there has been a plea of guilt and the Magistrate had read the defendants mitigation and it amounts to a conflict with the plea of guilt.

Logically this would only happen if you exhausted the appeal process but then still didn’t then pay the penalty fare. Either because you didn’t receive a final decision letter or you ignored it.

Or some procedural error by train company I suppose.

A clear timeline with dates for all this might help unpick it

Eg date of travel
Date of appeal at each stage and date of appeal decision letter for each appeal

Plus anonymised copies of all the paperwork.

Which train company routinely allows passengers to pay on board on routes to London? At least only if charging punitively expensive Anytime fares.

 

[Lillyjane_1234]

How did the penalty fare get to £104 when 3 appeals were ongoing.

My understanding is the penalty fare fee of £50 is frozen whilst the appeals process takes place?

Also sounds like there has been a plea of guilt and the Magistrate had read the defendants mitigation and it amounts to a conflict with the plea of guilt.

I think you are right. Looking at it then it makes sense because she did write the mitigating circumstances in that. I assumed that's what you wrote as it said something like, write anything you want the magistrate to consider when reviewing the case so she put everything in there. I agree it now conflicts giving a plea of guilty.
I wish I'd found this forum before now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Saturday at 23:44 ==

Ok it doesn’t sound like she has been convicted yet but we will need to see the paperwork to be sure.

Have you contacted Northern since receiving the paperwork? They may well agree to withdraw this for a settlement.

It says she has been convicted of the offence.
Not contacted Northern as it only arrived today. Is that an option to contact them directly or is it now too late?

 

[WesternLancer]

I think you are right. Looking at it then it makes sense because she did write the mitigating circumstances in that. I assumed that's what you wrote as it said something like, write anything you want the magistrate to consider when reviewing the case so she put everything in there. I agree it now conflicts giving a plea of guilty.
I wish I'd found this forum before now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Saturday at 23:44 ==


It says she has been convicted of the offence.
Not contacted Northern as it only arrived today. Is that an option to contact them directly or is it now too late?

You really do need to share the paperwork so experts here can answer these questions and advise on the options as they are now I think.

 

[Lillyjane_1234]

You really do need to share the paperwork so experts here can answer these questions and advise on the options as they are now I think.

I haven't got the paperwork at the minute to upload, my daughter has it. The only thing I have to hand is the court letter.

 

[WesternLancer]

If you can share the paperwork on Sunday by Monday morning I would expect people here to be able to give clear advice on what it might be possible to do and the most effective next steps as well as any pros and cons.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 00:09 ==

I haven't got the paperwork at the minute to upload, my daughter has it. The only thing I have to hand is the court letter.

Thanks. See if your daughter can supply you with everything else asap.
Eg any copies of the earlier court papers such as SJPN documents including copies of things returned to the court

Copies of the penalty fare appeals made, the dates made and copies of the decisions made on the appeals.

And anything else retained eg even the original penalty fare notice given on the day of travel where this all started.

 

[Hadders]

Ok thanks for sharing the court paperwork you have. As things currently stand you're daughter has been convicted (based on th guilty plea she sent) but the court want to see her in person when they sentence her, which I assume is because of what she said in her mitigation.

The key thing here is the appeals because if an appeal was correctly submitted then potentially Northern are barred from prosecuting her. Appreciate you haben't got that paperwork to hand now but we do need to see all of the paperwork relating to the appeals plus the original Penalty fare notice as soon as possible.

 

[Haywain]

The key thing here is the appeals because if an appeal was correctly submitted then potentially Northern are barred from prosecuting her.

Problem is that the case would now need to be reopened in order to present that argument. The sentencing hearing isn't the time and place for that (unless others know better).

 

[Hadders]

Problem is that the case would now need to be reopened in order to present that argument. The sentencing hearing isn't the time and place for that (unless others know better).

The case would need re-opening but in essence, based on what we know, it seems to me that Northern were not entitled to prosecute in the first place.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Problem is that the case would now need to be reopened in order to present that argument. The sentencing hearing isn't the time and place for that (unless others know better).

They can make an application to set aside I believe (16M of the Magistrates Court Act) but I agree this would be less complicated if there was no conviction already.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The recent judgement has thrown a lot into disarray, though as the OP's daughter (OPD) has a court date, it would make sense to leverage it.

The OPD should contact the court's listing department as soon as possible to inform them of the intention to make an application under Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980) to reopen the case, proposing to use the allocated sentencing hearing time for this application. The grounds for reopening would be that the court did not possess all the material information when the guilty plea was entered. Specifically, the court was purportedly unaware of the history of the penalty fare appeal process and the argument that, under the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018, the prosecution may not be valid in circumstances where an appeal has been pursued. It is crucial to note that the onus will be on the OPD to provide proof of the penalty fare appeals, including details of their outcomes.

The prosecution may refer to the recent ruling of Senior District Judge Goldspring. It should be respectfully pointed out to the court that this ruling, while significant, emanates from a court of first instance and therefore does not constitute binding precedent on other Magistrates' Courts. A ruling from a Magistrates' Court does not legally compel other courts to adopt the same interpretation. For it to become embedded as binding precedent, affirmation from a higher court, such as the High Court, would be required.

Should the court decline to reopen the case and/or proceed based on the Senior District Judge's ruling that prosecution is valid, mitigation should be presented. This would include acknowledging that the offence is one of strict liability. It should be noted that the actions resulted from an honest mistake, which was immediately corrected. It can be emphasised that the OPD is not local to the area where the incident occurred and that this incident does not form part of a pattern of historic fare evasion. Given these circumstances, the court should be respectfully asked to consider an absolute discharge, meaning no penalty would be imposed despite a finding of guilt.

Should a finding of guilt and sentence be imposed, then the OPS can consider an appeal. They have 21 days from the date of sentencing to lodge an appeal to the Crown Court, which would necessitate a complete rehearing of the case. Further legal advice on appeal rights should be sought immediately. Campaigning organisations or charities may be able to assist in challenging the decision, particularly in light of the ongoing legal discourse concerning the interpretation of penalty fare regulations.

Legal aid may also be available for an appeal; however, the OPD should seek legal advice after conviction. Generally, for an appeal, the application for legal aid will be subject to both the interests of justice test and the means test. The means test will depend entirely on the OPD's financial circumstances, including income, savings, assets, and any benefits received. Regarding the merits test, the argument that a substantial question of law is involved concerning the interpretation of Regulation 11(3) and the non-binding nature of the Chief Magistrate's ruling could strengthen the "interests of justice" argument. The fact that initial legal advice may have indicated a bar to prosecution, which this ruling now contests, is a complex legal point that could warrant legal aid.

 

[John Palmer]

I wholeheartedly endorse the excellent advice given in @Puffing Devil's post #26, to which I have a little to add.

If you want to understand to the background to issues raised in your daughter's case, Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366) sets out the relevant legal rules. The rules were understood to be that appeal against a penalty fare leads to a bar on prosecution for the same incident unless the train operator concerned cancels that penalty fare within a specified short period after the appeal is first submitted.

That understanding of the legal position was challenged when Senior District Judge Goldspring – the Chief Magistrate, for brevity referred to as 'the CM' hereafter – handed down the ruling already referred to on 20 February 2025, though it was probably not available to the original parties involved until 21 February following some unsatisfactory 'correcting'. The ruling can be found at https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/...mited-v-nana-monteiro-and-also-v-lejhae-levy/ (hereafter, Monteiro). It was not made available to the public generally until 9 June, no doubt due to interest aroused by the first public reference to it in the Office of Rail and Road's recently published review of train operator's revenue protection practices (https://www.orr.gov.uk/independent-review-train-operators-revenue-protection-practices)

For additional relevant background you may also wish to take a look at paragraphs 68 to 70 of the CM's earlier ruling dated 24 August 2024 at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment-1.pdf (hereafter, Ballington). Primarily, that case was concerned with improper use of the Single Justice Procedure, but the train operators involved were also anxious to obtain a ruling from the CM about whether Regulation 11 of the penalty fares regulations could create a lasting bar on prosecutions where a penalty fare had been appealed. The CM declined to rule upon that issue in Ballington, but clearly it was one that remained live and in due course led to his 20 February 2025 ruling in Monteiro. As you can see from paragraph 69 in Ballington, back in August 2024 Northern Trains took the view that Regulation 11 did create such a lasting prohibition, and did so for what I regard as entirely sound legal reasons. A different operator, South Eastern Trains, urged a different interpretation of Regulation 11 on the CM in the Monteiro case, and in February he was persuaded to rule that this Regulation did not, after all, create a lasting prohibition on prosecution following a penalty fare appeal.

Northern Trains' pattern of behaviour in your daughter's case is strikingly similar to that in https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/amended-title-sjp-after-penalty-notice-cancelled.283802/. In both, a penalty fare has been the subject of the three appeals for which the regulations provide, and has thereafter remained unpaid. In both cases, it was not until after the CM's ruling in Monteiro that Northern cancelled the penalty fare and initiated a prosecution. These similarities lead me to think that, in the light of the CM's Monteiro ruling, Northern Trains has now adopted a practice of waiting to see whether unsuccessfully appealed penalty fares are paid and, if they are not, prosecuting the PF recipient concerned, seeking compensation of the unpaid single fare for the journey plus a sum in costs likely to be at least the equal of the £100 'penalty' element of the penalty fare foregone by cancellation.

Train operators can prosecute in the criminal courts in a wide range of cases in which they claim that a passenger has committed a ticket infraction. They enjoy the substantial advantage of not having to pay court fees for doing so, as they would if they sought recovery the sums they claimed to be due in the civil courts. All such operators therefore stood to benefit from a ruling that they may prosecute in case where a penalty fare remains unpaid after an unsuccessful appeal, and the CM did not disappoint them. It should come as no surprise if Northern Trains have now adopted a policy of systematically prosecuting in such cases, even though this runs directly contrary to their stated understanding that such prosecutions were barred at the time the Ballington case was decided.

Although other magistrates are not obliged to follow the ruling given by the CM in Monteiro, it is likely to be influential on their decisions, and any challenge to his findings may well involve significant legal argument. The cost of professional representation to mount such a challenge puts at a disadvantage most defendants, who will lack a train operator's financial muscle, which is why @Puffing Devil's reference to the possible availability of legal aid is important. For my part, I still think that Regulation 11 does remain an effective bar to prosecution where a penalty fare has been appealed and is not cancelled by the operator within the time limit for doing so. I believe there are sound legal reasons for reaching such a conclusion that I suspect were never considered by the CM when arriving at his ruling in Monteiro. Some of those reasons were put to him at the Ballington hearing by the highly knowledgeable barristers whom Northern Trains had itself engaged for the case, yet the CM said nothing in his Monteiro ruling to counter or dispel them, so in my view the door is still open for courts to uphold the bar on the grounds Northern Trains itself adopted in Ballington.

If your daughter is seeking professional legal advice, it may be advantageous to draw the solicitor's attention specifically to the disputed interpretation of Regulation 11 of the penalty fares regulations, and the discussion of that interpretation in both Monteiro and Ballington. The law dealing with alleged ticket offences and penalty fares is something the non-specialist criminal law practitioner is unlikely to be familiar with, so it may be helpful to steer that practitioner towards the relevant material.

A small final point: the amount of the penalty fare charged. I note that £1.30 is said to be the one-way fare for the 5 minute journey that led to the penalty fare's issue. Was that the full single fare for the journey concerned because, if it was, the correct amount of the penalty fare that should have been charged was £101.30 (subject to early payment discount), and if the penalty fare actually charged was for a different sum (£104.00?) then its amount was incorrect, a fact that could have led to the appeal being upheld on the mandatory ground that it was a PF that was not charged in accordance with the Regulations. Can a copy of the original Penalty Fare Notice please be uploaded?

 

[The Sorcerer]

I wonder if they want her in court to do a Newton hearing, that would make sence as she appears to accept the wrongdoing but not the circumstances.

 

[MotCO]

I wonder if they want her in court to do a Newton hearing, that would make sence as she appears to accept the wrongdoing but not the circumstances.

Can you elaborate on what a Newton hearing is to assist the OP and others (like me!) without a legal background? Thanks.

 

[30907]

A detail: a fare of £1.30 can only be an Advance - the cheapest adult single from Chapeltown (to Elsecar) was £4.10 in November.
Of course, if they put £4.00 the PF was incorrect....