Single Justice Notice from TFL

May I request some guidance from experienced members for a Single Justice Notice I received from TFL for below charges :

Regulation 7(1)(b) of Public Servce Vehicle Regulation 1990 SI No 1020

and

Section 25(3) Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981

Can someone please shed some light whether these are recordable offence or not ?

Spent in how long ?

Do I need a solicitor to represent to contest or appear in person or shall i just sign guilty plea ? What are implications in both options. Please help guide. Thanks

Here is the relevant content referred to:

7.—(1) No passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall use any ticket which has...
(b)been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable; or

25 Regulation of conduct of passengers.
Regulations may make provision generally as to the conduct of passengers on public service vehicles... and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision) for—
Snip: various ticket-related offences follow

3. Subject to section 68(1) of this Act, if a person contravenes, or fails to comply with, a provision of regulations having effect by virtue of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Click to expand...

The offence alleged is described in 7.1.b, the level of fine in 25.3.

I don't have any knowledge - but maybe with the above info others may have.

Note - if this is a non recordable offence, the consensus on this forum is that such an offence would be spent after 12 months not immediately.

Sky B said:

Do I need a solicitor to represent to contest or appear in person or shall i just sign guilty plea ?

Click to expand...

The question is whether you committed the offence.

If you did, then the advice is fairly simple - plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, as there are discounts on fines for people who plead guilty as soon as they can. It is, I suppose, possible that TfL may be prepared to settle out of court but as someone has said above, we're people interested in trains, so we don't really know what will happen for this bus-related matter.

If you definitely didn't commit the offence (you never use buses, were out of town that day - that sort of thing) then you should not plead guilty - but it would be a good idea to get in touch with TfL to help them to understand how they have got things wrong so that they get off your back.

If you are unclear whether you committed the offence or maybe you think there are special circumstances that mean that you shouldn't be convicted, then you need to think very hard about things. Would a neutral observer (a magistrate for example) think that you were innocent? If you picked up the wrong season ticket from the table, is this really an innocent mistake that anyone could have made, or would it have been reasonable to have checked which ticket you had? Remember that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' - if what you did broke the law, then even if you didn't know you were breaking the law you are still guilty.

Thanks Fawkes Cat, Really appreciate your reply.
In order to answer your question, I made error of judgement and sent apology with my mitigation that I was in and out of hospitals and under medication including sedatives, had a surgery just 2 months before the incident and one soon after, but apparently they have not accepted my mitigation and matter is now at court. Now my query is Section 25(3) of Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981 a recordable offence ? And how long it takes to be spent ?
Is there any chance in court under such circumstances ? Or shall I just send guilty plea ?

Ok. This response comes with the caveat that none of us here are lawyers giving legal advice but just interested amateurs, and in particular that we are not familiar with the law for buses.

But I think it is probably best to plead guilty.

If I have read the law quoted in post #4 properly, this is a 'strict liability' offence: the regulation doesn't say anything about why you were using someone else's ticket, just that you were caught doing so. As I understand things, you did commit the action, so you have no defence to the prosecution. The magistrate doesn't have to listen to why your case is special, so I would say there is at least a good chance that you will be convicted if you plead not guilty.

If you plead guilty or are found guilty, then you will face a punishment. At worst, this will be a fine (plus court costs, and I would expect compensation (the bus fare) to the bus company). Two things come from this:
- this is the point where the magistrate might be merciful. Does the single justice procedure let you write in your mitigation? If so, use it to tell us what you said in post #6, but provide evidence - maybe a letter from your doctor would confirm what you have said.
- Whether an offence is recorded depends on the maximum punishment (in this case, a fine) rather than what punishment was actually imposed. I hope someone will confirm that I have got this right, but when the maximum punishment is a fine, the offence may be recorded but only for a year (technical point for any one following this - the offence appears to be under a regulation, not a bylaw, and the penalty under act of parliament. So I assume the exemption that we think applies to bylaw convictions doesn't kick in here). So should you face a basic DBS check, this offence will show up for a year, and potentially longer for an enhanced DBS check. But very few organisations demand a completely clean DBS check: they are generally interested in whether you are trustworthy most of the time. One mistake, especially in the circumstances you describe is generally seen as a mistake that anyone could make. What does worry most organisations are attempts to hide this sort of mistake - so if you are convicted, don't try to hide it - it's more likely than not that everything will be ok.

Thank you guys for your valuable time in guiding.

Fawkes Cat said:

- this is the point where the magistrate might be merciful. Does the single justice procedure let you write in your mitigation? If so, use it to tell us what you said in post #6, but provide evidence - maybe a letter from your doctor would confirm what you have said

Click to expand...

The single justice procedure is really a fast track, rubber stamping, court that sticks to the sentencing guidelines for guilty pleas only. By attempting to submit medical evidence the court may take the view that your guilty plea is equivocal. That is to say that you're pleading guilty for convenience, but on the other hand, saying I'm not guilty because of my state of mind/medication.

Faced with an equivocal plea, the matter would be sent to a full court. You need to decide:

1) I did do it knowingly - I am guilty
2) I did do it, though I was not aware of my actions at the time due to my medical treatment. I am not guilty.

If it's 2 be prepared for a trial and the need to provide some substantial medical evidence - unless the letter from your GP states quite clearly that you could easily have boarded a bus in a state of confusion.

If you go to trial an lose you will face an increase in Fine, or other penalties and increased court costs.

30907 said:

Note - if this is a non recordable offence, the consensus on this forum is that such an offence would be spent after 12 months not immediately.

Click to expand...

Some vocal members does not a consensus make.

Fawkes Cat said:

So I assume the exemption that we think applies to bylaw convictions doesn't kick in here).

Click to expand...

It's not a exemption for byelaws, only offences that carry the possibility of a custodial sentence are recorded (regardless of the actual sentence imposed).

Hi Guys,
Can anyone guide on how long it takes to get court date in traditional court if guilty with in person option is chosen to argue mitigation ? I want this matter to get it over with so i can focus on my work.

How long it takes to get decision if Single Justice Procedure option is chosen without appearing in person option and plead guilty with mitigtion ?

Sky B said:

I want this matter to get it over with so i can focus on my work.

Click to expand...

Pleading Guilty to "get it over with" is an equivocal plea.

You run the risk of tying yourself up in legal knots if you go to court and try to present medical evidence in mitigation.

You need to decide if you committed the offence knowingly or if you only committed the offence because of your medication/state of mind.

You already have the hearing date for a Single Justice Procedure. Expect a court date within a month if you decide to appear in court personally, and a trial to be about 6 months after a personal appearance: there will not be a trial on the same day as your personal appearance.

If you intend to go down the medical route I strongly advise you to see a Solicitor who offers a free initial consultation.

najaB said:

It's not a exemption for byelaws, only offences that carry the possibility of a custodial sentence are recorded (regardless of the actual sentence imposed).

Click to expand...

There seems to be some confusion here about different concepts:-

You are mostly correct in that offences punishable by imprisonment are recordable. However there is a list of non-imprisonable offences that are also recordable. However, none of these offences are specific to railways. However non-recordable offences become recordable if the person is convicted at the same time of a recordable offence.Whether an offence is recordable determines whether it should get onto the PNC as conviction data. Cautions and things akin to cautions are treated in the same way as convictions. However the obligation to enter the data lies with the police, not the courts and so there is the possibility that private prosecutions from funny prosecutors may escape registration. Conversely, the BTP may put information about non-recordable convictions on the PNC as "soft" intelligence.

There is no procedure for expunging conviction records of recordable offences until he perpetrator is 100. Chief constables of the force supplying the data can expunge cautions and soft intelligence and there are also national policies for this.

Whether a conviction is disclosed in response to a DBS check depends on the nature of the check. A basic DBS check gives unspent convictions and cautions. A standard DBS check gives unspent convictions and cautions and also spent convictions and cautions that are not "protected". Only certain employers (mostly those in the legal and financial sectors or where there is working with children or vulnerable adults), professional bodies and the like can require a standard DBS check. A narrower group of employers, professional bodies etc can request an enhanced check, with gives the same conviction and caution data as a standard check but also with soft intelligence.

A conviction or caution is "protected" if it satisfies this test, https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...s-for-dbs-certificates-criminal-record-checks but this test has been held Human Rights non-compliant and is going to be revised.

Whether a conviction is "spent" does not depend on the maximum sentence for the offence but on the sentence actually imposed. For fines and community punishments that is 12 months for adults (6 months for minors). The start date for that period is when a fine is imposed but when the community punishment is completed. Moreover a conviction does not become spent whilst a compensation order is unpaid. Simple cautions & conditional discharges are spent when made.

Convicted persons don't have to disclose spent convictions even in answer to a direct question and are protected from adverse consequences if they fail to disclose. The exception is those organisations who are entitled to ask for a standard or enhanced DBS search. If those organisations ask a relevant question e.g. "Have you been convicted or cautioned for any offence?" and the conviction is not disclosed and is not a protected conviction, whether or not a DBS search is conducted, the normal consequences for giving a false answer will follow.

Most railway ticket offences are charged under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 or railway bylaws. 1889 Act offences are mostly recordable and most bylaw offences are not.
Most people are fined for railway ticket offences. Accordingly those prosecuted under the 1889 Act will not have to disclose them other than to those entitled to ask for standard or enhanced searches after 12 months. In relation to those entitled to standard or enhanced searches, the period is 6 years for a caution and 11 years for a conviction but only if it is the adult offender's sole recordable offence. However this is due to be reviewed in favour of offenders.