Search results

Noted. Still gives the TOC an incentive to do a deal and discontinue any prosecution to avoid the additional complexities of a refund. I think we both agree the OP should pay off the balance asap as a first step.

No, there would be an immediate entitlement to full reimbursement from the TOC.

That is unfortunate and, I hope you realise this, rather discourteous on your part. In my previous job, that would be an aggravating factor in favour of commencing a prosecution whereas had the person contacted us before missing the payment we would have probably agreed a new date with him...

Did you contact them about this before missing the payment? Or only after?

If the remaining part is not dangerous then the local authority has no power to pull it down.

Indeed, in which event steps 1. and 2. could be omitted (payment of the settlement sum to one side).

I have refrained from posting in this thread so far, but given the procedural complexity of this case and some of the (potentially dangerous) misapprehensions that are being posted I have a few points to make. First of all, the prosecutor has not made an “error of law”. The approach in a case...

Indeed. Yesterday we had a lovely chap to deal with. No ticket, of course. A short while later and he’s arrested on warrant, searched and found in possession of a machete and a ‘share size’ bag of cocaine.

No, it explains King’s reason for wanting to be declared fit: if he is unfit then he won’t get a community order so by fabricating the letter (to say he was fit) the aim was to broaden the potential sentences available.

If the convict is fit to do unpaid work then community orders can be considered by way of sentencing. If the convict is unfit to do unpaid work, that takes those community orders off the table i.e. you’re not going to be ordered to do unpaid work if you’re not fit to do it. Based on this...

With respect, you are incorrect: there is no entitlement to free legal representation in Crown Court trials. Legal aid may be available in some cases, but it is not an absolute entitlement e.g. it is means tested.

If we take the order of events in the quoted article at face value, police involvement and the arrest pre-dated the fabrication of the hospital letter.

This is incorrect. 1712569011 The prosecuting barrister is on the CPS panel, although of course that isn’t an absolute indication. The references to police involvement also suggest that this prosecution was taken publicly.

An Off Peak Single from Milton Keynes to Lancaster is £70.00.

I’m afraid that I don’t really understand the premise of this question: there is no entitlement to free legal advice in the Crown Court, but there can be in the Magistrates Court at first appearance for an imprisonable offence.

Depends on the specific powers involved which carry different legal requirements and restrictions, but in general terms detention is of shorter duration, is less invasive and is for the purposes of facilitating specific actions e.g. initial investigation or search or preventing a suspect from...

Correct Correct Correct, although in practice if legal advice was requested we would probably re-arrange for a later date and do it in the police station. Correct, although as soon as we begin to suspect involvement in an offence or suspected offence then we have to caution and then the...

That is not correct. As long as no National Rail services are used prior to the 0930 cut-off then there is no published restriction which would prohibit commencing the zonal add-on part of the journey prior to that time e.g. by tube from Euston to Victoria before 0930.

In that case, not valid on any train timed to depart before 0930 tomorrow morning. The usual excess fare payable when desiring to travel at a time when an Off Peak Return is not valid is the difference compared to the appropriate return fare. However, in this instance there is no period...

What is the route on the Off Peak Return?