Search results

No - I've tried to get hold of it. No. I wrote above of an example where a 51% threshold was just not met, which would, if we add "where other factors are balanced" seem to introduce a lot of doubt. My initial instinct (apart from perhaps one mention I made of the issue on this forum six...

I'm sorry - are you saying they did not in DPP v Wright? Yes, that would be fine - but the context here is of unspecified claims that my points are errors about those processes. That does distract. I thought they spoke for themselves. Their accounts can be the basis for discussion. 1688326609...

I hope it is clear and of interest to some that the courts have struck down some reverse-burden provisions. There seems a significant misunderstanding in this thread. I am talking basically about issues, not making a load of false statements about "magistrates' court processes". I am...

"The point was addressed even more directly by Sir Anthony May in DPP v Wright [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin), a case involving allegations under the Hunting Act 2004: “…….we are disinclined to accede readily to a submission that it is proportionate to bypass article 6(2) for summary offences in...

"Chapter 6 Burdens of Proof and the Presumption of Innocence Paul Roberts Published: September 2022 ... Hunt conceded the possibility of implied burdens on the defence, but cautioned against inferring them. Such ‘reverse onus clauses’ must now be tested for compatibility...

Perhaps the system lets you make an addition to this appeal.

It may help if you post a copy of what you sent previously on here. Then with advice you can draft a second appeal and post that here for comment. 1687966891 You can also gently point out that they are saying "no such proof has been provided" whereas in fact you sent the screenshot.

They may have made a basic error, misinforming you about the burden of proof. The Penalty Fare Regulations say: "16 ... (4) Where the appellant makes representations as part of an appeal under this regulation in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraph (5), it is for the operator...

Yes. It could be useful to know more about how he acted, and what both staff and he said at the time. That might affect how he presents the case. The case has to be presented in a way which is persuasive but avoids them charging him either with the byelaw "offence" or the intent "offence"...

I think the practical question on the ticket office is "what evidence can we gather" rather than "what evidence do we have". There may be a variety of ways to gather evidence to hopefully prevent a prosecution and maybe get the matter dropped. You/he could go to the ticket office and ask...

If the March tickets/receipts are from Amersham, including them isn't good evidence against the allegation that your son travelled from Missenden. They already have evidence of what he bought for those dates. Hopefully once they see the TfL history for 22 January they'll stop being concerned...

The point is that there is a fundamental principle that a case should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is a potential conflict with the principle of the defence having to prove an exception. So the question is how to resolve that conflict. Convicting someone where the court thinks...

Yes, that's useful evidence, though it might be argued that they were giving him the benefit of the doubt rather than firmly believing it was closed. 1687951975 We might also think it would be abuse of process to charge him on the basis that the ticket office was open, after staff let him...

However, there is a potential conflict with the fundamental principle of "reasonable doubt". Just because someone can't prove the exception on the balance of probabilities doesn't mean there isn't, overall, reasonable doubt. It wouldn't be in the interests of justice for magistrates or judges...

Moderator Note - Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/merseyrail-bylaw-section-18-2-advice-needed.250744/ The problem may be the need for a defendant to prove the exception on the balance of probabilities. To my mind, the overall need for the prosecution to prove the case beyond...

He can't be guilty under 18(2) when there were no buying facilities at the origin station, because of 18(3): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws/railway-byelaws#travel-and-fares-1 However, a court might believe the company if it said the ticket office was open. He can...

Thank you - I think they would have got the idea but best to get it right. I've edited it. Contrary to the impression TIL may have given, there is no offence of "failing to produce a valid ticket". Byelaw 18(2) is, "a person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of...

If you email rather than using the post, they can get back to you quicker. If you can't get him to authorise the changes then I agree that you should answer on his behalf. The "pay when challenged" issue and the CCTV/not-really-checking issue are separate matters of complaint and not...

Although it's hard to see how he could end up convicted, he would be wise to check what he is required to disclose. If the forces, or his specific role, require people to disclose when they are being investigated for a possible criminal offence, someone may think that includes this...

Could it be significant that they add up to £9.40 - might the system have adjusted the fares somehow to make that the total? As the £7.50 on the bank statement was the fare from Amersham to Marylebone, perhaps the system auto-completed that journey because of the touch in at Marylebone...