Being taken to court

[John Palmer]

Regarding najaB's assertion that 'If the only evidence that the defendant provides is to say "X happened" then there is no reason to doubt the prosecution's case,' this is tantamount to saying that any such evidence given by a Defendant is worthless. Wrong. There is no a priori reason to discount a defendant's evidence. It is evidence that is entitled to be tested and weighed in the balance in the same way as all the other evidence. Fortunately, in the OP’s case, a friend was present who can corroborate her account.

I still do not understand what offence Transport Investigations Ltd proposes to allege, nor its grounds for doing so. Since it appears determined not to enter into a dialogue with the OP that may avert a prosecution, I stand by my suggestion that she should now seek professional assistance. And that she complain to VTEC. If Cross Country insist on exacting from her the fare for the journey on its train then VTEC should be invited to compensate her in an amount equivalent to what she has to pay Cross Country. According to her account, she did her best to deal with the problem caused by the delay to her VTEC train and that company’s failure to provide the information and assistance promised in its Charter in response to such delay, and should not be out of pocket as a result, let alone exposed to conviction of a criminal offence.

 

[miami]

I've just double checked and believe it is definitely bye law 18.1 or 18.2

That is very good news. The worst that will happen is a fine, hopefully you're feeling a little less "terrified"

Despite the rubbish about fare evasion, it sounds like you aren't being prosecuted for fare evasion (and they'd have a hell of a hard time proving that as you had a ticket and boarded the train at the right station on the right platform at the right time you had any legal intent to avoid payment of the fare)

The bylaw states

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter
any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a
valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity
when asked to do so by an authorised person.

I don't see how 18.2 would apply, but 18.1 you're technically guilty.

However section 18.3 states

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey
permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a
valid ticket.

i and ii are very unlikely to count, so you'd be relying on 18.3.iii

It's possible your friend's witness statement may help your case, but as you're both up for the same offence I'm not sure how credible a court may find the testimony.

Sadly while you are technically not guilty of breaking the bylaw, due to the way it works you have to prove you had permission to join the train. Unless you can find the person who gave you permission, and that person is willing to testify, I fear it's a losing battle.

There are certain things you can do even at this stage which may help avoid getting a magistrate declaring you guilty, I believe things like talking to the TOC prosecutor on the day and paying there and then for example sometimes works, but I have no experience in this.

 

[najaB]

Regarding najaB's assertion that 'If the only evidence that the defendant provides is to say "X happened" then there is no reason to doubt the prosecution's case,' this is tantamount to saying that any such evidence given by a Defendant is worthless. Wrong. There is no a priori reason to discount a defendant's evidence. It is evidence that is entitled to be tested and weighed in the balance in the same way as all the other evidence. Fortunately, in the OP’s case, a friend was present who can corroborate her account.

I said that if the only evidence that is presented is the defendants statement "X happened", then it will fail to introduce anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Retuning to this particular case the friend is able to provide corroboration of what was said, but unfortunately neither party seems to be able to state who it was said by.

 

[miami]

I said that if the only evidence that is presented is the defendants statement "X happened", then it will fail to introduce anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Retuning to this particular case the friend is able to provide corroboration of what was said, but unfortunately neither party seems to be able to state who it was said by.

If they assert they spoke to an authorised person, why would that evidence be held any differently to what they asserted they said? Would a court believe what was said, but not to who it was said?

Even if they had the name of the person, that person will be unlikely to remember such a case from 3 or 4 months earlier, so you've back to the OP and the friend's assertion it was said.

(Lets set aside the definition of an authorised person)

 

[Lauraxox]

That is very good news. The worst that will happen is a fine, hopefully you're feeling a little less "terrified"

Despite the rubbish about fare evasion, it sounds like you aren't being prosecuted for fare evasion (and they'd have a hell of a hard time proving that as you had a ticket and boarded the train at the right station on the right platform at the right time you had any legal intent to avoid payment of the fare)

The bylaw states


I don't see how 18.2 would apply, but 18.1 you're technically guilty.

However section 18.3 states


i and ii are very unlikely to count, so you'd be relying on 18.3.iii

It's possible your friend's witness statement may help your case, but as you're both up for the same offence I'm not sure how credible a court may find the testimony.

Sadly while you are technically not guilty of breaking the bylaw, due to the way it works you have to prove you had permission to join the train. Unless you can find the person who gave you permission, and that person is willing to testify, I fear it's a losing battle.

There are certain things you can do even at this stage which may help avoid getting a magistrate declaring you guilty, I believe things like talking to the TOC prosecutor on the day and paying there and then for example sometimes works, but I have no experience in this.

Yeah I can understand, he told me and my friend we had the correct tickets for the train (I don't know the reasons she didn't pay within the 21 days though) I give up offering to pay transport investigations and sending letters to Cross-country as they never reply and transport investigations are deemed to send me to court no matter what I say!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I said that if the only evidence that is presented is the defendants statement "X happened", then it will fail to introduce anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Retuning to this particular case the friend is able to provide corroboration of what was said, but unfortunately neither party seems to be able to state who it was said by.

I don't know if this helps but I remember specifically that he was stood just outside the open doors of the train and he had a hand held device (not a phone) but more like a ticket scanner thing? Don't know if that helps but that's why I assumed he would be of a reasonable person to ask if the ticket was valid

 

[najaB]

Would a court believe what was said, but not to who it was said?

It's all about strength of evidence - 'I spoke with Dave' is more credible than 'I spoke to a man on the platform'. Plus, unless Dave is able to say 'I remember that day clearly and I definitely didn't speak to this person.' or 'I wasn't there that day.', then the OP would have introduced doubt about the prosecution's case.

 

[John Palmer]

I said that if the only evidence that is presented is the defendants statement "X happened", then it will fail to introduce anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Retuning to this particular case the friend is able to provide corroboration of what was said, but unfortunately neither party seems to be able to state who it was said by.

Still wrong. A defendant is under no obligation to prove anything 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Even if "X happened" is the only evidence tendered by the defence, the Court must still weigh that evidence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' all the necessary ingredients of the offence. Any reasonable doubt that remains after all the evidence has been assessed has to be resolved in the defendant's favour.

As to the identity of the person interrogated, would you care to suggest a practical means by which a passenger in the OP's situation could establish this? Similarly, can you suggest a practical means of ensuring that such person records the conversation in a form permitting its introduction into evidence some months later?

 

[najaB]

Still wrong. A defendant is under no obligation to prove anything 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Even if "X happened" is the only evidence tendered by the defence, the Court must still weigh that evidence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' all the necessary ingredients of the offence. Any reasonable doubt that remains after all the evidence has been assessed has to be resolved in the defendant's favour.

Either I'm not explaining myself or you aren't comprehending. I haven't said that the defendant has to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. What I have said is that simply stating "X happened" without any other evidence to support the statement will likely fail to introduce reasonable doubt.

Let's put it in more concrete terms:
The TOC says a passenger has committed a Byelaw 18 offence by boarding without first obtaining a ticket.
The passenger says "A man on the platform said I could."
The TOC's solicitor asks "Can you provide any details on who this man was. Can you provide a name, a description?"
The defendant says "No."
"Did anyone else hear this conversation?"
"No."
"Here's pictures of all the staff who worked there that day. Do you recognise the person you spoke to?"
"No."

The TOC's solicitor then asks the station manager: "Does anyone who was working on the station that day remember this conversation?"

"No."

Has the defendant introduced a reasonable doubt? I think most reasonable people would say no.

As to the identity of the person interrogated, would you care to suggest a practical means by which a passenger in the OP's situation could establish this? Similarly, can you suggest a practical means of ensuring that such person records the conversation in a form permitting its introduction into evidence some months later?

"He was a tall man, with an earring." or similar.

 

[DaleCooper]

Let's put it in more concrete terms:
The TOC says a passenger has committed a Byelaw 18 offence by boarding without first obtaining a ticket.
The passenger says "A man on the platform said I could."
The TOC's solicitor asks "Can you provide any details on who this man was. Can you provide a name, a description?"
The defendant says "No."
"Did anyone else hear this conversation?"
"No."
"Here's pictures of all the staff who worked there that day. Do you recognise the person you spoke to?"
"No."

The TOC's solicitor then asks the station manager: "Does anyone who was working on the station that day remember this conversation?"

"No."

Has the defendant introduced a reasonable doubt? I think most reasonable people would say no.

najaB must be right otherwise this would be the perfect defence for almost any crime, e.g. "A man in the shop told me I could take the television."

 

[miami]

Many rail staff in customer facing roles have name tags at the time, however I don't think it's reasonable for the man on clapham omnibus to record this.

To use concrete terms

Let's put it in more concrete terms:
The TOC says a passenger has committed a Byelaw 18 offence by boarding without first obtaining a ticket.
The passenger says "A man on the platform said I could."
The TOC's solicitor asks "Can you provide any details on who this man was. Can you provide a name, a description?"
The defendant says "Yes, he was stood just outside the open doors of the train and he had a hand held device (not a phone) but more like a ticket scanner thing?"
"Did anyone else hear this conversation?"
"Yes, my friend."

Coupled with the fact that the boarded train
1) Went from the platform advertised on the screens
2) Went to the destination the ticket was for
3) Arrived at the time the ticket was for

All stacks up in my mind. There's the the unwillingness of the TOC to

I have no idea which way the case would go, perhaps it would be thrown out, perhaps not. Nobody will win though.

 

[najaB]

Many rail staff in customer facing roles have name tags at the time, however I don't think it's reasonable for the man on clapham omnibus to record this.

To use concrete terms



Coupled with the fact that the boarded train
1) Went from the platform advertised on the screens
2) Went to the destination the ticket was for
3) Arrived at the time the ticket was for

All stacks up in my mind. There's the the unwillingness of the TOC to

I have no idea which way the case would go, perhaps it would be thrown out, perhaps not. Nobody will win though.

As noted above - the fact that there is corroboration is a good thing in this case.

The fact that the OP thought they had a valid ticket, however, has no bearing on a Byelaw prosecution.

 

[Lauraxox]

As noted above - the fact that there is corroboration is a good thing in this case.

The fact that the OP thought they had a valid ticket, however, has no bearing on a Byelaw prosecution.

Would they not take into consideration the fact of what lead up to this and also the reasons as to why I did not pay at first obviously due to funds and also the 21 days as to which I have evidence for? I've offered several times to pay as well which I can't understand why they won't accept

 

[Haywain]

"Did anyone else hear this conversation?"
"Yes, my friend."
"Is that the friend who is also being prosecuted for the same offence, and has a vested interest in backing up your story?"
"Yes."

I think you have mistakenly assumed that the prosecution will not question this further.

All stacks up in my mind. There's the the unwillingness of the TOC to

We are all in suspense now!

 

[najaB]

Would they not take into consideration the fact of what lead up to this and also the reasons as to why I did not pay at first obviously due to funds and also the 21 days as to which I have evidence for? I've offered several times to pay as well which I can't understand why they won't accept

The reason that I said that it doesn't matter if you thought your ticket was valid is because a Byelaw breach is a strict liability offence.

The kind of strict liability offence you are most likely to be familiar with is speeding. I don't know if you drive, but let's imagine that you were caught doing 50mph in a 30mph zone. It doesn't matter if you *thought* you were doing 30mph or if you believed the national limit applied, you would be found guilty purely on the facts. The only valid defence would be if the speed limit should have been signposted but wasn't.

In a similar manner, the only thing that matters for a Railway Byelaw 18 offence is if the ticket was valid or not. The only valid defence was if you were given permission (by a sign or an authorised person) before you boarded the train, or if it was not possible to buy a ticket at the station.

Your attempts to pay the fare after the fact have no legal bearing on the case.

That said, if you really didn't receive any correspondence I think it is immoral for them to proceed with a prosecution. Unfortunately my or your feelings don't carry much weight, however you may still be able to appeal to the TOC or TIL's better nature and get them to agree to put the prosecution to the side.

 

[Lauraxox]

That said, if you really didn't receive any correspondence I think it is immoral for them to proceed with a prosecution. Unfortunately my or your feelings don't carry much weight, however you may still be able to appeal to the TOC or TIL's better nature and get them to agree to put the prosecution to the side.

It's not that I didn't receive it it's the fact that for the 21 day period that I had to pay i was away visiting family in london for a month to be precise which I explained to them (I have proof and witness of this) but they just will not listen

 

[najaB]

It's not that I didn't receive it it's the fact that for the 21 day period that I had to pay i was away visiting family in london for a month to be precise which I explained to them (I have proof and witness of this) but they just will not listen

Again, unfortunately, this has zero impact on a Byelaw prosecution.

Returning to the speeding analogy, the fact that you were away from home and didn't receive the notice in the post doesn't have any impact on the speed you were travelling at on the day.

So you really need to get the TOC to admit/recognise that you were given permission to travel on the day.

 

[DaleCooper]

It's not that I didn't receive it it's the fact that for the 21 day period that I had to pay i was away visiting family in london for a month to be precise which I explained to them (I have proof and witness of this) but they just will not listen

Did you not think that something important might be in the post following this incident?

Was your friend also away from home for a month?

 

[Haywain]

So you really need to get the TOC to admit/recognise that you were given permission to travel on the day.

Which, sadly but realistically, you are unlikely to be able to do.

 

[najaB]

Which, sadly but realistically, you are unlikely to be able to do.

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

 

[Lauraxox]

Did you not think that something important might be in the post following this incident?

Was your friend also away from home for a month?

Yes. But I was not going to put my Christmas with my family on hold. I didn't know when it would arrive and I certainly believed they would understand.

Like said previously I don't know why my friend didn't pay so I can't comment on that
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which, sadly but realistically, you are unlikely to be able to do.

Exactly, looks like I'll have to hope for the best with the situation

 

[najaB]

Exactly, looks like I'll have to hope for the best with the situation

Don't give up all hope though, it's possible to reach a settlement right up to the day the case is called in court.

 

[Lauraxox]

Don't give up all hope though, it's possible to reach a settlement right up to the day the case is called in court.

I'm going to send one last letter to both cross country and transport investigations and explain it one more time and also offering to settle things so hopefully they'll agree

 

[John Palmer]

I am not sure that this is of much assistance to the OP, but najaB's starting proposition was "If my defence is based on the content of a conversation, it is up to me to prove that the conversation actually occurred - usually by calling the other party as a witness."

This was then qualified to "If the only evidence that the defendant provides is to say 'X happened' then there is no reason to doubt the prosecution's case."

In turn this was re-qualified to: "I said that if the only evidence that is presented is the defendants statement 'X happened', then it will fail to introduce anything beyond reasonable doubt."

Finally: "I haven’t said that the defendant has to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. What I have said is that simply stating 'X happened' without any other evidence to support the statement will likely fail to introduce reasonable doubt."

That comes across to me as significantly different from the original proposition that the conversation alleged should usually be proved by calling the other party, and I found the expression "it will fail to introduce anything beyond reasonable doubt" ambiguous and suggestive of an obligation upon the defendant to adduce evidence meeting the standard of proof that falls upon the prosecution. I'm sorry if that was a misunderstanding on my part, but I really didn't find the meaning clear. I'm pleased to note that there now appears to be an acknowledgment that a defendant's own evidence is capable of affording a defence and is as much entitled to be taken into account as all the other evidence.

Let's take najaB's 'concrete terms' and modify them to reflect the OP's case:

The TOC's solicitor asks "Can you provide any details on who this man was. Can you provide a name, a description?"
The defendant says "I remember specifically that he was stood just outside the open doors of the train and he had a hand held device (not a phone) but more like a ticket scanner thing. That's why I assumed he would be a reasonable person to ask if the ticket was valid."
"Did anyone else hear this conversation?”
"Yes. My friend [XYZ] was with me at the time so she would be able to confirm exactly what happened and what was said."
"Here's pictures of all the staff who worked there that day. Do you recognise the person you spoke to?"
"No, and the reason for that is that I don't have a description of who it was I asked as I didn't think it would be necessary as I believed what they had said was accurate."

Any such exchange may be entirely academic if a byelaw prosecution is indeed in prospect, but on the issue of what evidence might raise a reasonable doubt, the evidence the OP might give, based on her postings in this thread, is significantly different from the terms of najaB's hypothetical cross examination. Enough, please, of such straw man scenarios.

I still consider that it would be quite unconscionable for the OP to be confronted with a 'fare evasion' prosecution as a result of her attempts to mitigate the consequences of the train for which she held a valid ticket being delayed. Hence my recommendations as to the course she should take.

 

[island]

Just to point out that a person seeking to rely on a statutory defence to a charge must prove that it applies, it being impossible for the prosecution to prove the complementary negative.

 

[najaB]

Just to point out that a person seeking to rely on a statutory defence to a charge must prove that it applies, it being impossible for the prosecution to prove the complementary negative.

Which brings us right back to where the side discussion started: if a passenger is claiming that they are not guilty of a Byelaw 18 offence because they were given permission to board without a ticket, then they need to be able to provide some evidence that permission was given, simply saying that a nameless, faceless nondescript person gave them permission would not cause a reasonable person to doubt the prosecution's case.

 

[bb21]

I'm going to send one last letter to both cross country and transport investigations and explain it one more time and also offering to settle things so hopefully they'll agree

I think you may be better off ringing them given the stage your case is at, if you are willing to go for an out-of-court settlement.

 

[miami]

Which brings us right back to where the side discussion started: if a passenger is claiming that they are not guilty of a Byelaw 18 offence because they were given permission to board without a ticket, then they need to be able to provide some evidence that permission was given, simply saying that a nameless, faceless nondescript person gave them permission would not cause a reasonable person to doubt the prosecution's case.

How much evidence is needed is the question. The exchange

The TOC's solicitor asks "Can you provide any details on who this man was. Can you provide a name, a description?"
The defendant says "I remember specifically that he was stood just outside the open doors of the train and he had a hand held device (not a phone) but more like a ticket scanner thing. That's why I assumed he would be a reasonable person to ask if the ticket was valid."
"Did anyone else hear this conversation?”
"Yes. My friend [XYZ] was with me at the time so she would be able to confirm exactly what happened and what was said."
"Here's pictures of all the staff who worked there that day. Do you recognise the person you spoke to?"
"No, and the reason for that is that I don't have a description of who it was I asked as I didn't think it would be necessary as I believed what they had said was accurate."

To me would cause me to doubt the prosecutions case, perhaps I'm not a reasonable person.

On the other hand the prosecution may admit all of that happened, but assert the only "authorised person" was the train manager, so 18.3.iii doesn't apply. I'd love to see the press reports after that though. "Passenger told to board train by railway staff then found guilty on a technicality for doing so".

 

[najaB]

To me would cause me to doubt the prosecutions case, perhaps I'm not a reasonable person.

No, you aren't being unreasonable, but I don't know if it would be a strong enough defence to convince a magistrate to dismiss the charge.

 

[Lauraxox]

thanks for everyone's input on the situation, hopefully I'll be able to get this sorted before it goes to court but if not I'll hope for the benefit of the doubt!

 

[sheff1]

Which brings us right back to where the side discussion started: if a passenger is claiming that they are not guilty of a Byelaw 18 offence because they were given permission to board without a ticket, then they need to be able to provide some evidence that permission was given, simply saying that a nameless, faceless nondescript person gave them permission would not cause a reasonable person to doubt the prosecution's case.

I have witnessed various people being given permission to do things on the railway by an apparently "Authorised Person". Some of those 'permissions' have sounded rather suspect to me and I could envisage problems down the line.

For this reason, if someone told me they had been given permission by an unnamed person, but had subsequently been charged with an offence, it would cause me to at least entertain the possibility that the prosecution case that no permission had been given might be less than watertight. Clearly, though, I do not qualify as a "reasonable person".