Bought a ticket as the inspector was approaching - now a criminal court hearing through the post?

[SuspectUsual]

Apologies if this might seem a bit blunt, but hopefully you can see why my perspective is slightly cynical here

Correction - the closest station stop before London is Wembley Stadium, however, tickets purchased from here must be collected from a machine. I actually purchase from Denham which is roughly halfway. This isn't that regular of an occurrence since most often the gates at High Wycombe are closed and so I purchase a full ticket - or I usually have a weekly/monthly season ticket since I used to commute in for work often.

This seems a slightly curious piece of knowledge for you to have, unless you have either researched, been told by someone else, or discovered by trial and error how best to short fare into Marylebone

Looking back briefly now, I think I have done this (get on at Wycombe but buy a ticket from Denham) 6 times previously, in amongst around 40 journeys to and from High Wycombe and London Marylebone including several week and month long season tickets.

Given the above, 6 might seem a low number of times you've short fared. If it is, then so be it, but if people here are going to advise you they need the truth. And remember, if you've bought tickets online (from any company) Chiltern will know exactly what, where and when

 

[Haywain]

And remember, if you've bought tickets online (from any company) Chiltern will know exactly what, where and when

And will now be expecting the OP to provide details that match what they are seeing.

 

[AndrewE]

And will now be expecting the OP to provide details that match what they are seeing.

... and possibly what has been posted here too!

 

[Hadders]

We are seeing lots of cases involving Chiltern at the moment, I'll repeat what I've just written in a similar thread as it applies to your case:

Essentially Chiltern is giving you a choice:

1. Co-operate with them, tell them about everything you've been up to and they will offer you an out of court settlement. You would have to pay them the cost of all the fares avoided at the full Anytime rate with no credit given for the tickets you did purchase and pay them an admin cost to reflect the cost of Chiltern dealing with your case. In return Chiltern will withdraw court proceedings.

2. Let the matter proceed to court where Chiltern would prosecute you for the single case where you were caught. You would almost certainly be found guilty and would have to pay a fine based on your income, a surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine, compensation for the fare avoided and a contribution towards Chiltern's court costs. If you choose this route you would have a criminal conviction which could cause some difficulties in other areas of life (although convictions under the Railway Byelaws don't normally show on Standard DBS checks).

 

[Egg Centric]

I think it's actually quite common for the police to continue investigations into further offences after a suspect has been charged with one (or more).

But you can't say to the police "look mate, I did it all, here's £XYZ to stop to prosecuting me".

 

[Starmill]

But you can't say to the police "look mate, I did it all, here's £XYZ to stop to prosecuting me".

The police couldn't ever engage with that as it could undermine operational policing and risk a breach of their professional standards. However there is a possibility of some agreement with the Crown or Procurator Fiscal. It's just there wouldn't be any likely leverage over them except in very rare cases.

 

[furlong]

It's just not the normal way a criminal investigation is carried out and importantly could put the person in difficulty in relation to the interview as there is a risk of questions being asked about the first instance or even the person commenting about the first incident.

Indeed - it is pretty irregular and could create (otherwise avoidable) difficulties for the prosecution(s). Being almost out-of-time doesn't offer them an excuse and the apparent mistake over the compulsory ticket area makes you wonder if it's worth paying for legal advice here to check the prospects for rebutting the (flawed?) charge and making no comment about other matters potentially lacking in evidence.

 

[railfan279]

HI,

Travelling from High Wycombe to London Marylebone I boarded the train without buying a ticket (Gate open) and later, after seeing the ticket inspector walking through, purchased a ticket on my phone. I am now being prosecuted for travelling without a valid ticket (as "all tickets have to be purchased before boarding the train").

This seems harsh, although I wouldn't mind too much paying a fine (since I was trying to get away with paying a smaller fair than by purchasing a ticket from the last stop into London). However, rather than being sent a fine, I've been sent a criminal offence notice stating that I can either plead guilty and pay a £175 fine or not guilty and appear in court to defend myself. It also states that if I plead guilty (and pay the fine) I will obtain a criminal record.

I don't quite understand how a small incident like this leads to a criminal court hearing/criminal record - I was under the impression that these kind of things were followed by a fine (around £100) and that's it?

I also don't quite understand why it is only now - 5 months after the event - that I am receiving the letter in the post.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated on this case and if it seems fair or next steps to take.

Thank you.

It is not harsh at all. You tried to get away with not paying, you are now facing prosecution as detailed on every penalty fare sign in existence. Had you made a mistake you would have likely received just a fine or warning. But you made no mistake in intending to not pay the correct fare. It is really quite simple, you purchase a ticket before you board. My advice would be to plead guilty and pay what you owe. You have committed a criminal offence and so yes you will receive a criminal record. I don’t see how this is remotely harsh personally.

 

[furlong]

You would almost certainly be found guilty

I think several of us here would disagree with that and suggest legal advice should be obtained to understand the feasibility of arguing that the byelaw doesn't apply at the location of the alleged offence. Chiltern's own website would seem to indicate this to be the case!

 

[railfan279]

And ongoing from my last reply, I would absolutely settle out of court if you are still given the choice. Some may disagree and advise that you try to defend based on the fact that the byelaw doesn’t apply at the noted location, however personally I would expect you to pay more for legal advisors/solicitors to tell you you’re making a mistake trying to fight it. Yes you may possibly be able to win the case noting some certain discrepancies, however on the basis that you have publically admitted to evading fares on multiple occasions - it’s not a good look.

And please, for both your sake and the colleagues that will deal with you - just buy the ticket before you board.

 

[John R]

I think several of us here would disagree with that and suggest legal advice should be obtained to understand the feasibility of arguing that the byelaw doesn't apply at the location of the alleged offence. Chiltern's own website would seem to indicate this to be the case!

Given this legal advice is likely to cost as much as any OOC settlement, I’d suggest trying to get a settlement offer first, and if that doesn’t work then that would be the time to engage with a solicitor to argue the byelaw point.

Either way, I doubt there is a no cost way out of the situation.

 

[AlterEgo]

And ongoing from my last reply, I would absolutely settle out of court if you are still given the choice. Some may disagree and advise that you try to defend based on the fact that the byelaw doesn’t apply at the noted location, however personally I would expect you to pay more for legal advisors/solicitors to tell you you’re making a mistake trying to fight it.

Is this advice based on any understanding of the law or how Chiltern work, and of assistance to the OP? Or, is your suggestion that a solicitor would tell the OP they were making a mistake just advice to dissuade the OP from defending themselves so you feel moral justice has been dispensed?

 

[island]

The police couldn't ever engage with that as it could undermine operational policing and risk a breach of their professional standards. However there is a possibility of some agreement with the Crown or Procurator Fiscal. It's just there wouldn't be any likely leverage over them except in very rare cases.

Indeed. And the Procurator Fiscal does out of court settlements all the time. The CPS less so.

 

[railfan279]

Is this advice based on any understanding of the law or how Chiltern work, and of assistance to the OP? Or, is your suggestion that a solicitor would tell the OP they were making a mistake just advice to dissuade the OP from defending themselves so you feel moral justice has been dispensed?

This is based on having worked Revenue before and having seen these situations go further south for an individual should they try to plead their innocence, especially when they have publicly admitted to an offence(s).

 

[Honestviews]

but it is not uncommon when other prosecuting bodies get involved, like train companies

It might be for train companies but not for many prosecuting bodies. I used to carry out prosecutions (no not for the Post Office) and would investigate all offences that were similar (often same offence carried out more than once) and then proceed with the prosecution. Going back and asking about similar offences when the person is at plea stage could create difficulties.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is based on having worked Revenue before and having seen these situations go further south for an individual should they try to plead their innocence, especially when they have publicly admitted to an offence(s).

Right, but you seem to be unaware that the charge here is wrong, is easily challenged, and cannot be substituted under the SJPN process.

The company has made a manifest error which, if challenged properly, would preclude any negative consequences for the OP.

 

[The Sorcerer]

cannot be substituted under the SJPN process.

Is there some legislation preventing the charge being amended/substituted under SJPN ?

Can you provide a link?

 

[AlterEgo]

Is there some legislation preventing the charge being amended/substituted under SJPN ?

Can you provide a link?

See this thread from beginning to end: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...d-getting-taken-to-court.268331/#post-6785130

We have seen Chiltern make repeated mistakes about CTAs recently; the Bylaw 17 they could substitute (caught in a CTA without a ticket) has the penalty of only being removed from the station, and no criminal prosecution can result.

 

[tspaul26]

no criminal prosecution can result.

This isn’t quite correct: a prosecution can still be brought, but the available sentences would be very limited (no gaol, no fine).