It would happen when the person doesn't present a reasonable reason why the prosecution shouldn't continue - one example would be if they attempt to blame someone else (e.g. 'the man on the platform said...') rather than admit culpability.Would that be for more serious evasions not just one stop? Or for someone who has been caught before ?
ATW will refer your correspondence to Transport Investigations (TI).
I wonder if some clarification on process might be helpful here.It is true that different companies have different policies, but the process applicable to ATW is that :-
This process was agreed with Transport Focus.
- Each incident is investigated and assessed by Transport Investigations (TI);
- TI is responsible for all correspondence;
- TI is responsible for determining whether to recommend a prosecution or alternative resolution (prosecution is always chosen for giving false name or address, deliberate short faring, repeat offending, etc where the evidence is sufficient);
- Where prosecution is recommended, a file is prepared and sent to ATW for approval;
- A Director of ATW must confirm each recommendation for prosecution before TI will prepare for prosecution any further;
- TI will apply to the Court for a Summons;
- The Court will issue a Summons to the accused offender;
- TI will prepare the papers for trial and instruct a Prosecutor;
- TI will consider any suggestions of an administrative disposal on its own merits (an 'out-of-Court settlement'), though the circumstances which always lead to a prosecution as listed above will continue to apply;
- TI will also consider any "last-minute" suggestions of an administrative disposal on its own merits (an 'out-of-Court settlement'), which the Prosecutor would refer back to them from the Court;
- ATW would be informed if a decision not to prosecute a particular incident was taken by TI at any point after having given its approval to prosecute.
Some Welsh Assembly members had been vocal in expressing concern at the policy of attempting to change the entrenched 'pay only if challenged' habits in south Wales, and the procedure above was developed in response, in consultation with, and was approved by, Transport Focus.
This isn't quite the same as saying that 'a case is handed back to' ATW. Nor that ATW is the prosecutor.
Cross Country (XC) have agreed the same procedure with TI as have ATW.
Hope this helps.
Ok thanksIt would happen when the person doesn't present a reasonable reason why the prosecution shouldn't continue - one example would be if they attempt to blame someone else (e.g. 'the man on the platform said...') rather than admit culpability.
I think from what you’ve implied in your previous post is that you’ve also broken the law - I assume you believe it’s ‘less illegal’ just because it was ‘one stop’?Ok thanks
Maybe you shouldn’t assume things thenI think from what you’ve implied in your previous post is that you’ve also broken the law - I assume you believe it’s ‘less illegal’ just because it was ‘one stop’?
Would that be for more serious evasions not just one stop? Or for someone who has been caught before ?
Looks like you jinx'ed me. Today I received my court summons for a date later in November. The summons recommends a set of charges which id be more than willing to accept so have once again e-mailed Arriva to see if they are willing to assist.Has anyone actually gone to court after refused settlements? All I have seen is settlements that have been accepted
I am at a loss to understand how the bench of a Magistrates Court could find themselves being concerned with that argument in the course of the three duties they are obliged to fulfill :-However a defence solicitor might try to use an inexplicable refusal to agree to a reasonable out-of-court settlement to their client's advantage (e.g. no award of costs, even absolute discharge).
we are constantly challenged following laying charges and in court by advocates, who remonstrate that if this was a CPS matter it would be dealt with by way of Caution or Fixed Penalty!
...Those who refuse to accept our offer of disposal...proceed to court as normal and the Magistrates will be informed of the defendant's option and subsequent reluctance to accept our offer...the failure of the defendant to comply with our reasonable request will dramatically influence the decision of the Magistrates when sentencing.
What was the set of charges offered?Looks like you jinx'ed me. Today I received my court summons for a date later in November. The summons recommends a set of charges which id be more than willing to accept so have once again e-mailed Arriva to see if they are willing to assist.
The first response I had from Arriva just passed me back to TIL and refused to deal with it. I'm not holding much hope on this one. It would seem they are starting to take a harder stance on Fare Evasion.
So, Northern tell the court that the defendant declined an opportunity to pay the fare subsequently. You think that wouldn't influence the magistrates?
Well Northern seems to think that, in reality, these considerations do affect the outcome for a very straightforward reason:
(ref. FOI )
A well put together document made a bit amusing a bit by a lack of attention to detail the top of page 2.
( unless I am missing something)
1. Simply refuse to sell discounted tickets from staffed stations
makes no sense whatever
Regards
Jumble