Fare evasion charge on TfL - inaccurate witness statement used, can I challenge?

[Haywain]

I struggle to see how the SD is in any way a matter for TfL to be involved in.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I struggle to see how the SD is in any way a matter for TfL to be involved in.

Only time TfL become relevant to a Statutory Declaration is if they have proof that the defendant knew about the proceedings, or ought to have, in which case it would become a much more serious case, (perverting the course of justice), but can't see that being relevant here.

 

[Puffing Devil]

But if I plead guilty then do I have the opportunity to present the facts?

No. That is called an “equivocal plea” which isn’t allowed. Pleading guilty means you accept you are guilty.

That would be “not guilty“, but I do not recommend this.

Not completely correct. In cases where there is a dispute as to the extent of the offence, a "Newton" hearing may take place to decide on the facts. An easy non-railway example would be speeding where the Police allege a speed of 110mph and the defendant admits to a speed of 87mph. Still a guilty plea, though the sentence would be different and it is important to make a judgement on the facts.

 

[Londontravels]

Not completely correct. In cases where there is a dispute as to the extent of the offence, a "Newton" hearing may take place to decide on the facts. An easy non-railway example would be speeding where the Police allege a speed of 110mph and the defendant admits to a speed of 87mph. Still a guilty plea, though the sentence would be different and it is important to make a judgement on the facts.

But the fact that it's being heard and determined by a magistrate means that any guilty sentence would still be a criminal conviction?

 

[Puffing Devil]

But the fact that it's being heard and determined by a magistrate means that any guilty sentence would still be a criminal conviction?

Yes, though your terminology is a little skewed.

Courts first need to establish guilt or innocence. If you plead guilty, or are found to be guilty after a trial, you are guilty and will have a criminal conviction.
Sentencing follows conviction and, in the broadest terms, is your punishment for committing the crime.
A Newton Hearing comes after a guilty plea and before sentence.

@island is quite correct - if you stand up in court and say "I didn't do it, though I'm going to plead guilty to get this out of the way" the court will not accept the plea and most likely enter a not guilty plea on your behalf and move to a trial.

 

[island]

Not completely correct. In cases where there is a dispute as to the extent of the offence, a "Newton" hearing may take place to decide on the facts. An easy non-railway example would be speeding where the Police allege a speed of 110mph and the defendant admits to a speed of 87mph. Still a guilty plea, though the sentence would be different and it is important to make a judgement on the facts.

I don’t think there is a “dispute as to the extent of the offence” here.

The OP admits having inadvertently entered a compulsory ticket area using a non-transferable pass that was not issued to her. That is the offence charged; it is a strict liability offence so intent does not come into it. I do not understand the OP to be denying that the actions TfL allege she took were an offence, or that she committed that offence.

I understand that the OP wishes to raise some generalized concerns about the alleged conduct of the revenue protection inspectors at the time of the incident. These are not apt to be raised through the court process, whether by way of a Newton hearing or otherwise. The court will not be interested in alleged rude or unpleasant behaviour of staff members.

The appropriate channel for these concerns is TfL customer services.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I don’t think there is a “dispute as to the extent of the offence” here.

I completely agree. I was correcting your post earlier in response to

But if I plead guilty then do I have the opportunity to present the facts?

When you said

No. That is called an “equivocal plea” which isn’t allowed. Pleading guilty means you accept you are guilty.

Wanting to present the facts after a guilty plea is different to an equivocal plea, as I explained upthread.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I don’t think there is a “dispute as to the extent of the offence” here.

The OP admits having inadvertently entered a compulsory ticket area using a non-transferable pass that was not issued to her. That is the offence charged; it is a strict liability offence so intent does not come into it. I do not understand the OP to be denying that the actions TfL allege she took were an offence, or that she committed that offence.

I understand that the OP wishes to raise some generalized concerns about the alleged conduct of the revenue protection inspectors at the time of the incident. These are not apt to be raised through the court process, whether by way of a Newton hearing or otherwise. The court will not be interested in alleged rude or unpleasant behaviour of staff members.

The appropriate channel for these concerns is TfL customer services.

Magistrates may well take a view that a defendant making accusations about railway staff as demonstrating a lack of remorse or appreciation of their actions, which would be an aggravating factor, and possibly a higher sentence. The cost of any trial is also going to be close to £1000 for costs alone, if it's lost.

This seems straightforward to me.

Do everything to reach an out of court settlement. If unsuccessful, guilty plea immediately, letter of remorse to the court, letter of apology to TfL, copied to the court. Don't waste court time with a hearing, there's no point for this offence.

There is ALWAYS a criminal record for any offence resulting in conviction, even strict liability Byelaws. It's a myth that you don't get one. However, more accurately, the record is not disclosed to anybody (with immediate effect) except in some circumstances where relevant to an Enhanced check, or other types of security vetting, so for most people, they may as well have no record.

 

[Londontravels]

Thanks all for the comments. I think I have a way forward but the last comment has confused me a bit.
I spoke to somebody from the SJP admin team to understand the paperwork and what to fill in, send back etc. They (not being legally trained so bear that in mind) said that it wouldn't be possible to settle out of court (OOC) with TfL because TfL have already brought the matter to court, even though I knew nothing about it. I don't think that's correct, and believe TfL and any party can settle out of court right up until a minute before the court hearing?

They did also say that I have to submit a plea and send that back along with the SD application which had confused me a bit because I thought that meant I'm bound by the plea even though I haven't presented my facts etc. They added that I can change my plea right up until the hearing, so that gives a bit of relief because I'm a little nervous about being bound by a plea submitted on paper with the SD whilst also being in communication with TfL. Apparently the legal advisor who will take my SD on oath will explain the implications of pleading whichever way? So my understanding is that I have to make a provisional plea as part of applying for SD, but the first step is to get the SD approved and then they arrange a court hearing to actually deal with the case. (Please correct me if I am wrong, anyone.)

My intention is to write to TfL (a proper letter rather than email, as recommended by somebody on another forum) and provide/clarify the information I wasn't able to provide to the revenue inspector and also request an out-of-court settlement. At the same time I'll also submit the SD application with a plea (probably guilty and go to court rather than SJP so I get to provide my additional information unless anybody thinks this is a bad idea? The last comment has made me question that). I thought that I should try requesting the out-of-court settlement before submitting the SD application because the latter suggests I've accepted the court process but I think now it doesn't make a difference and is in my interests to get the SD in and have the SD and OOC discussion happen in parallel?

A couple of practical questions:
- I'd like to address the letter to somebody rather than 'dear Sir/Madam' or 'to whom it may concern'. The only name I have is the TfL Counsel who approved the charge sheet. Is this my addressee? Would it be amiss to email TfL (I have an email address for the prosecutions team) and request a name to whom I can address my correspondence?
- If it comes to it, do I need to write to the court and request an out-of-court settlement as well as TfL? I thought that is between me and TfL only, and if agreed (all fingers crossed) then notify the court?

Thanks in advance for your contributions.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Thanks all for the comments. I think I have a way forward but the last comment has confused me a bit.
I spoke to somebody from the SJP admin team to understand the paperwork and what to fill in, send back etc. They (not being legally trained so bear that in mind) said that it wouldn't be possible to settle out of court (OOC) with TfL because TfL have already brought the matter to court, even though I knew nothing about it. I don't think that's correct, and believe TfL and any party can settle out of court right up until a minute before the court hearing?

They did also say that I have to submit a plea and send that back along with the SD application which had confused me a bit because I thought that meant I'm bound by the plea even though I haven't presented my facts etc. They added that I can change my plea right up until the hearing, so that gives a bit of relief because I'm a little nervous about being bound by a plea submitted on paper with the SD whilst also being in communication with TfL. Apparently the legal advisor who will take my SD on oath will explain the implications of pleading whichever way? So my understanding is that I have to make a provisional plea as part of applying for SD, but the first step is to get the SD approved and then they arrange a court hearing to actually deal with the case. (Please correct me if I am wrong, anyone.)

My intention is to write to TfL (a proper letter rather than email, as recommended by somebody on another forum) and provide/clarify the information I wasn't able to provide to the revenue inspector and also request an out-of-court settlement. At the same time I'll also submit the SD application with a plea (probably guilty and go to court rather than SJP so I get to provide my additional information unless anybody thinks this is a bad idea? The last comment has made me question that). I thought that I should try requesting the out-of-court settlement before submitting the SD application because the latter suggests I've accepted the court process but I think now it doesn't make a difference and is in my interests to get the SD in and have the SD and OOC discussion happen in parallel?

A couple of practical questions:
- I'd like to address the letter to somebody rather than 'dear Sir/Madam' or 'to whom it may concern'. The only name I have is the TfL Counsel who approved the charge sheet. Is this my addressee? Would it be amiss to email TfL (I have an email address for the prosecutions team) and request a name to whom I can address my correspondence?
- If it comes to it, do I need to write to the court and request an out-of-court settlement as well as TfL? I thought that is between me and TfL only, and if agreed (all fingers crossed) then notify the court?

Thanks in advance for your contributions.

The court case can no longer be withdrawn at this point, regardless of whether you reach a settlement or not. So the court was correct. However, in the very unlikely event you manage to arrange an out of court settlement with TfL, (which they do not have to do or even consider), they can offer no evidence, and you will be found Not Guilty. However, if it's SJPN, it's not as simple anymore, as the above normally happens at a hearing, so you may need to plead not guilty on the SJPN first.

You do not get the court involved with an out of court settlement. Strictly between you and TfL, but I really do think you're going to struggle, especially as time goes on.

I have no idea why you are making or wanting to make a Statutory Declaration either. You haven't been convicted of anything, and you appear to be fully aware of proceedings, so there's nothing to reset anyway. What exactly are you trying to do with a statutory declaration? I think you've got yourself really muddled up. Ordinarily, in this context, a SD is used for someone who has been convicted in their absence to remove the conviction and have another trial, because they've told the Magistrates under oath that they were unaware that they were facing criminal action. The Magistrates then reset everything and a fresh court case follows.

 

[Londontravels]

The court case can no longer be withdrawn at this point, regardless of whether you reach a settlement or not. So the court was correct. However, in the very unlikely event you manage to arrange an out of court settlement with TfL, (which they do not have to do or even consider), they can offer no evidence, and you will be found Not Guilty. However, if it's SJPN, it's not as simple anymore, as the above normally happens at a hearing, so you may need to plead not guilty on the SJPN first.

You do not get the court involved with an out of court settlement. Strictly between you and TfL, but I really do think you're going to struggle, especially as time goes on.

I have no idea why you are making or wanting to make a Statutory Declaration either. You haven't been convicted of anything, and you appear to be fully aware of proceedings, so there's nothing to reset anyway. What exactly are you trying to do with a statutory declaration? I think you've got yourself really muddled up. Ordinarily, in this context, a SD is used for someone who has been convicted in their absence to remove the conviction and have another trial, because they've told the Magistrates under oath that they were unaware that they were facing criminal action. The Magistrates then reset everything and a fresh court case follows.

Apparently I have been convicted of the charge because the case was originally brought before the court in early 2019 but I had no knowledge of it. The penalty was then handed over to bailiffs to collect because again I had no idea of the proceedings, and that's how I found out about the case. So I am applying for SD to have this reset for exactly the reason you've described above.

 

[Haywain]

You haven't been convicted of anything, and you appear to be fully aware of proceedings, so there's nothing to reset anyway.

Not so - the OP has stated that bailiffs are chasing an unpaid fine.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Not so - the OP has stated that bailiffs are chasing an unpaid fine.

Ah that wasn't as obvious as it should have been to me!

Time for me to bow out of this one.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

A couple of practical questions:
- I'd like to address the letter to somebody rather than 'dear Sir/Madam' or 'to whom it may concern'. The only name I have is the TfL Counsel who approved the charge sheet. Is this my addressee? Would it be amiss to email TfL (I have an email address for the prosecutions team) and request a name to whom I can address my correspondence?

This isn't a point to spend too much time on. I work in compliance in a (non-railway) organisation, and get letters addressing me in all sorts of ways. In all honesty, I don't even read the line starting 'Dear'.

If you want to be absolutely business-like, you are writing corporately to TfL rather than one of their employees so put 'Dear Sirs'. Rather more modern is to accept that an individual will read the letter but you don't know who so use 'Dear Sir or Madam'. But as long as you aren't actively offensive no-one will worry.

- If it comes to it, do I need to write to the court and request an out-of-court settlement as well as TfL? I thought that is between me and TfL only, and if agreed (all fingers crossed) then notify the court

No. An out-of-court settlement is between you and the other party. If one is agreed, at that point you might want to advise the court so that an appointment isn't scheduled for the case that will no longer happen.

I have no idea why you are making or wanting to make a Statutory Declaration either. You haven't been convicted of anything, and you appear to be fully aware of proceedings, so there's nothing to reset anyway. What exactly are you trying to do with a statutory declaration? I think you've got yourself really muddled up. Ordinarily, in this context, a SD is used for someone who has been convicted in their absence to remove the conviction and have another trial, because they've told the Magistrates under oath that they were unaware that they were facing criminal action. The Magistrates then reset everything and a fresh court case follows.

@Tazi Hapefi seems to have overlooked your earlier posting.

The reason I am inclined to apply for Statutory Declaration is that, in my absence (not knowing about the charge, paperwork etc), the case was heard, I was found guilty in absentia and apparently ordered to pay a sum I didn't pay of about £200, which was then handed over to bailiffs for collection and escalated to around £700. I had no knowledge of this until TfL finally sent paperwork to the correct address in early 2020, and then I contacted them to explain the situation. I'd be keen to avoid a £700 charge especially when I didn't know about any of the proceedings leading up to it.

So the SD is about reducing any payment for bailiffs' costs.

However, I think the rest of @Tazi Hapefi's advice is good. Realistically, there doesn't seem to be much (any?) chance of getting TfL to agree an out of court settlement. And it seems that on the facts that you accept that you are guilty of the bye-law offence that an SD would allow to be reheard. So either pleading not guilty or pleading guilty and asking to introduce new information will not lighten any conviction and penalty.

My advice (which I realise may read rather harshly) would be to pursue the SD, but plead guilty on the SJPN, pay the fine (reduced by the bailiffs'costs) and move on with your life. You made a mistake in using the wrong pass - but learn from the mistake, and don't let it dominate your life.

 

[Londontravels]

This isn't a point to spend too much time on. I work in compliance in a (non-railway) organisation, and get letters addressing me in all sorts of ways. In all honesty, I don't even read the line starting 'Dear'.

If you want to be absolutely business-like, you are writing corporately to TfL rather than one of their employees so put 'Dear Sirs'. Rather more modern is to accept that an individual will read the letter but you don't know who so use 'Dear Sir or Madam'. But as long as you aren't actively offensive no-one will worry.



No. An out-of-court settlement is between you and the other party. If one is agreed, at that point you might want to advise the court so that an appointment isn't scheduled for the case that will no longer happen.


@Tazi Hapefi seems to have overlooked your earlier posting.



So the SD is about reducing any payment for bailiffs' costs.

However, I think the rest of @Tazi Hapefi's advice is good. Realistically, there doesn't seem to be much (any?) chance of getting TfL to agree an out of court settlement. And it seems that on the facts that you accept that you are guilty of the bye-law offence that an SD would allow to be reheard. So either pleading not guilty or pleading guilty and asking to introduce new information will not lighten any conviction and penalty.

My advice (which I realise may read rather harshly) would be to pursue the SD, but plead guilty on the SJPN, pay the fine (reduced by the bailiffs'costs) and move on with your life. You made a mistake in using the wrong pass - but learn from the mistake, and don't let it dominate your life.

Thank you for this, helpful and clear.

I am inclined to plead guilty but the criminal conviction/charge is worrying me, seems a dark mark to have forever for a stupid 10-second mistake. That's why I'm pursuing the OOC. Otherwise, as you say I would like nothing better than to sort this out and move on.

Thank you for this, helpful and clear.

I am inclined to plead guilty but the criminal conviction/charge is worrying me, seems a dark mark to have forever for a stupid 10-second mistake. That's why I'm pursuing the OOC. Otherwise, as you say I would like nothing better than to sort this out and move on.

'In all honesty, I don't even read the line starting "Dear"'

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Thank you for this, helpful and clear.

I am inclined to plead guilty but the criminal conviction/charge is worrying me, seems a dark mark to have forever for a stupid 10-second mistake. That's why I'm pursuing the OOC. Otherwise, as you say I would like nothing better than to sort this out and move on.

Just don't stress yourself out if it's a dead end. It's only a dark mark if your career needs an Enhanced DBS check, or some other sort of security vetting.

A criminal conviction is never going to be great, but this is right at the bottom of the scale, (Byelaw breach) akin to a minor driving offence, and most employers would be very reasonable if you explained it, and showed you regretted your actions, even if you did need an enhanced check.

Accepting it's largely out of your hands can sometimes be a bit of a relief.

A guilty plea should see you relinquished of 50% of your weekly wages, further discounted by 33% if the plea is at the first opportunity.

E.g. earn £500/week. Fine is £250. Knock £75 off for plea. Total fine £175. Costs £100-£150 assuming no trial. Victim surcharge £34.00 (or 10% of fine if higher). Compensation of however much the fare was.

Max fine is £1000, so would be a max of £667 with a guilty plea, even if you earn a lot.

I provide those figures as it may help you weigh up if an out of court settlement is affordable or even desirable. It can be cheaper at court.

Whatever amount TfL ask for, if indeed you get that far, is not going to be negotiable, and will need immediate payment in full.

 

[island]

Thank you for this, helpful and clear.

I am inclined to plead guilty but the criminal conviction/charge is worrying me, seems a dark mark to have forever for a stupid 10-second mistake. That's why I'm pursuing the OOC. Otherwise, as you say I would like nothing better than to sort this out and move on.

You won't have a "dark mark forever".

The conviction will be spent after a year, and as a non-recordable offence may not even appear on a DBS check before that. Even if you do find yourself needing to disclose it, the vast majority of employers would not have any serious concerns about employing someone with a minor ticketless travel conviction, as long as the employer finds out about it from the person disclosing it rather than otherwise.

 

[Londontravels]

You won't have a "dark mark forever".

The conviction will be spent after a year, and as a non-recordable offence may not even appear on a DBS check before that. Even if you do find yourself needing to disclose it, the vast majority of employers would not have any serious concerns about employing someone with a minor ticketless travel conviction, as long as the employer finds out about it from the person disclosing it rather than otherwise.

Thank you, reassuring to know!

I'll let you know how it goes...

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

You won't have a "dark mark forever".

The conviction will be spent after a year, and as a non-recordable offence may not even appear on a DBS check before that. Even if you do find yourself needing to disclose it, the vast majority of employers would not have any serious concerns about employing someone with a minor ticketless travel conviction, as long as the employer finds out about it from the person disclosing it rather than otherwise.

It won't even take a year. A Byelaw offence won't (ordinarily) appear on any standard DBS check ever, even in the first year.

For enhanced DBS/vetting, the whole "spent" thing is almost (but not entirely) an irrelevance, and past convictions are reviewed on an individual basis, taking into account the full circumstances and reasoning for the check.

So, my argument would be for the vast majority of people in society, a Byelaw conviction makes absolutely no difference to their life.

 

[island]

It won't even take a year. A Byelaw offence won't (ordinarily) appear on any standard DBS check ever, even in the first year.

Yes, that’s what I said.

 

[pedr]

I think we should avoid conflating whether something would be recorded and returned on a DBS check and the concept of a spent conviction under the RoOA. They aren’t the same thing and a person convicted of a non-recordable bylaw offence and punished with a fine is not entitled to say that they haven’t been convicted of a criminal offence (if asked by a prospective employer who has to abide by the RoOA, for instance) until a year after the conviction.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Courts first need to establish guilt or innocence. If you plead guilty, or are found to be guilty after a trial, you are guilty and will have a criminal conviction.

Courts can only establish whether a defendant is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. They cannot find someone ‘innocent’.

 

[Mawkie]

Courts can only establish whether a defendant is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. They cannot find someone ‘innocent’.

Or 'not proven' in Scotland.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Courts can only establish whether a defendant is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. They cannot find someone ‘innocent’.

There is a presumption of innocence throughout the English (and Sottish, and Welsh and Northern Irish) judicial systems. If the defendant pleads guilty, they are convicted. Should there be a trial, where guilt or innocence is established the court normally proclaims its finding, usually after a summary of the evidence heard and the reason. "The court finds X Guilty/Not Guity of Y (and Z and....).

Establishment during the process and the declaration (finding) are different - though I am prepared to continue to split hairs with you if it helps. I'm willing to bet that I have spent longer in sitting in courtrooms than @Lemmy99uk , though the late great Motorhead man did have a bit of a "past".

 

[Haywain]

There is a presumption of innocence throughout the English (and Sottish, and Welsh and Northern Irish) judicial systems. If the defendant pleads guilty, they are convicted. Should there be a trial, where guilt or innocence is established the court normally proclaims its finding, usually after a summary of the evidence heard and the reason. "The court finds X Guilty/Not Guity of Y (and Z and....).

Establishment during the process and the declaration (finding) are different - though I am prepared to continue to split hairs with you if it helps. I'm willing to bet that I have spent longer in sitting in courtrooms than @Lemmy99uk , though the late great Motorhead man did have a bit of a "past".

In the eyes of the law a not guilty verdict equates to innocence, but in the eyes of many bystanders it simply means there wasn’t enough or suitable evidence to secure a conviction.