• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Help With Prosecution case from FCC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,124
To the OP - they may well settle out of Court if it suits them to do so. I'd say you don't have a great deal to lose by attempting to settle because I think if this gets to Court, it has all the hallmarks of being a formality, as harsh as I know that probably sounds to you.

Be aware that FCC won't be compelled to accept any offer to settle out of Court - ultimately it's their decision. I wish you all the best.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
Wholly incorrect, sorry.

That may be the case for a breach of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, but the Railway Byelaws do not require or permit magistrates to consider the intention of the offender..

I agree, if you'd read what I actually posted I specified 'Fare evasion' therefore WHOLLY CORRECT!!

Breach of Byelaw is strict liability and you are correct, they do not need to consider intent.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
A conviction for Byelaw 18 is pretty much "fare evasion". Even the CPS define it as such.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/#evasion

Agreed it's pretty much accepted by many people, but I have often seen cases lost because of the wrong choice of legislation in relation to the allegation made by the inspector. Yesterday was a case in point. We didn't lose any, but another TOC at the same Court did, by making that very mistake.

In your chosen link to the guidelines for prosecutors it's worth remembering what CPS actually say:

There are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion, but in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate to use the section 5 offence.
 

MrMild

New Member
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Messages
3
Firstly, and taking what you've posted at face value, you have my sympathies: I've seen FCC inspectors in action and some of them are nasty bullies. They have a reputation for preying on women travelling alone as well.

Next, I think LM might be overstating things. The rules for carnets require "permanent ink" to be used. So long as you did actually write the correct date in pen, I think FCC would have a hard time prosecuting you on the basis that you used the wrong type of pen. This is especially the case since, as others have pointed out, the tickets aren't easy to write on.

As to your address, it's not entirely clear from what you say, but I think there's a key difference between you mistakenly giving the wrong address and then correcting it once you realise your mistake and you giving the wrong address but only correcting when challenged.

If you are sure that your version of events is correct, then you shouldn't be coerced by FCC into pleading guitly or trying to settle. It's a decison only you can make and you should really get proper legal advice. You've got to weigh up the risk of being found guilty against the likelihood that the Court will find you to be credible and honest, in which case I'd think it highly unlikely it would convict you for using wrong type of pen.

Also bear in mind that it is easy for FCC to send out letters threatening prosecution and they probably have not reviewed the matter in any great detail at this stage. If you - having taken legal advice - write back to them saying that you intend to plead not guilty and defend the charges, they may review the matter again and reconsider.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
If you are sure that your version of events is correct, then you shouldn't be coerced by FCC into pleading guitly or trying to settle. It's a decison only you can make and you should really get proper legal advice. You've got to weigh up the risk of being found guilty against the likelihood that the Court will find you to be credible and honest, in which case I'd think it highly unlikely it would convict you for using wrong type of pen.

Also bear in mind that it is easy for FCC to send out letters threatening prosecution and they probably have not reviewed the matter in any great detail at this stage. If you - having taken legal advice - write back to them saying that you intend to plead not guilty and defend the charges, they may review the matter again and reconsider.


Spot on
 

benk1342

Member
Joined
13 Jul 2011
Messages
367
Location
Welwyn Garden City
They can be used, even if it is headed "Without prejudice".

Usually, for first time minor offenders, a TOC will accept a "admin penalty" and them to sign an admission of guilt/reprimand stating that they won't do it again.

If they subsequently do it again, then the original signed reprimand/letter could be used to show that they knew full well the consequences of their actions.

It may even be in the Defence's favour that this is submitted as it could show to the court that an attempt to compensate and mitigate was made.

Ah---I forgot for a moment that this is a criminal (or at least quasi-criminal) issue. I meant that in America, in a civil case, if for example someone slips and falls on your icy steps and sues you because they broke their leg and their football career is over or something, and you write a letter that says you're really sorry that the steps were icy and offer to settle, they can't use the letter as evidence that you were negligent. The purpose is to encourage settlements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top