I am truly scared.....

[Spurs]

Probably not - however, I was frustrated, embarrassed as this was happening in front of other passengers and he was being overly aggressive to me in his manner - hence the phrase 'Why are you acting like a prick?". Its noted in his statement that I apologised straight away - we are all human and very briefly lost some control. As far as the phrase 'foul and abusive language' is concerned, I have not denied it wish I hadn't said it. However, calling one word foul and abusive language feels a bit of a stretch.

If somebody came to your place of work and called you a prick for doing your job - while at least potentially committing a criminal act, no less - I'm sure you'd want your own employer to take the strongest possible action. It's entirely unacceptable conduct, an apology does not fix it, and it's turned this case from one which sounds like it'd be borderline between a settlement and being dropped entirely into one where it's borderline between a slamdunk bylaw conviction for the abusive language at least and a full RoRA convction. The sooner you accept this and accept the fact that there's quite rightly going to be a serious consequence for abusing that staff member, the better your chances of eventually avoiding the worst outcome.

 

[jon0844]

I believe some TOCs have a 'tariff' of sorts on swearing, with different damages sought for different words, or their frequency. People who go down the MG route should be very aware that every bit of abuse gets recorded.

It is never acceptable.

 

[furlong]

Probably not

And there might be your answer as to why you think you were treated differently. I'd suggest that the way you responded to the situation might have meant you lost some possible sympathy or understanding that there might have been for your position and the company might have decided to see how much mud would stick. Courts may think the same way, so as already suggested, have a conversation with the prosecutor before the case is heard to see if you can negotiate some sort of settlement - be prepared to offer a letter of apology and maybe token compensation for the employee. (On the ticketing matter, I think you might have been asking for 'benefit of the doubt' or 'discretion' to be applied in your favour.)

 

[Ian Whitehouse]

If somebody came to your place of work and called you a prick for doing your job - while at least potentially committing a criminal act, no less - I'm sure you'd want your own employer to take the strongest possible action. It's entirely unacceptable conduct, an apology does not fix it, and it's turned this case from one which sounds like it'd be borderline between a settlement and being dropped entirely into one where it's borderline between a slamdunk bylaw conviction for the abusive language at least and a full RoRA convction. The sooner you accept this and accept the fact that there's quite rightly going to be a serious consequence for abusing that staff member, the better your chances of eventually avoiding the worst outcome.

Ok, let's be clear - I did not call him a prick - I said why are you acting like one (in my opinion I felt he was and still do - he was deliberately provocative and aggressive and I reacted in a fight or flight situation) . Your comment regarding serious consequence for abusing staff is incorrect - the byelaw which I transgressed (which I HAVE accepted as wrong, which I did at the time) does not carry a criminal conviction only a fine. I have ALWAYS accepted that I should not have sworn (it was very out of character for me). I understand that the swearword may have encouraged them to pursue a court hearing however my argument has always been that I never intended not to pay - the RORA stands on it's own and should be judged as such - you cannot in law convict somebody for one crime because they committed a different one. In my career as a medical professional I have been sworn at multiple times, assaulted, spat at - you name it. If I took each and every one of those people to court for this I would never be out of it - I understand that people react when they feel threatened, intimidated or distressed. Please also note that at the end of our conversation we actually parted on friendly terms and I apologised again and shook hands. I guess we have to agree to disagree - I don't believe one slip with a minor swearword constitutes abuse.

 

[i4n]

Saying you're acting lick a prick and calling him a prick amounts to the same thing. You're still insinuating that he's a prick.

Saying that, I wouldn't even consider prick to be a swear word but I know there are regional variations on what is/isn't acceptable, I fell foul of that when as someone from the South I started managing people from the North East...

 

[Llanigraham]

- the byelaw which I transgressed (which I HAVE accepted as wrong, which I did at the time) does not carry a criminal conviction only a fine.

If you have been issued with a fine by a Court then you have been found guilty of a crime, therefore you have been convicted.

 

[WesternLancer]

Saying you're acting lick a prick and calling him a prick amounts to the same thing. You're still insinuating that he's a prick.

Saying that, I wouldn't even consider prick to be a swear word but I know there are regional variations on what is/isn't acceptable, I fell foul of that when as someone from the South I started managing people from the North East...

Saying you're acting lick a prick and calling him a prick amounts to the same thing

I am sure M'learned friends (as private eye would call them) could spend a long time in court arguing over that..!!
https://rockhaq.com/retrospective/sex-pistols-indecency-trial-nottingham-24-november-1977/

 

[some bloke]

the byelaw...does not carry a criminal conviction only a fine.

"contravening a byelaw can result in a fine upon successful conviction."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-government-legislation-byelaws

The same applies to railway byelaws. These are criminal offences resulting in criminal convictions.

 

[some bloke]

he then told me it was my responsibility to find the conductor and at this point I was feeling very upset

If he misled you over a responsibility to find a conductor, or was wrongly presenting a questionable interpretation as fact, perhaps that might be a ground for mitigation on the abusive language charge.

Although there would be only your word for that, your argument might be helped if you provide evidence that the company or their agent has elsewhere been misleading on this issue. Perhaps if you did that, the company might prefer to drop that charge if they don't want to be shown in court as giving the wrong information.

 

[SteveM70]

Ok, let's be clear - I did not call him a prick - I said why are you acting like one

A highly semantic point. I would understand the difference between swearing at someone and swearing about the situation (“you f*cking idiot” vs “oh for f*ck’s sake”, for example), but in your case the question is more one of whether the employee of the railway interpreted your comment as being abusive towards him personally, and inevitably he almost certainly will have done, not least because of the word “you” in your comment.

 

[some bloke]

Ian, there's something else you might want to bear in mind about the byelaw charges.

I believe the consensus is now that byelaw convictions are spent after 12 months (6 months for people under 18).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-guidance-on-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974

It's correct that they wouldn't normally appear on a DBS check, as the offences aren't technically "recordable" on the Police National Computer (except where for example the conviction is at the same time as for a "recordable" offence).

If you were (unfortunately) convicted of "intent" at the same time as the byelaw offences, the byelaw convictions should be recorded on the Police National Computer - even though if they occurred on their own they would be "non-recordable".

https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/recordable-offences-2/

and 1.4.3:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...m_National_Police_Systems__Guidance__v2.0.pdf

 

[some bloke]

If you're worried about an "abusive language" conviction appearing on a DBS check, it might need a bit of research to work out whether police forces routinely disclose "non-recordable" convictions which occurred at the same time as a "recordable" conviction.

The document below may mean that the obligation on the police is to disclose "recordable" convictions and convictions relevant to a job; maybe it's hard to guarantee that the more minor conviction wouldn't be disclosed in practice.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ons-scheme-revised-guidance-for-police-forces

For some jobs and professions including in health care, you have to disclose all criminal charges or convictions anyway, even spent ones, in any case. That doesn't mean they would necessarily have any impact on someone's career.

 

[some bloke]

In the Corbyn Appeal against conviction for fare evasion (1978) the Crown Court made this perfectly clear. The judgment confirmed that in their interpretation of the Act they were not concerned with whether or not the traveller intended to permanently avoid payment, merely that an opportunity for him to pay the correct fare due was available before travelling and was not taken by him.

Piers Corbyn did something very different from @Ian Whitehouse. Corbyn didn't offer to pay what he owed at the destination; instead he gave a silly bit of paper saying they could contact him for the balance. His case concerned 46 instances; there was much more evidence that he didn't intend to pay than in @Ian Whitehouse 's case.

https://gabrielquotes.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/penalty-fares-corbyns-brother.pdf

 

[some bloke]

On the question of intent, courts have a duty to consider not just such things as whether someone passed an opportunity to pay before boarding, but all the evidence:

"Proof of criminal intent.

A court or jury...shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence"

Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80

Even if the charter doesn't entail legal obligations on companies for queuing times, you can still present queuing time as a ground for reasonable doubt.

Perhaps arguably, as you notified the staff member at the destination of a long queue, it was up to the company - especially if there was CCTV of the ticket office - to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Llanigraham]

On the question of intent, courts have a duty to consider not just such things as whether someone passed an opportunity to pay before boarding, but all the evidence:

"Proof of criminal intent.

A court or jury...shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence"

Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80

Even if the charter doesn't entail legal obligations on companies for queuing times, you can still present queuing time as a ground for reasonable doubt.

Perhaps arguably, as you notified the staff member at the destination of a long queue, it was up to the company - especially if there was CCTV of the ticket office - to provide evidence to the contrary.

And again I refer to the opening posts in this thread where the OP admits that there are ticket machines at Wellington, but that the he declined to use them because of his bike.
And I doubt that there will be any CCTV evidence available from August!

 

[some bloke]

Ian, if you haven't already taken action on this, you need to now. NMC Code 23.2 says "as soon as you can":

I am a nurse and if this goes to court, this may impact on my ability to continue registration - the NMC don't like it when their members have convictions for fraud!

You would need to tell the NMC and your employer if you are "charged", which I would take as including a summons in a private prosecution - see 23.2:

https://www.nmc.org.uk/standards/code/read-the-code-online/

 

[some bloke]

You may be able to get some free legal advice from a union, or as a benefit with a bank account or insurance. Maybe a union such as the RCN would give some related (ie not directly legal) advice as well.

The RCN provides some free legal advice:

https://www.rcn.org.uk/get-help/legal-help/free-legal-advice

@Ian Whitehouse, are you aware of this - including the section "Assessing the seriousness..."? It may be reassuring to some extent.

https://www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/...llegations/criminal-convictions-and-cautions/

 

[Fare-Cop]

Piers Corbyn did something very different from @Ian Whitehouse. Corbyn didn't offer to pay what he owed at the destination; instead he gave a silly bit of paper saying they could contact him for the balance. His case concerned 46 instances; there was much more evidence that he didn't intend to pay than in @Ian Whitehouse 's case.

Quite right, the Corbyn case was more complex, but that does not prevent the prosecutor from referring to it.

Section 5.1 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) almost exactly mirrors the strict liability requirement of National Railway Byelaw 18.1 (2005). The prosecutor will remind the Court of that obligation on the traveller and in the Corbyn judgment the Crown referred to this obligation, eventually determining that the traveller 'intended to pay only if asked', which is exactly what was considered relevant in deciding that Appeal.

In my experience, trials in these cases are usually very short and pretty straightforward and I don't see this one being any different from what we have seen in this thread.

In my opinion the Court are likely to consider the charter argument almost entirely irrelevant, the prosecutor will advise the Court that there was another ticket machine that was working and could have been used. The OP admits that there was another machine that he could have used, but he made a conscious decision not to use it, because he says he did not want to put down his cycle for a minute or two. The Magistrates may consider whether that was reasonable or whether he should simply have bought a ticket.

The charge in relation to abusive language contrary to National Railway Byelaw 6.1 (2005) and his response to it doesn't help the OP at all. Whether he called the inspector 'a prick' or said 'why are you acting like a prick' makes no difference. The Magistrates will consider whether the spoken word was intended to abuse or belittle the member of staff.

The inspector will attend to give live evidence to the Magistrates if the OP pleads not-guilty to any of the charges and a good prosecutor will ask the inspector how he felt at that moment and if he was offended by it.

I agree that if all is exactly as posted by the OP an intent charge might be seen as a little harsh, but given that strict liability offences are evident, if the OP's responses to the prosecutor's office have 'failed the attitude test', it isn't hard to understand their willingness to continue.

 

[Bevan Price]

If the facts are as stated - and we have only your version, then it is a pity that none of the other passengers are available as witnesses. You - or your lawyer - could have questioned them about the attitude of the inspector, and hopefully one of them would have confirmed that you were attempting to purchase a ticket. Alternatively, if he/she can be identified, the person from whom you attempted to buy a ticket should also be able to confirm that (or commit perjury by telling a lie in court.).

It may not help you completely, but it may mitigate the attitude of the court towards you if you can demonstrate that you were not intending to defraud the railway....

 

[Wombat]

If somebody came to your place of work and called you a prick for doing your job - while at least potentially committing a criminal act, no less - I'm sure you'd want your own employer to take the strongest possible action. It's entirely unacceptable conduct, an apology does not fix it, and it's turned this case from one which sounds like it'd be borderline between a settlement and being dropped entirely into one where it's borderline between a slamdunk bylaw conviction for the abusive language at least and a full RoRA convction. The sooner you accept this and accept the fact that there's quite rightly going to be a serious consequence for abusing that staff member, the better your chances of eventually avoiding the worst outcome.

I really don't think that "Why are you acting like a prick?", followed by an immediate apology, warrants "serious consequences" in any rational universe.

 

[Llanigraham]

If the facts are as stated - and we have only your version, then it is a pity that none of the other passengers are available as witnesses. You - or your lawyer - could have questioned them about the attitude of the inspector, and hopefully one of them would have confirmed that you were attempting to purchase a ticket. Alternatively, if he/she can be identified, the person from whom you attempted to buy a ticket should also be able to confirm that (or commit perjury by telling a lie in court.).

It may not help you completely, but it may mitigate the attitude of the court towards you if you can demonstrate that you were not intending to defraud the railway....

Hoping to find a witness for an event that occured 6 months ago is clutching at straws, and as bad as expecting the CCTV to still be available. And as has been pointed out several times now, and admitted by the OP, there was a ticket machine available that he could have used, but declined to do so.
Fare-Cop in his reply at #138 above is spot-on.

 

[davp]

Ian, if you're a member of a union at work talk to them about this right away.

The NMC guidance is pretty straightforward: https://www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/...llegations/criminal-convictions-and-cautions/

Not telling them and your employer when you should will make this a lot worse. You could call the NMC and explain you have a summons and they will tell you if you need to advise them about it now. They might also be able to offer some comment about the consequence of a conviction. My guess is you won't be the first nurse who has faced a prosecution relating to railway ticketing. It may help your anxiety about the situation if you have more info as to how they might deal with it, and this may or may not influence your strategy.

 

[some bloke]

I doubt that there will be any CCTV evidence available from August!

The point is about the past, after @Ian Whitehouse told the staff member about the queue in July.

Perhaps arguably, as you notified the staff member at the destination of a long queue, it was up to the company - especially if there was CCTV of the ticket office - to provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Llanigraham]

The point is about the past, after @Ian Whitehouse told the staff member about the queue in July.

Telling a member of staff there was a queue is not a request for the CCTV; that has to be specifically asked for.
And is irrelevant now.

 

[6Gman]

Really? If we accept what the OP says (and there is no evidence to the contrary), he was frustrated in his attempts to pay his fare. What is he to do? Let the train leave while the ticket office conclude their dealings with the customer? That is wholly unreasonable.

The OP got to the station in good time. TFW failed to honour their customer charter commitment that sets an expectation for passengers that they would be served in three minutes (five minutes peak). As has happened to me, the ticket seller, knowing a train was due could have asked the woman with the complex query to stand aside, while he / she sold tickets for the incoming service. He /she didn't do this, neither did TFW avail themselves of the fare by checking tickets on the train, and as we know there is no obligation whatsoever for the OP or anyone, should go and seek out a conductor.

We clearly disagree, but I'm with the OP on this one and wish him all the best.

The charter isn't a commitment; it refers to an "aim" on waiting times.

 

[Realfish]

The charter isn't a commitment; it refers to an "aim" on waiting times.

So what is the purpose of committing that aim to writing, if it is not to give an indication of how long a passenger might reasonably wait to purchase a ticket?

These arguments seem to be rather one sided, placing obligations on the passenger (any passenger for that matter), while, at the same time failing to meet their own obligations. The difference being that the OP is facing prosecution, unreasonably so in my opinion.

 

[some bloke]

I suggest that the key part of the Charter is this.

Our aim is...five minutes at peak times or three minutes at any other time. ...In specific situations where queueing times are not being achieved at a station, you can buy either a ticket en route or at your destination.

The company has not challenged Ian's statement that he waited 10 minutes.

If the prosecutor thinks that they should succeed under byelaw 18(1) because technically there were working facilities, I suggest that Ian could write quoting the WMT (station operator) charter, with a view to TfW/TIL dropping all talk of prosecution for any ticketing offence. If they persist, perhaps write to the TfW boss.

The Charter does not define the term "specific situations" in any way.

It might be argued that it's only Ian's word that he was in the queue for that long. But the company has failed to provide CCTV to support its case.

I can't see how the charter wouldn't at least raise some questions in court.
https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co....KFAntkGJM2Qs/wmt-passengers-charter-dec17.pdf

So that's two sets of arguments to try - ultra vires (byelaw invalid) and abuse of process (prosecuting someone who was only doing what your published instructions said they should do i.e. bad faith, misconduct?, entrapment?) before you even get to the various possible defences to the byelaw itself.

........

Edit 18 Jan: Corrected reference to the charter, and changed suggestion. It is WMT's - the station operator's - charter, as I stated in August, rather than the charter of Transport for Wales on whose behalf TIL has been working.

The point remains that it is unreasonable to blame a passenger for following what the station operator appears to say is allowed.

I suggest you quote the station operator Passengers' Charter instead - first paragraph of page 8 (the pdf reader may call it page 6):
https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co....KFAntkGJM2Qs/wmt-passengers-charter-dec17.pdf

 

[Llanigraham]

I suggest that the key part of the Charter is this.


The company has not challenged Ian's statement that he waited 10 minutes.

If the prosecutor thinks that they should succeed under byelaw 18(1) because technically there were working facilities, I suggest that Ian could write to the company boss and point out what their literature says, with a view to them dropping all talk of prosecution.

The Charter does not define the term "specific situations" in any way.

It might be argued that it's only Ian's word that he was in the queue for that long. But the company has failed to provide CCTV to support its case.

Why is there this continual reference to CCTV? It is immaterial.
The OP did not request it, and the railway company do not have to produce it, even to support their own case.
The fact of the matter is that there are 2 oppurtunities to purchase tickets at Wellington, and the OP chose to ignore an available one, as he admitted in the opening of this thread.

 

[some bloke]

What about the "abusive language" charge?

I think there may be a strong mitigating factor.

The staff member made a flimsy claim that passengers have a responsibility to find the conductor. That claim is contradicted by, or at least plausibly in conflict with, the Charter "in specific situations where queueing times are not being achieved at a station". The Charter's statement that you can then "buy either a ticket en route or at your destination" seems clearly to allow you to buy at the destination if you wish.

I don't think it matters if Ian wasn't aware of the contents of the Charter. I think it may be enough if he had a sense that the staff member was being unreasonable.

Mitigation doesn't mean Ian is innocent of that charge. But it might mean the company would drop it when faced with the ridiculousness of its overall position.

 

[gray1404]

Furthermore, the member of staff who the OP spoke to might have been very hostile towards him. The statement written by the staff member contains a lot of gaps and a good defense will be able to ask questions about this. There clearly was more discussion then what was said in the statement. If the staff member was hostile or had a bad attitude (such as being aggressive or passive aggressive) towards the OP then it would explain, to some extent the OPs relation. Clearly the staff member made some incorrect statements about needing to find the conductor, which is know is wrong, so it makes me wonder if his attitude towards passengers and conduct overall was wrong. People like that don't like being asked questions and I am sure the OP was attempting to clarify the situation when they were stopped.

One final thing, although the contractor who stopped the OP may attend court, we must not assume they will. They might not even be working for Transport Investigations Limited anymore.