In Court on Tuesday

[dingle01902]

Hi Folks,
I need some guidance please.
My sister is a student in Leamington and had to travel to London for a job interview.
She has a Student Railcard as issued by her bank account.

She had previously bought a return ticket from Marylebone to Leamington from the manned ticket office at Marylebone where she had to produce her Railcard.

She was going to use the return portion to get to her interview.

As she was approaching the barrier to enter Leamington station she was approached by a ticket inspector to check her ticket, and at this point she had realised she had left her Railcard on the table at her digs.
As she had not yet entered through the barrier she said she would go home and fetch it as it was only 5 mins away.

The Inspector said there was no need and he would sort her with a permit to travel. She would then get a letter through the post to which she should send a copy of her railcard and that would be that.

The next she heard was from the Investigations department demanding £69 single ticket fare plus £120 costs.

She wrote back explaining what the Inspector had told her and enclosed a copy of the railcard.

They didn't respond or acknowledge this and the next communication was from Nuneaton Magistrates court summoning her to trial.
She pleaded not guilty and the trial is listed for Tuesday.

She has tried to deal with the investigations department but they aren't interested and are steamrolling into court.

My sister only informed us of the full story this weekend as she was scared and embarrassed, so we are trying to find out how best to help her with no opportunity to get legal advice prior to the trial.

It is listed for 9:30am on the summons but the Rail people have written to her telling her not to go until 11:30. This sounds dodgy to me.
Also she pointed out to us that their statement says this happened at Marylebone and not Leamington. There may be a technicality there to get it thrown out but sadly she also pointed this out to them on the phone last week and they said they are going to change it.

Sorry for droning on but I wanted to put all the info in the hope somebody could advise properly.

Regards.x

 

[ralphchadkirk]

She needs to speak to a solicitor ASAP. I would say try to find the rare kind that specialises in railway ticketing, but she needs to speak to one immediately.

 

[island]

Hmm. It's very late in the day to take this on but we might be able to help. What did the "permit to travel" say? And is your sister sure there has been no other correspondence whatsoever and that she did not perhaps receive additional letters which she may have ignored in the hope the matter would go away?

 

[34D]

It is listed for 9:30am on the summons but the Rail people have written to her telling her not to go until 11:30. This sounds dodgy to me.

Make sure her (and you?) are there in good time for 09:30.

 

[bb21]

Sorry to say this but something does not add up in my opinion. A train company would not just prosecute without getting into touch unless they have very strong evidence, and if the whole event panned out in exactly the same way as you have described here, prosecution would almost certainly be doomed to fail.

Is there something she is not telling you?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As time is of the essence, most of the opportunities for investigative work prior to giving advice, and for negotiation with the Company, are unlikely to be possible at this stage.
The professional approach is to ask the Court for more time to mount a defence, but if I understand correctly that a plea of Not Guilty has already been notified, then the hearing on Tuesday will simply be a brief opportunity to enter that Plea and to give Directions to the parties as to the timescale within which their Witness Statements should be provided and exchanged with each other (a P&D hearing).
If this is the approach you favour, then you will need to tell the Court whose Evidence you will be wanting to bring to the full hearing (your Witnesses) and also which of the Prosecution Witnesses you will be wanting to appear in person for cross-examination.

The 'last minute' professional approach is to get there just after 9:00 am and have a private word with the Prosecutor in one of the small meeting rooms.
If this is your preferred approach, then you will explain that you are unhappy at the lack of communication from the Company and then get straight on to the point: that you would be happy to reach some sort of settlement there and then , to avoid the need for both parties to incur the significant time and cost of bringing witnesses to Court on another date. A professional will add some credible weight to the prospects of success, so that the Prosecution might agree that on balance, a settlement might be advantageous.

The 'amateur' approach is to busk it with an 'on your feet' defence. Without an understanding of Court protocol, and (as you haven't mentioned it here - I suspect you don't know this crucial fact: what criminal offence your sister is being accused of?, or what civil claim is being pursued?) without knowing what Offence is to be defended, then we simply cannot help. Perhaps, if we knew the precise legal charge against her, and a little insight into the evidence available to the Court, then your well-intentioned appeal on here might provide a response of value. Do you know what offence or claim is being brought forward to the Bench on Tuesday? A Regulation of Railways Act Offence? A Railway Byelaws Offence? A debt plus costs? Without that knowledge, then you and she are on your own - if you are sharp minded on your feet in Court and know when to interrupt and when to be quiet, what to say and how to say it, when to stand and speak, and when to sit and be silent, then you might manage to mitigate the damage. But even with that skill and that knowledge, we can only prompt you to say the right thing at the right time. (so again, the request for an adjournment is my favoured option).

If all that seems too daunting, then go for the settlement option - or at a pinch, go for the adjournement for further witness statements (if there is any prospect that you will be able to obtain witness statements).

Oh, and while I'm on about you asking for help with a Court appearance without telling us the Offence, I should also ask you what is in the Prosecution's bundle of evidence?

It is listed for 9:30am on the summons but the Rail people have written to her telling her not to go until 11:30. This sounds dodgy to me.

There's nothing 'dodgy' here. There will be large bundles of cases to be heard, and yours will have been allocated to a later bundle - perhaps some of the earlier matters will be slower and involve taking evidence from witnesses.
But my advice to get there well before 9:30 is in order to give you the opportunity for a quick meeting with the prosecutor before they go in and before the bench sits down.

She needs to speak to a solicitor ASAP. I would say try to find the rare kind that specialises in railway ticketing, but she needs to speak to one immediately.

Yes, but is this now possible (the only intervening day being Easter Monday)? But I don't agree that the expensive specialists in Railway Law will be of much assistance at this point - we're up against a timetable crisis, and the skill needed at this point is in court protocol and pre-hearing negotiation (all of which would be familiar to any busy criminal defence solicitor used to defending last-minute low-value and legally simple clients).

Is there something she is not telling you?

Several things, I reckon.
Some unanswered mail I expect. But what does that correspondence say? We need to know before we can help.

She wrote back explaining what the Inspector had told her and enclosed a copy of the railcard.

. . .

She has tried to deal with the investigations department but they aren't interested and are steamrolling into court.

If anyone can help (either on here or in a local law firm at 8am on Tuesday) then they will want to see all the evidence. As well as the missing crucial fact of what offence is being prosecuted.

I know nothing about this specific incident, but I will offer an opinion on this statement:

. . . .
The Inspector said there was no need and he would sort her with a permit to travel. She would then get a letter through the post to which she should send a copy of her railcard and that would be that.

The next she heard was from the Investigations department . . .

This sounds very familiar to me. It is indicative of a person who tends to recall those elements of difficult situations which favours their own integrity and innocence. It is not a neutral reporting style - the use of the passive voice is a clue to the attempt to distance the person from their culpability.

 

[island]

As it's a Magistrates Court wouldn't that mean it is a criminal offence, a civil debt being dealt with at the County Court?

 

[dingle01902]

Regulation of Railways Act - Did travel or attempt to travel upon the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof.

£69 + £120 costs

She is adamant that it was a permit to travel she was given although she did sign a caution that simply asked her where her rail card was.

This "statement" and the company's statement of fact are all that have been supplied in the bundle.
They are simply relying on the Inspectors statement which hasn't been supplied.
According to the paperwork he will be there on Tuesday to give evidence.
There are no further witnesses.

The permit to travel said valid from leamington to London Marlyebone. It had the date and his signature. When checked on the train it brought no further questions of her.

She swears that what I have written is full and correct.

ADDITIONAL- shes telling me this over the phone now:
In a subsequent letter sent last week they wrote, " The case was passed to this office when it was reported that you had been identified travelling with an invalid ticket because you were claiming a reduction in fare that you were not entitled to AND HAD STATED THAT YOU OWN A RAILCARD IN YOUR NAME BUT HAD LEFT IT AT HOME AND SIGNED THE STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT WHEN KNOWING THAT THIS WAS NOT CORRECT. We assessed this evidence and found sufficient to procede to prosecution"

Ive tried to cover all of the points raised by everyone in one hit.
Hope this helps all

 

[dingle01902]

There was no further mail came.
She gave my Mums address where she lives during holidays and my Mum has verified no other letters

 

[RJ]

Also she pointed out to us that their statement says this happened at Marylebone and not Leamington. There may be a technicality there to get it thrown out but sadly she also pointed this out to them on the phone last week and they said they are going to change it.

I wouldn't bank on that. If it can be proven that the offence was committed, information errors of this nature won't necessarily get the case thrown out, unless it causes prejudice to the defendant.

 

[radamfi]

Hang on, the passenger is being prosecuted because of not holding appropriate travel documents BEFORE the start of the trip! Is this allowed? I've only ever read accounts where the inspection occurred either at the end or during the trip.

 

[Muzer]

Hang on, the passenger is being prosecuted because of not holding appropriate travel documents BEFORE the start of the trip! Is this allowed? I've only ever read accounts where the inspection occurred either at the end or during the trip.

I think it is, I've heard of it. Someone else can cite the exact wording, I'm sure, but I think it's something like showing intent to travel (which can include approaching an inspector/gateline) if your ticket is invalid. Apologies if I've misremembered, I'm not a lawyer and all that.

 

[MyFriendMary]

£69 + £120 costs

She is adamant that it was a permit to travel she was given although she did sign a caution that simply asked her where her railcard was

I'm a bit confused where the £69 came from, assuming that is the claim for an unpaid fare, as £72 would be the appropriate claim. Id assume the "permit to travel" was an unpaid fares notice which the company would waiver when the railcard was posted in. As this didn't happen until they threatened legal action, it maybe that as the process was so far down the line, that they didn't stop the court process.

Was your sister's railcars still valid and in date at the time of the offence? Additionally did she not contact the TOC with a copy of her railcard, along with a copy of the inspector's "permit", as soon as she possibly could? Also does she still have the form given to her by the inspector?

 

[dingle01902]

I'm a bit confused where the £69 came from, assuming that is the claim for an unpaid fare, as £72 would be the appropriate claim. Id assume the "permit to travel" was an unpaid fares notice which the company would waiver when the railcard was posted in. As this didn't happen until they threatened legal action, it maybe that as the process was so far down the line, that they didn't stop the court process.

Was your sister's railcars still valid and in date at the time of the offence? Additionally did she not contact the TOC with a copy of her railcard, along with a copy of the inspector's "permit", as soon as she possibly could? Also does she still have the form given to her by the inspector?

Yes it was still valid.
She didn't keep the permit to travel after the journey. She's positive that she wasn't given anything or told by anyone that she had to act within a certain time frame. Merely wait for letter then send in copy of her permit. When she received first contact she did this but the first contact was demanding 69 plus 120 or prosecution.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Hang on, the passenger is being prosecuted because of not holding appropriate travel documents BEFORE the start of the trip! Is this allowed? I've only ever read accounts where the inspection occurred either at the end or during the trip.

Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) states; 'if any person travels, or attempts to travel without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof....'

 

[dingle01902]

Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) states; 'if any person travels, or attempts to travel without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof....'

So what constitutes attempting to travel? Passing the barrier, entering the station, or booking the taxi to the station the night before?
Surely the barrier check did it's job and she realised her mistake and was going to go home and get the correctly compliant document, that is until the inspector appeared to demonstrate kindness and good customer service which is how she perceived his actions.

 

[Titfield]

I'm a bit confused where the £69 came from, assuming that is the claim for an unpaid fare, as £72 would be the appropriate claim. Id assume the "permit to travel" was an unpaid fares notice which the company would waiver when the railcard was posted in. As this didn't happen until they threatened legal action, it maybe that as the process was so far down the line, that they didn't stop the court process.

Was your sister's railcars still valid and in date at the time of the offence? Additionally did she not contact the TOC with a copy of her railcard, along with a copy of the inspector's "permit", as soon as she possibly could? Also does she still have the form given to her by the inspector?

It seems to me that the TOC is proceeding on the basis that they have not seen a valid railcard issued to the passenger and they have some reason to believe that no valid railcard has been issued / is in existence.

To reiterate the post quoted above: have you seen the railcard and checked it is in date?

 

[dingle01902]

It seems to me that the TOC is proceeding on the basis that they have not seen a valid railcard issued to the passenger and they have some reason to believe that no valid railcard has been issued / is in existence.

To reiterate the post quoted above: have you seen the railcard and checked it is in date?

She has the original, and the copy sent to the TOC in response to the first letter and it expires in JULY 2014. The alleged offence took place in October 2013.

 

[bb21]

I hesitate to say much on this matter as something still doesn't sit quite right with me, I am afraid.

Firstly there is no such thing as a "permit to travel". (Well, there is technically, but it would not be relevant to this incident as it is not something that can be given by an RPI.) What is it exactly that she was given?

Secondly you say that she responded to the request to produce her Railcard in the aftermath. Does she have proof of that?

I am not accusing you of lying, but it still seems a very bizarre set of circumstances to me.

 

[dingle01902]

I hesitate to say much on this matter as something still doesn't sit quite right with me, I am afraid.

Firstly there is no such thing as a "permit to travel". (Well, there is technically, but it would not be relevant to this incident as it is not something that can be given by an RPI.) What is it exactly that she was given?

Secondly you say that she responded to the request to produce her Railcard in the aftermath. Does she have proof of that?

I am not accusing you of lying, but it still seems a very bizarre set of circumstances to me.

It does to me as well BB, but she is adamant that there is no more to it, and feels like its a stitch up, but that justice will prevail (naïve girl).

She didn't send it recorded (which I would have advised her) but she has a copy of all correspondence sent and received. Her second letter also referred to the fact that they had failed to acknowledge her first letter which she resent for reference.

 

[Ediswan]

Is there a list of railcards issued which could be checked by the rail company to see if the claimed card exists ?

Also, given a 5 minute walk to get the missing card, why would the barrier staff suggest the far more complicated process described ? There is no suggestion of needing to catch an imminent train.

 

[dingle01902]

Is there a list of railcards issued which could be checked by the rail company to see if the claimed card exists ?

Also, given a 5 minute walk to get the missing card, why would the barrier staff suggest the far more complicated process described ? There is no suggestion of needing to catch an imminent train.

She wasn't booked on a specific train. It was a supersaver return - return portion.
She did intend on catching a certain train but she was missing that anyways and was prepared for having to get the next.

She has said that she really struggled to understand the Inspector who had a very heavy Asian accent and rubbish English, but I told her not to mention that as it could be construed as racism.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hesitate to say much on this matter as something still doesn't sit quite right with me, I am afraid.

Firstly there is no such thing as a "permit to travel". (Well, there is technically, but it would not be relevant to this incident as it is not something that can be given by an RPI.) What is it exactly that she was given?

Secondly you say that she responded to the request to produce her Railcard in the aftermath. Does she have proof of that?

I am not accusing you of lying, but it still seems a very bizarre set of circumstances to me.

I replied previously to this but it seems its filtering through the premod system.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I hesitate to say much on this matter as something still doesn't sit quite right with me, I am afraid.

. . .

I am not accusing you of lying, but it still seems a very bizarre set of circumstances to me.

I expect that the sister has reported only fragments of the episode and the OP is merely the mystified messenger.

With no time available to prepare a defence, the options are limited (though do include requesting the adjournment and, of course, changing the plea to Guilty). My earlier suggestion that this is simply a P&D hearing appears to be wrong as the Prosecution have already confirmed that they will produce at least one Witness to give evidence and whom can be cross-examined by the Defence. I'll guess that there has been more discussion or correspondence before now.

A DIY Defence might still succeed based on the requirement to demonstrate "intent to travel without having previously paid their fare" beyond reasonable doubt where a document of some sort (perhaps an Unpaid Fares Notice?) was issued to the passenger with oral instructions to travel, and some waffle about the passenger having both paid 'a fare' and being the posessor of a valid Railcard and that leaving the Railcard at home does not trigger the offence. As I say, its all waffle, but if it is calmly and clearly presented, the Bench might just be swayed.

I does seem to me, though, that the passenger will have had opportunities before now to conclude the matter, and simply didn't take those opportunities or didn't understand them. All too late now.

 

[dingle01902]

She had one opportunity to conclude this when they sent the demand for £189 to which she responded including a copy of her railcard.

As mentioned, this wasn't even acknowledged in subsequent communications and there seems to be a desire to force into court when it became clear extortion was not an option.

 

[island]

Without knowing what was written/printed on the alleged "permit to travel", it is impossible to speculate effectively any further about it. All I will say is that most documents that are given to people without a proper ticket, such as Penalty Fare Notices and Unpaid Fares Notices, bear an instruction that the amount indicated must be paid or the notice appealed within a certain number of days, such as 10 or 21, to avoid further action. Whilst I am neither accusing anyone of inaction nor neglect, there are several indications from the above information which suggest to me that the defendant has passed up opportunities to deal with the matter outside of court. It is said that sticking one's head in the sand is a good way of exposing one's arse.

I concur with DaveNewcastle's waffle suggestion to argue that the passenger had in fact previously paid her fare, as evidenced by the ticket and Railcard (which I very much hope you still have). I suppose getting to the court early and discussing the potential of a settlement with the prosecutor may also work, but would involve a monetary payment likely to amount to several hundred pounds. Please let us know how it goes.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So what constitutes attempting to travel? Passing the barrier, entering the station, or booking the taxi to the station the night before?
Surely the barrier check did it's job and she realised her mistake and was going to go home and get the correctly compliant document, that is until the inspector appeared to demonstrate kindness and good customer service which is how she perceived his actions.

Passing the barrier demonstrated the attempt.

If you are going to attempt a last-minute DIY defence, then stick to payment having been made and that the error was in failing to produce the Railcard, not in failing to pay. Add that permission to travel was granted. Both should be confirmed in cross-examination of the Inspector. You appear to have nothing more substantial in your favour. Nothing at all.

The 'waffle' about having paid could be extended to include an analysis of whatever paperwork was issued to authorise travel on the day. If it was, for example, an Unpaid Fares Notice, then the 'waffle' defence would be that the Company should be pursuing the civil debt that they raised, and not a criminal matter. Always worth a punt telling the Bench that the matter has been brought to the wrong Court!

The 'missing opportunities' to conclude the matter after the event are not going to help you unless you could provide documentary evidence of attempts to settle - I understand that there is none.

 

[dingle01902]

Thanks all.
She did offer to pay the difference between the ticket purchased and the full fare in reply to their demand but this appears to have been ignored.

She only passed through the barrier when instructed to by the inspector to follow him. Up until that point she was going to go home and get the railcard.

Surely by telling her to go through the barrier he was causing her to commit an offence as one had not been committed prior to that action?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . .

Surely by telling her to go through the barrier he was causing her to commit an offence as one had not been committed prior to that action?

No.

Read my advice again. I referred to this specifically as 'with oral instructions to travel". Those instructions do not cause the offence to be committed, they authorise the travel, while leaving the matter of the debt to be resolved at a later time. A debt which you can argue is quite distinct from any 'intention to avoid payment', firstly because a fare had been paid, and secondly because the Company issued a document referring to another fare which can be paid in the future.

 

[Gathursty]

I'm biting my lip because this is not textbook advice, unlike DaveNewcastle but if I knew I had misplaced my railcard when speaking to an RPI before reaching the barrier but being in front and in the vicinity of it, I would have just said 'Thank you for bringing to my attention that my railcard seems to be at home. I need to go home to retrieve it or go outside and wait for a relative to bring it but I will return to board a train.' and immediately left. You don't walk into a hiding, just leave. Never, ever follow behind the barrier as it makes the RPIs job so much easier.

 

[dingle01902]

No.

Read my advice again. I referred to this specifically as 'with oral instructions to travel". Those instructions do not cause the offence to be committed, they authorise the travel, while leaving the matter of the debt to be resolved at a later time. A debt which you can argue is quite distinct from any 'intention to avoid payment', firstly because a fare had been paid, and secondly because the Company issued a document referring to another fare which can be paid in the future.

Got you. Thanks