In Court on Tuesday

[radamfi]

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.

Oh yes, I would definitely agree with that. The 'ethical' procedure would be either to prevent the passenger from passing the barrier, or offer to excess to a non-railcard fare. Encouraging passengers without railcard to continue their journey is a really clever technique. It wouldn't work every time, but I can see why an RPI would try it on, as there is nothing to lose.

 

[34D]

Oh yes, I would definitely agree with that. The 'ethical' procedure would be either to prevent the passenger from passing the barrier, or offer to excess to a non-railcard fare. Encouraging passengers without railcard to continue their journey is a really clever technique. It wouldn't work every time, but I can see why an RPI would try it on, as there is nothing to lose.

From the information we have been given, I am leaning towards thinking that this is what may have happened.

Is her address in Leamington genuinely a 5 minute walk? If so, produce a map (remember, Nuneaton mags isn't particularly local).

On the assumption that you (the brother) are going with her and will voice her defence on her behalf, I wish you luck. Please continue any questions you may have, and please come back and tell us of the result.

 

[dingle01902]

From the information we have been given, I am leaning towards thinking that this is what may have happened.

Is her address in Leamington genuinely a 5 minute walk? If so, produce a map (remember, Nuneaton mags isn't particularly local).

On the assumption that you (the brother) are going with her and will voice her defence on her behalf, I wish you luck. Please continue any questions you may have, and please come back and tell us of the result.

Yep. Got that 700metres from the station.
I wasn't going to speak for her. Didn't realise I could. She is preparing a statement of events and her defence in writing to either read or pass to the Magistrates.
She's got no idea about cross examining the Inspector.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Is her address in Leamington genuinely a 5 minute walk? If so, produce a map (remember, Nuneaton mags isn't particularly local).

If you do produce evidence tomorrow, provide 7 or 8 copies (3 for the Magistrates, 1 for the Clerk, 1 for the Prosecutor, 1 in case there is an instructing solicitor, 1 for yourself and 1 for a Witness).

I wasn't going to speak for her. Didn't realise I could.

You would have to request a 'right of audience' and without training and/or qualification, or without special professional exemption, I wouldn't assume that that right would be granted. (Legal Services Act 2007).

She is preparing a statement of events and her defence in writing to either read or pass to the Magistrates.
She's got no idea about cross examining the Inspector.

I'll outline the procedure in a Magistrates Court for a defendant appearing unrepresented.
This assumes that you've passed the point of attempting to reach a negotiated settlement with the Prosecutor, have abandoned the idea of asking for an adjournnment, and have no intention of pleading Guilty.

You may sit in Court during the previous cases to get some familiarity with the layout, who's who, and the protocol of speaking in turn.

One of the Ushers may ask you if you want a Duty Solicitor to advise you. In this case, I don't think they're going to improve your prospects one bit, so politely decline the offer.

When your case is mentioned, your Sister, with you silently at her side, may come forward to sit at one of the benches alongside but opposite the Prosecutor. She can introduce herself and introduce you as her brother acting as an assistant. Refer to the Chair as 'Sir' or 'Madam' or 'Your Worship'.
The Chair of the Magistrates will be at pains to make a Defendant in person feel at ease and offer a glass of water or other kind reassurances - these sympathies of course have no bearing on how much they are persuaded by the Defendant's argument. They will ask if you are really sure that you want to appear without a Solicitor to represent you.

Firstly, the Prosecution will present the details of the alledged offence, and will specify the precise clause in the Act which they claim has been breached.
They will then ask their witness, the Inspector, to present their evidence, prompted by questionning. Some of the replies might appear innaccurate, though these may not be relevant to your defence.
After that, your sister should stand and question the witness (the cross-examination) as to the reliability of their statement and to its relevance to the alledged offence. This is vital, because a plea of Not Guilty has to be substantiated by finding fault with the evidence of guilt. The Prosecution's evidence must be tested and its faults exposed. She can only ask about the matters they have already mentioned as their evidence, and about their reliability in remembering such details. If the Prosecutor didn't ask them for how long they've been doing the job, that would suggest that they didn't want the Court to know that they've only been doing it for a short time, so you can ask that question - and make a meal out of their naievety - be as agressive as you wish in undermining their reliability. A successful defence follows from a well-structured and well controlled cross-examination, which leads the Court to one and only one conclusion - that the Prosecution has failed to demonstrate Guilt of the charge stated 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. That is where she challenges them to demonstrate the link between the fare paid and the claim of 'intent to avoid' payment, challenges them to clarify the oral instruction to pass the barrier and to travel, challenges them to clarify the permission that was granted by whatever document was issued, and gets the Inspector to tell the Magistrates as much as possible about the 'authority to travel' and about the agreed terms of the payment. She should challenge any statement that can't be confirmed from first hand recollection (hearsay or opinion). She should repeat her questions if the answer isn't full enough to give the Magistrates what they need to hear. She will sit down.
The Prosecution will rise and conclude their evidence.

Secondly, your sister will stand to give her evidence, (not just passing a note to the bench); this will include stating the fare already paid, the details of the ticket held, the meeting with the inspector on the platform and what was said, the offer of returning home to collect the Railcard, the oral instruction to travel, the attempt to resolve the matter after travel, providing the copy of the Railcard by post - leaving nothing out, this is her one and only opportunity to demonstrate that the precise wording of the Act does not apply. All this at a pace slow enough for the Magistrates to get every vital word on paper. She can expect to be cross-examined on the accuracy of her statements. She will sit down.

Thirdly, the Prosecution will stand to summarise their case. You will probably find all that your sister has achieved in cross-examination has been disregarded - don't worry about that. But be prepared to comment on anything factually incorrect in your own closing summary.

Fourthly, your sister stands to make her closing speech, which may include some opinion as well as a summary of the facts. This should be a simple, structured list, and to the point in showing a logical path from the evidence that has been heard to the conclusion that she is Not Guilty of the offence as charged. This can be prepared in advance as you'll both probably know where you want to get to and what you'll be summarising. This will be a logical assessment of the evidence which does not reach the conclusion of guilt. I suggest that she reaches the conclusion that the evidence confirmed that the journey took place and a fare was paid, and the missing Railcard was discussed before travel and permission to proceed was granted; these do not trigger the condition required by the Act. Repeat the reminder that the Bench has to apply the test : does the evidence demonstrate that she is guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Close with a brief statement of character (e.g. lack of any previous convictions) and any qualifications or notable standing in the community.

Lastly, the Prosecution may quote other cases as 'authorities' in supporting their position (and you, sadly, will be unfamiliar with these, so will have to let them pass unchallenged).

Unusually, I suggest that your sister will immediately then stand again very briefly and apologetically to object that this is a civil matter over a small debt and that the Prosecution have done nothing to demonstrate that the stated criminal offence referred to in those 'authorities' was committed, then sit. I expect that the Prosecutor will have an angry reply to this challenge.

The Magistrates may leave for a few minutes / an hour, and will take the advice of their clerk and then the Chair will give their decision.
The successful party will immediately stand to ask for their costs to be paid.
The Chair will announce costs and fine, if any, and a period within which their decision can be Appealled.

I wouldn't normally provide such a prescriptive explanation of what can be a quite dynamic and unpredictable forum, and certainly don't recommend defendants to defend themselves without some expertise, but with less than 24 hours to go, I guess this prompt is better than nothing. Many Prosecutors are fair minded people (despite their job!) but some will take advantage of an inexperienced Defendant in person or will test them by making opinionated speeches.

 

[dingle01902]

If you do produce evidence tomorrow, provide 7 or 8 copies (3 for the Magistrates, 1 for the Clerk, 1 for the Prosecutor, 1 in case there is an instructing solicitor, 1 for yourself and 1 for a Witness).

You would have to request a 'right of audience' and without training and/or qualification, or without special professional exemption, I wouldn't assume that that right would be granted. (Legal Services Act 2007).
I'll outline the procedure in a Magistrates Court for a defendant appearing unrepresented.

You may sit in Court during th previous cases to get some familiarity of the layout, who's who and the protocol of speaking in turn.

One of the Ushers may ask you if you want a Duty Solicitor to advise you. In this case, I don't thing they're going to improve your prospects one bit, so politely decline the offer.

The Chair of the Magistrates will be at pains to make a Defendant in person feel at ease and offer a glass of water or other kind reassurances - these sympathies of course have no bearing on how much they are persuaded by the Defendant's argument.
Firstly, the Prosecution will present the details of the alledged offence, will specify the clause in the Act, and then will ask their witness, the Inspector, to present their evidence, prompted by questionning. After that, your sister should stand and question the witness as to the reliability of their statement and to its relevance to the alledged offence (the cross-examination). That is where you challenge them to demonstrate the link between the fare paid and the claim of 'intent to avoid' payment, challenge them to clarify the oral instruction to pass the barrier and to travel, challenge them to clarify the permission that was granted by whatever document was issued, and get the Inspector to tell the Magistrates as much as possible about the 'authority to travel' and the agreed terms of the payment. She will sit down. The Prosecution concludes their evidence.

Secondly, your sister will stand to give her evidence, (not just passing a note to the bench); this will include stating the fare already paid, the offer of returning home to collect the Railcard, the oral instruction to travel, the attempt to resolve the matter after travel - leaving nothing out, this is her one and only opportunity to demonstrate that the precise wording of the Act does not apply. She can expect to be cross-examined on the accuracy of her statements. She will sit down.

Thirdly, the Prosecution will stand to summarise their case.

Unusually, I suggest that your sister will immediately then stand again very briefly and apologetically to object that this is a civil matter and that the Prosecution have done nothing to demonstrate that the criminal offence was committed, then sit.
The Magistrates will take the advice of their clerk and the Chair will give their decision.
The successful party will stand to ask for their costs to be paid.
The Chair will announce costs and fine, if any, and a period within which their Decision can be appealled.

I wouldn't normally provide such a prescriptive explanation of what can be a quite dynamic and unpredictable forum, but with less than 24 hours to go, I guess this prompt is better than nothing.

Thanks so much Dave for all of this. I'm travelling down to the Midlands tonight to go through everything with her so I'll print this out and it will be our Bible.

 

[34D]

Thanks so much Dave for all of this. I'm travelling down to the Midlands tonight to go through everything with her so I'll print this out and it will be our Bible.

Collate all the papers tonight, in date order, and including her original travel ticket or booking confirmation (if available) and a copy of the railcard, also include in the bundle all letters she has received from this.

Go to a print shop first thing and do the eight copies, as Dave has said.

If as you review the docs tonight you find that you haven't been told the full story (such as there are more letters that haven't been responded to), then post back here.

 

[telstarbox]

DaveNewcastle - that is very good of you to provide such detailed info at such short notice and I would advise the OP to read it all carefully!

 

[jon0844]

No

Oh yes, I would definitely agree with that. The 'ethical' procedure would be either to prevent the passenger from passing the barrier, or offer to excess to a non-railcard fare. Encouraging passengers without railcard to continue their journey is a really clever technique. It wouldn't work every time, but I can see why an RPI would try it on, as there is nothing to lose.

I'd love to say that no revenue officer would ever do it, but then I saw it happen myself so can't. In my case it was a passenger at a (then) ungated station who asked a RPI on the train if he could get a ticket from him, got told to jump on, doors shut, and he was hit with a PF! I was somewhat shocked.

You could argue intent in that this was a DOO train and he might have boarded anyway (if the RPI hadn't been there), but likewise he might not.

Assuming everything stated is true, then good luck tomorrow.

 

[transportphoto]

Please do report back on how you got on this morning.

TP

 

[SansPareil]

No

I'd love to say that no revenue officer would ever do it, but then I saw it happen myself so can't. In my case it was a passenger at a (then) ungated station who asked a RPI on the train if he could get a ticket from him, got told to jump on, doors shut, and he was hit with a PF! I was somewhat shocked.

You could argue intent in that this was a DOO train and he might have boarded anyway (if the RPI hadn't been there), but likewise he might not.

Assuming everything stated is true, then good luck tomorrow.

Is this sort of entrapment really deemed acceptable by those higher up in TOCs, or is it an unfortunate consequence of a manner in which RPIs are incentivised.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Be interesting to see how the OP and his sister get on, and whilst I know that many posters on here are cynical about the actions of those that find themselves in difficulties with fares I can understand how it happens.

I have previously been given some form of permission to travel after I managed to lose my annual season ticket. Got to London Bridge and found I didn't have my ticket. Went to the office on Platform 10 where I was given a piece of paper to get me through both the barrier at London Bridge then and again in the evening. However I was told that I had to send the piece of paper in with a copy of my ticket within x days to avoid any further action. When I got home I found I had actually lost my season ticket but I was able to get a replacement and get it all sorted and sent the form and a copy ticket etc.

However I can imagine that it is possible that when flustered and in a noisy place like a staion, and when not used to travelling to misunderstand the instructions and not send in the form. One would think one might read the form though to see what it says, but some will take everything that is said (or they think is said) to them in good faith.

The issue is of course that assuming it wasn't a delibrate attempt at entrapment (and to have that going on is of course a disgrace) that railway inspectors are dealing with fare dodgers every day and heave heard every tale and its not surprising they are not beliving of those that have made a real error.

 

[dingle01902]

Thanks for messages folks. Firstly we were advised that the rpi was delayed by a tube problem in London. Shortly after the prosecutor asked to see us. He went through the days events in fine detail and concluded that owing to the fact she'd shown her ticket to the rpi, even though she was fishing for her rail card unsuccessfully deemed an intent to travel on an invalid ticket.
However after reviewing the events he had been authorised to back track and make a settlement offer equivalent to purchasing a full price ticket of £69 plus administration fee of £50. He would then offer no evidence and the case would be dismissed.
He went on to say that they hadn't received her initial letter responding to them and hence the escalation to summons. As she had submitted her paper trail to court they could see she had attempted to deal with it promptly.
As her main fear was the criminal record she accepted the offer and the case was dismissed.
Thanks again all.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thanks for letting us know.
Well done! I expect that you are both pleased with the outcome.

I have to say that I would have been inclined to be more bullish and let the matter be heard by the Court, in the hope that you suceeded - and without the £50 towards their costs. In fact, I would have refused that £50.

Hope you didn't find it too stressful.

 

[transportphoto]

Although this result is much worse than initially thought at the start of the journey, and I'm sure she's kicking herself for forgetting that railcard and not going back for it, I'm glad that it hasn't resulted in criminal prosecution and that it has only set you back £119 as a civil settlement (plus of course the time and costs involved with the whole thing.)

TP

 

[Tibbs]

Is this sort of entrapment really deemed acceptable by those higher up in TOCs, or is it an unfortunate consequence of a manner in which RPIs are incentivised.

I don't imagine for a second that they give a damn.

 

[Chrisgr31]

He went through the days events in fine detail and concluded that owing to the fact she'd shown her ticket to the rpi, even though she was fishing for her rail card unsuccessfully deemed an intent to travel on an invalid ticket.

That seems rather a jump to me. Because I have my season ticket and photocard in a ticket wallet I put all my other travel tickets in the same place, but I can understand that not everyone will have everything together. Equally if I have unknowingly managed to lose my season ticket I will be searching through all my pockets if I am requested to produce it. That doesn't mean I am trying to avoid paying for travel it means I have a valid ticket and its not where its meant to be and ultimately I have lost it.

Therefore I would have been tempted to fight it at court. However on the other hand the consequences of a criminal record are such that agreeing an out of court settlement are fully understandable.

In fact it makes me wonder why it should be a criminal matter to evade a fare. There is talk about changing the situation with TV Licences so its no longer a criminal record, perhaps the same should be done with rail fares. After all it means the TOC always have a far stronger position than the innocent party.

 

[jon0844]

We've all heard about the 'ticket dance' but even I've had a moment of panic when my ticket wasn't where it was supposed to be (well, the whole ticket wallet). Once it was simply stuck inbetween my wallet, the other I'd stupidly put it in a shirt pocket for no logical reason (that I can think of).

I'm not sure intent could ever be proven if you DID actually have a railcard and had offered to go back to fetch it.

And if an RPI had kindly offered to authorise travel on the basis of issuing a UFN that could later be cancelled, I'd have expected this. to. be. made. very. clear. indeed. As in, pointing out the need to make sure it was done ASAP, sent recorded delivery and not forgotten about.

At this point, you might just say 'you know what? I'm going to go and get my railcard anyway'.

The RPI clearly wasn't helping much, and I wonder if he really was held up on the tube this morning or was trying to avoid attending? In fact, I wonder if the TOC was just desperate to get something and came up with this settlement to avoid a likely loss and embarrassment? Not that I'd recommend going to court if a criminal record was a possibility, so sadly that offer had to be taken (but maybe could have been haggled!).

 

[radamfi]

Now that a criminal record is no longer an option, maybe there is a way of recovering the settlement? This is clearly a scam so threatening to expose this publicly might focus the mind.

 

[swt_passenger]

...In fact it makes me wonder why it should be a criminal matter to evade a fare. There is talk about changing the situation with TV Licences so its no longer a criminal record, perhaps the same should be done with rail fares...

There's a current thread all about this possibility, if you weren't already aware of it: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98895

 

[Muzer]

We've all heard about the 'ticket dance' but even I've had a moment of panic when my ticket wasn't where it was supposed to be (well, the whole ticket wallet). Once it was simply stuck inbetween my wallet, the other I'd stupidly put it in a shirt pocket for no logical reason (that I can think of).

I'm not sure intent could ever be proven if you DID actually have a railcard and had offered to go back to fetch it.

And if an RPI had kindly offered to authorise travel on the basis of issuing a UFN that could later be cancelled, I'd have expected this. to. be. made. very. clear. indeed. As in, pointing out the need to make sure it was done ASAP, sent recorded delivery and not forgotten about.

At this point, you might just say 'you know what? I'm going to go and get my railcard anyway'.

The RPI clearly wasn't helping much, and I wonder if he really was held up on the tube this morning or was trying to avoid attending? In fact, I wonder if the TOC was just desperate to get something and came up with this settlement to avoid a likely loss and embarrassment? Not that I'd recommend going to court if a criminal record was a possibility, so sadly that offer had to be taken (but maybe could have been haggled!).

Yeah, I've done the same - I was on a tube challenge attempt, there were only a few minutes before the train left. I bought a new one from a TVM after not being able to find it after quite a thorough ticket dance, then found it later on the train in a pocket I should never logically have put it in

(My pockets tend to be quite full, so I'd missed it during the ticket dance )

 

[Smudger105e]

I was on a service last week when a young lady sat at a nearby table and proceeded to sort her stuff out like book, iplayer tickets etc, and she got her ticket from her purse and then started to continue searching, I assume for her YP railcard. She emptied the entire contents of her purse on the table, getting increasingly frantic, then going through her bag, coat pockets etc in minute detail. She eventually settled down to her journey.

When the conductor came through to check tickets, he checked my staff travel card and moved on to the young lady. She showed her ticket and then was obviously asked for her travelcard. I beckoned the conductor over, quietly explained her 'ticket dance' about 5 minutes earlier, so saying that I believed her lack of card was a genuine omission. He let her look a little more and then lectured her on the need to have her travelcard together with its ticket.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

From subsequent discussion I've learnt that the same Prosecutor, in 11 of their other cases in front of those Magistrates today, did not present any evidence (and consequently those cases were dismissed). How many of these may have involved witness statements from the same 'delayed' Inspector, I do not know. That decision would normally be indicative of weak prosecution evidence or of a strong defence.
In contrast, I'm told that there were slightly more than 11 other cases which did proceed, and all of which resulted in a Guilty verdict, whether the Defendants appeared or not.

 

[6Gman]

I was on a service last week when a young lady sat at a nearby table and proceeded to sort her stuff out like book, iplayer tickets etc, and she got her ticket from her purse and then started to continue searching, I assume for her YP railcard. She emptied the entire contents of her purse on the table, getting increasingly frantic, then going through her bag, coat pockets etc in minute detail. She eventually settled down to her journey.

When the conductor came through to check tickets, he checked my staff travel card and moved on to the young lady. She showed her ticket and then was obviously asked for her travelcard. I beckoned the conductor over, quietly explained her 'ticket dance' about 5 minutes earlier, so saying that I believed her lack of card was a genuine omission. He let her look a little more and then lectured her on the need to have her travelcard together with its ticket.

Smudger,

You are a gent!

Glad this thread had a (relatively) happy outcome. Really doesn't paint the TOC or its staff in a good light.

 

[cjp]

Thanks for letting us know.
Well done! I expect that you are both pleased with the outcome.

I have to say that I would have been inclined to be more bullish and let the matter be heard by the Court, in the hope that you suceeded - and without the £50 towards their costs. In fact, I would have refused that £50.

Hope you didn't find it too stressful.

Having read this thread with interest late yesterday I just wish to praise you publicly for the helpful and comprehensive nature of your posts which I am sure would have both focused minds and have been a comfort by removing fears about procedures.
Well done.

 

[RJ]

Having read this thread with interest late yesterday I just wish to praise you publicly for the helpful and comprehensive nature of your posts which I am sure would have both focused minds and have been a comfort by removing fears about procedures.
Well done.

Agreed.

 

[Muzer]

From subsequent discussion I've learnt that the same Prosecutor, in 11 of their other cases in front of those Magistrates today, did not present any evidence (and consequently those cases were dismissed). How many of these may have involved witness statements from the same 'delayed' Inspector, I do not know. That decision would normally be indicative of weak prosecution evidence or of a strong defence.
In contrast, I'm told that there were slightly more than 11 other cases which did proceed, and all of which resulted in a Guilty verdict, whether the Defendants appeared or not.

Incidentally, I'm just curious - how do you know this sort of thing? Do you have some sort of legal background, or what?

I would also like to praise you for the advice given to the OP at such short notice.

 

[34D]

Incidentally, I'm just curious - how do you know this sort of thing? Do you have some sort of legal background, or what?

I don't think DaveNewcastle needs to, or would deign to, answer this question.

If you refer to the 'legal' section of this forum's FAQ you will be left in no doubt, I would suggest.

 

[Crossover]

I would also echo thanks to dingle01902 for reporting back to us

I'd also echo thanks to DaveNewcastle for their posting back a couple of pages which I think gave us all an interesting insight into the procedures of a Court

 

[LateThanNever]

Now that a criminal record is no longer an option, maybe there is a way of recovering the settlement? This is clearly a scam so threatening to expose this publicly might focus the mind.

Unless it's already paid paying just the ticket price 'in final and complete settlement' should surely do the job. If the prosecutor wants costs they'd have to prove guilt (which they've admitted they can't) or sue for breach of contract, which would be doubtful for £50 and the OP might also put in a counterclaim for their costs...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Now that a criminal record is no longer an option, maybe there is a way of recovering the settlement? This is clearly a scam so threatening to expose this publicly might focus the mind.

I would be very tempted to send a letter of complaint to Passenger Focus, now that everything has been paid up. It might help get some of that money back from Chiltern, or it might not, but it's worth a go for the cost of a stamp.

Passenger Focus have been scathing about similar tactics with Northern Rail recently, so who knows?

I would pay the full amount agreed with the Prosecutor, and argue about it afterwards.