Missing stop

[falcon]

But it doesn't mean that foreign nationals have carte-blanche to travel without a ticket or overtravel. If there are factors that lead the RPI to suspect that it may not be an innocent mistake then they should be reported just the same as a UK national would be.

No one has said it gives foreign nationals cart-blance!

 

[najaB]

No one has said it gives foreign nationals cart-blance!

Then I don't really see the relevance. The RPI used their discretion and decided that the matter should be reported.

 

[shredder1]

I`ve paid a few fines travelling in Eastern Europe because I was confused with their ticketing systems, they haven't been much, but like their British counterparts, some are intolerant to foreigners.

 

[island]

I am afraid you are wrong because if the matter went to court the rules would be revealed in court to the magistrates who could give consideration to them. The fact that the ticket examiners handbook is an internal document is irrelevant all information must now be disclosed in courts under the disclosure rules. Long gone are the day's of the unscrupulous holding back evidence that will benefit a defendant.Though some would still like it to be that way.

“Give consideration” maybe, but that is a long, long way from a passenger having an absolute right to enforce the contents of the document – which in any event merely state that an authorised officer may use discretion.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I am afraid you are wrong because if the matter went to court the rules would be revealed in court to the magistrates who could give consideration to them. The fact that the ticket examiners handbook is an internal document is irrelevant all information must now be disclosed in courts under the disclosure rules. Long gone are the day's of the unscrupulous holding back evidence that will benefit a defendant.Though some would still like it to be that way.

There is nothing in the rules to assist a defendant in avoiding a Byelaws prosecution. There may be some information that could be used in mitigation if the defendant were to be found guilty and the matter moved on to sentencing.

As for disclosure, the Handbook would not form any part of the investigation and would not even feature in disclosure.

 

[falcon]

There is nothing in the rules to assist a defendant in avoiding a Byelaws prosecution. There may be some information that could be used in mitigation if the defendant were to be found guilty and the matter moved on to sentencing.

As for disclosure, the Handbook would not form any part of the investigation and would not even feature in disclosure.

It would not be mitigation it would be a defence. That is clearly what the ticket examiners handbook is saying. It is saying there is no offence if the person checking tickets is satisfied that he has missed his stop. Therfore it is a defence not mitigation. It is never mitigation and could never be because once it has been accepted that the person missed their stop that is then the end of the matter. Disclosure does come into it because the prosecution must disclose anything that can assist the defence and undermines the prosecution.
Quote: THE LAW.
Attorney General's Guidelines On Disclosure
Foreword
"Disclosure is one of the most important issues in the criminal justice system and the application of proper and fair disclosure is a vital component of a fair criminal justice system. The "golden rule" is that fairness requires full disclosure should be made of all material held by the prosecution that weakens its case or strengthens that of the defence" End quote.

That includes the prosecution informing the defence that there is a guidance rule that is given in writting to ticket examening staff that if they are satisfied that the person has missed their stop then the matter ends there.

There is also the matter of cross examination of the ticket examiner who would be asked to jusify his decision not to accept the defendants explaination that he was over carried(missed his stop). He would have to be able to justify his decision and would likely be asked " are you saying the defendant is a liar". Remember the burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove BEYONDE a reasonable doubt the the defendant was committing an offence.

If there is no evidence that the OP was trying to 'get away' and has offered an explaination at the first oportunity it would be very risky to try and prosecute.

That's why this rule in the Ticket Examiners hand book is so important it makes a grey area out of over carried (missed stop) issues. They are not as simple as not having a ticket bye law offences.

Magistrates are aware that a person can miss thier stop, then bring in the foreign nation issue and?.
Really strong evidence would be needed to succeed with a prosecution.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Railway Byelaw 18 is a strict liability offence. In short, if you're caught without a ticket and had the opportunity to buy one before boarding, you are guilty. Much like jumping a red light - passing over the line to let an Ambulance pass is still an offence and you could still be prosecuted. If it came to court the bench would have to convict: all the prosecution have to do is prove that you did it. No argument about whether or not the case should come to court will be entertained and will have no bearing on the outcome.

Magistrates - and I do know a few are human and do know that people can miss their stop. However, they need to apply the law as it is enacted and for strict liability offences, there is not much that can be debated.

There is a lot that can be considered in mitigation after conviction and that may convince the bench to learn towards an absolute discharge as a sentence. I have seen this approach taken in cases where there was no option other than to convict, but the bench was certainly displeased by the prosecution.

 

[najaB]

Railway Byelaw 18 is a strict liability offence.

True. However the OP wouldn't be facing a Byelaw 18 prosecution since they had a ticket entitling them to travel when they boarded the train (18.1) and presented it on demand for inspection (18.2).

So any prosecution would likely be for RoRA 5.3 (b):

Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof...

There's no dispute that the OP traveled beyond the distance they were entitled to travel nor did they pay any additional fare. So the question the magistrate would seeking to answer was if it was a willful and deliberate act.

The OP claims that they were asleep - if there is evidence to support that then they need not fear a conviction.

If they can't prove that they were asleep then their intent will have to be inferred from their actions/words - what exactly did they do on arriving at Handforth, and what did they say to the RPI. That's all the magistrate will be concerned with, the ticket examiner's handbook won't be of much help. (@falcon)

 

[Puffing Devil]

True. However the OP wouldn't be facing a Byelaw 18 prosecution since they had a ticket entitling them to travel when they boarded the train (18.1) and presented it on demand for inspection (18.2).

So any prosecution would likely be for RoRA 5.3 (b):There's no dispute that the OP traveled beyond the distance they were entitled to travel nor did they pay any additional fare. So the question the magistrate would seeking to answer was if it was a willful and deliberate act.

The OP claims that they were asleep - if there is evidence to support that then they need not fear a conviction.

If they can't prove that they were asleep then their intent will have to be inferred from their actions/words - what exactly did they do on arriving at Handforth, and what did they say to the RPI. That's all the magistrate will be concerned with, the ticket examiner's handbook won't be of much help. (@falcon)

I didn't go back to the start of the thread and najaB is correct both about the charge and the introduction of the material.

There seems to be a belief that magistrates take a more active part in the prosecution of cases than actually occurs. The magistrates simply sit to hear the evidence presented and do not carry out their own cross-examinations - that is the role of the advocates, or the defendant if representing themselves.

I'd recommend a day in the public gallery to anyone on the forum who's interested in learning a little more about the legal process, though finding a court closer to you is becoming harder and harder with the programme of ongoing closures.

 

[scrapy]

For anyone unfamiliar with Handforth station it is a 2 platform station with steps from both platforms up to a road bridge. The ticket office is situated on the road bridge and is only part time. The only way to transfer between the two platforms is via the bridge and therefore you have to exit the station onto the road pavement to cross between stations.

Rpis will wait at the top of the stairs to you have to pass them to exit the station or transfer platforms.

The countycard is effectively a travelcard for Greater Manchester. Handforth one stop out of the Greater Manchester ticket area into Cheshire and doesn't benefit from the same subsidies on tickets. It is therefore quite regular to see people with Countycards chancing it one stop (I am not judging the OP just explaining why it is a regular target for RPIs).

 

[najaB]

...The only way to transfer between the two platforms is via the bridge and therefore you have to exit the station onto the road pavement to cross between stations.

Rpis will wait at the top of the stairs to you have to pass them to exit the station or transfer platforms.

The countycard is effectively a travelcard for Greater Manchester. Handforth one stop out of the Greater Manchester ticket area into Cheshire and doesn't benefit from the same subsidies on tickets. It is therefore quite regular to see people with Countycards chancing it one stop...

Which is why the magistrate will be concerned with what the OP did and said when they arrived at Handforth, rather than the content of internal guidebooks. It would be interesting to know exactly what was said but they don't appear to have been back since the 29th of November.