Hi,
I would like some advice, please, on how to deal with a Magistrates' Court Summons for failing to pay a train fare (Section 18, lowest offence).
The incident: Boarded a Virgin train at Sandwell & Dudley travelling to Longbridge via Birmingham New Street. Ticket office closed at S&D due to the staff seeing off the Virgin train. Failed to buy a ticket at New Street (no excuse - was in the wrong). Details taken at Longbridge and PFN drawn up. Did not sign PFN or take it. Was told by inspector I had no right of appeal because of not signing.
The Appeal: Explained how the Penalty Fare rules had not been followed due to not being told of my right to appeal, due to not been given the PFN and due to insufficient warning signs at New Street (as required under Regulations) (New Street undergoing massive refurbishment with barely any warning notices displayed). Appeal refused and I continued to dispute the PFN with the Revenue Collectors. Last communication was my response to the Revenue Collection Office which they sent to IPFAS and which I replied to via email to London Midland (as IPFAS would not accept email responses).
The Summons: One of the Witness Statements - from the Revenue Protection Officer - states that I signed the PFN. This is untrue, as on the PFN they had written 'refused to sign' - so I didn't sign the PFN, which is a false statement and subject to perjury laws, I believe. The Statement of Facts says no communications or responses in mitigation were received, which is untrue - I was in the process of disputing the PFN as a 'civil debt' as per the Regulations.
Response to Summons: I have pled not guilty and written to LM's prosecutor. I have pointed out how the Witness has made false statements, including saying that I embarked at New Street, that I was given the PFN and that I verbally gave my name and address (I wrote it down). I explained how the Witness had knowingly made a false statement and that it was a criminal offence and mentioned the penalties involved.
The Options: The train co. may decide not to continue; they may continue and I could change my plea to guilty to save money (possibly giving the mitigating circumstances of having tried to sort it by the method stated in the rules under which the PFN was issued); I could press for the Witness to be prosecuted for lying to the court; I can do this and not attend a hearing; I can do this and attend the hearing and get the Witness to repeat the lies under oath. This is to make the offence more serious, as lying under oath in the court may be taken as exacerbating the crime of perjury or perverting the course of justice or whatever.
I am hoping that the prosecutor may be swayed by threats of the Witness being pursued for telling lies - the fact that it is stated by them that I did sign the PFN must have some importance to have been part of the Witness Statement, and therefore should be true - but it's clearly not, as shown by the non-signature on the PFN which this same witness also signed.
My attitude is that if they use lies to prosecute me, I will try and make sure that all such liars pay the penalties laid down in law. Not paying a train fare is one thing, lying under oath is much more serious - and I won't stand for it - if I don't have to.
I am under no illusions as to my chances if it gets to the Magistrates' Court - but if found guilty I would appeal, I would think. I am prepared to risk extra costs if it means a possibility of winning. By winning I mean either in court or by showing the Witness up for the liar they are and getting them investigated/prosecuted/imprisoned.
So my question really is whether or not this threat has any meat to it? Theoretically the offence should be easy to prove, so would LM be at all scared of this? Is it possible, likely, or extremely unlikely that this Witness would be prosecuted?
Any mitigation given, such as letters and emails would actually show I did commit the offence - this mitigation has been ignored in the Statement of Facts - denied, in fact. So it's no use telling the truth or taking the witness stand, as far as I can see, as the mitigation would be unlikely to get me lesser costs.
When I gave details I wasn't cautioned, and I believe that PACE may come into it - should the interview have been conducted in line with PACE, and if it was not, then is that evidence admissible?
Last question: How would I go about making a complaint that a false statement has been submitted amounting to perjury or perverting the course of justice or whatever?
I would like some advice, please, on how to deal with a Magistrates' Court Summons for failing to pay a train fare (Section 18, lowest offence).
The incident: Boarded a Virgin train at Sandwell & Dudley travelling to Longbridge via Birmingham New Street. Ticket office closed at S&D due to the staff seeing off the Virgin train. Failed to buy a ticket at New Street (no excuse - was in the wrong). Details taken at Longbridge and PFN drawn up. Did not sign PFN or take it. Was told by inspector I had no right of appeal because of not signing.
The Appeal: Explained how the Penalty Fare rules had not been followed due to not being told of my right to appeal, due to not been given the PFN and due to insufficient warning signs at New Street (as required under Regulations) (New Street undergoing massive refurbishment with barely any warning notices displayed). Appeal refused and I continued to dispute the PFN with the Revenue Collectors. Last communication was my response to the Revenue Collection Office which they sent to IPFAS and which I replied to via email to London Midland (as IPFAS would not accept email responses).
The Summons: One of the Witness Statements - from the Revenue Protection Officer - states that I signed the PFN. This is untrue, as on the PFN they had written 'refused to sign' - so I didn't sign the PFN, which is a false statement and subject to perjury laws, I believe. The Statement of Facts says no communications or responses in mitigation were received, which is untrue - I was in the process of disputing the PFN as a 'civil debt' as per the Regulations.
Response to Summons: I have pled not guilty and written to LM's prosecutor. I have pointed out how the Witness has made false statements, including saying that I embarked at New Street, that I was given the PFN and that I verbally gave my name and address (I wrote it down). I explained how the Witness had knowingly made a false statement and that it was a criminal offence and mentioned the penalties involved.
The Options: The train co. may decide not to continue; they may continue and I could change my plea to guilty to save money (possibly giving the mitigating circumstances of having tried to sort it by the method stated in the rules under which the PFN was issued); I could press for the Witness to be prosecuted for lying to the court; I can do this and not attend a hearing; I can do this and attend the hearing and get the Witness to repeat the lies under oath. This is to make the offence more serious, as lying under oath in the court may be taken as exacerbating the crime of perjury or perverting the course of justice or whatever.
I am hoping that the prosecutor may be swayed by threats of the Witness being pursued for telling lies - the fact that it is stated by them that I did sign the PFN must have some importance to have been part of the Witness Statement, and therefore should be true - but it's clearly not, as shown by the non-signature on the PFN which this same witness also signed.
My attitude is that if they use lies to prosecute me, I will try and make sure that all such liars pay the penalties laid down in law. Not paying a train fare is one thing, lying under oath is much more serious - and I won't stand for it - if I don't have to.
I am under no illusions as to my chances if it gets to the Magistrates' Court - but if found guilty I would appeal, I would think. I am prepared to risk extra costs if it means a possibility of winning. By winning I mean either in court or by showing the Witness up for the liar they are and getting them investigated/prosecuted/imprisoned.
So my question really is whether or not this threat has any meat to it? Theoretically the offence should be easy to prove, so would LM be at all scared of this? Is it possible, likely, or extremely unlikely that this Witness would be prosecuted?
Any mitigation given, such as letters and emails would actually show I did commit the offence - this mitigation has been ignored in the Statement of Facts - denied, in fact. So it's no use telling the truth or taking the witness stand, as far as I can see, as the mitigation would be unlikely to get me lesser costs.
When I gave details I wasn't cautioned, and I believe that PACE may come into it - should the interview have been conducted in line with PACE, and if it was not, then is that evidence admissible?
Last question: How would I go about making a complaint that a false statement has been submitted amounting to perjury or perverting the course of justice or whatever?
