pleading not guilty for not providing a ticket.

[daydnhavid]

Hello everyone,

I have received a court summons for failing to hand over a ticket as I was leaving the station. I accidentally left my ticket on the train(I don't get the train often, case in hand)

I have evidence in the form of a bank statement with proof of purchase, albeit it's the person who I was travelling with. I also have the person I was travelling with as a witness. There is then CCTV that would show the barriers were closed at kings cross, they would also show me not jumping the barrier and also show me using my ticket to gain access. Is this evidence enough? I don't want to waste my time going through this process just to be told the evidence I have provided is not sufficient.

 

[najaB]

Is this evidence enough? I don't want to waste my time going through this process just to be told the evidence I have provided is not sufficient.

If the specific charge is failing to hand over for inspection then no, it's not enough evidence. That charge is a Byelaw offence and it's what's known as strict liability - either you presented the ticket or you didn't.

 

[furlong]

Your goal might be to persuade the company to settle the matter in advance without a court hearing.

Has there already been some correspondence with you? Does the proof of purchase cover all of you travelling together - no room for suspicion of fraudulent use? Even if pleading guilty, you could indeed gather whatever evidence you can to try to satisfy the court that you paid for your journey in full and present that as mitigation, to try to minimise or even eliminate any penalty the court decides to impose.

In circumstances where there is convincing evidence your actions did not cause the company to suffer financial loss, it can make financial sense for the company to settle with you out-of-court because there is a risk that the case will cost the company money if you persuade the court not to make you pay all the company's costs.

 

[Clip]

Your goal might be to persuade the company to settle the matter in advance without a court hearing.

.

This is where you shouldve stopped really - they failed to produce a valid ticket when requested and as najab has pointed out that's it. Done. The rest of what you typed will help in no way whatsoever.

OP - write back to the company apologising stating you left your ticket on the train and offer to pay any outstanding costs and that will be the matter dealt with. An expensive lesson, yes but hopefully you will not do it again

 

[Puffing Devil]

As everyone has already pointed out, this is a strict liability offence. Either you have a ticket or you don't.

A prosecution will succeed in court.

You may have a number of mitigating points; these may affect the final penalty, but will not provide a defence against the charge.

Going to court will not go well and may be expensive.

Apologise to the train company and try to negotiate a settlement before the court hearing. If it still goes to court, you may still be able to reach an agreement with the prosecutor on the day.

 

[falcon]

Hello everyone,

I have received a court summons for failing to hand over a ticket as I was leaving the station. I accidentally left my ticket on the train(I don't get the train often, case in hand)

I have evidence in the form of a bank statement with proof of purchase, albeit it's the person who I was travelling with. I also have the person I was travelling with as a witness. There is then CCTV that would show the barriers were closed at kings cross, they would also show me not jumping the barrier and also show me using my ticket to gain access. Is this evidence enough? I don't want to waste my time going through this process just to be told the evidence I have provided is not sufficient.

Not enough information to advise properly what was said and done at the time of incident. The facts.

 

[LAX54]

Is there enough evidence they had the correct ticket?
Bank Statement, not theirs, Witness, 'could' just say anything, and the CCTV just shows they had a 'ticket' that worked the gates at Kings Cross ?

 

[mikeg]

I also disagree with the statement that there is no defence in a strict liability case. The rule of beyond reasonable doubt still applies. The defence would be that the passenger did in fact present a ticket for inspection. In addition there are prescribed defences for this offence that the passenger did not have the opportunity to pay or was travelling with authorisation of an authorised person (such as the guard).

 

[najaB]

I also disagree with the statement that there is no defence in a strict liability case. The rule of beyond reasonable doubt still applies. The defence would be that the passenger did in fact present a ticket for inspection. In addition there are prescribed defences for this offence that the passenger did not have the opportunity to pay or was travelling with authorisation of an authorised person (such as the guard).

Are you speaking to the general case or the specific case of the OP? If the latter then they have already stated that they weren't able to present their ticket at the barrier line, having left it on the train.

 

[sarahj]

It's very simple. Did you show a ticket when asked? All the bank statements in the world, will only show you bought a ticket for a train. You could have handed it to another person, you could have claimed a refund before travel, then traveled anyway. I'm not saying you did, but that's all it shows. A ticket was purchased. It might not even have been the correct ticket for the journey.

So the question is, did you provide a ticket when asked?

Answers:
Yes, so I don't know why I'm being done. Thus NOT GUILTY

No, I did not Thus Guilty.

Sorry, it's that simple.