Single Justice Procedure Notice - Bus travel

[MattCoeld]

Hello everyone,

At the start of this year, I got on a bus and the journey cost £1.50 which was a part of my every day commute, and got caught with a wrong travel card. It was my own fault, I hold my hands up and I regret it to this day. Fast forward to a few days ago, I received a Single Justice Procedure notice. I am going to plead guilty as I know that what I did was wrong, and after stressing for so long about it now I would just like for it to be behind me.

"Being a passenger on a London Bus service, you did not comply with a condition of carriage when you failed immediately upon boarding, to present your smart card on the smart equipment provided on the bus and/or pay for your journey as directed by notices on the bus or by the bus driver. Contrary to Regulation 7(2)(b)(i) of the Public Service Vehicles (conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors & Passengers) Regulations 1990 SI No. 1020 as amended and contrary to Section 25(£) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981"

The costs say an application is being made for a £225 contribution towards the cost of transport for London, compensation of the £1.50 for the journey, and a victim surcharge.

As stated, I am going to plead guilty as I know that what I did was wrong, and I would like to do it without going to court. However, I am extremely worried about the size of the fine, and any potential criminal record I might receive.

Additionally, when I go to plead online, on the 'Guilty Plea Mitigation' page, is there anything I should tell the court? I was thinking about apologising and that it was a silly mistake, but I don't want to harm my case at all.


Any help would be greatly appreciated. I understand that this is a RailUK Form and my offence was on a bus, so please delete if not allowed. Thank you in advance.

 

[30907]

Welcome on board - though sorry about the reason.

I am assuming this was an open-and-shut case rather than one you could put down to "accident" (like a card one day over date....) - no need to give details.

Have you had any contact with TfL asking for your side of the story? If so, what did you say (briefly)?

I can't comment about the fine, except to say that it will be income-related and is likely to be well below the maximum of £1000, especially as you get a discount for pleading guilty.

The equivalent rail offence is "non-recordable" but even a "recordable" offence of this nature will be spent after a year. As they are prosecuting you for a single offence it is highly unlikely that it will affect your career prospects check(etc).

As to mitigation - show that you realise WHY what you did was wrong (it costs the TfL money!) and that you have learnt your lesson (always to have a valid ticket).
Sob-stories won't count for much.

 

[tspaul26]

Hello everyone,

At the start of this year, I got on a bus and the journey cost £1.50 which was a part of my every day commute, and got caught with a wrong travel card. It was my own fault, I hold my hands up and I regret it to this day. Fast forward to a few days ago, I received a Single Justice Procedure notice. I am going to plead guilty as I know that what I did was wrong, and after stressing for so long about it now I would just like for it to be behind me.

"Being a passenger on a London Bus service, you did not comply with a condition of carriage when you failed immediately upon boarding, to present your smart card on the smart equipment provided on the bus and/or pay for your journey as directed by notices on the bus or by the bus driver. Contrary to Regulation 7(2)(b)(i) of the Public Service Vehicles (conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors & Passengers) Regulations 1990 SI No. 1020 as amended and contrary to Section 25(£) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981"

The costs say an application is being made for a £225 contribution towards the cost of transport for London, compensation of the £1.50 for the journey, and a victim surcharge.

As stated, I am going to plead guilty as I know that what I did was wrong, and I would like to do it without going to court. However, I am extremely worried about the size of the fine, and any potential criminal record I might receive.

Additionally, when I go to plead online, on the 'Guilty Plea Mitigation' page, is there anything I should tell the court? I was thinking about apologising and that it was a silly mistake, but I don't want to harm my case at all.


Any help would be greatly appreciated. I understand that this is a RailUK Form and my offence was on a bus, so please delete if not allowed. Thank you in advance.

As far as I am aware, there is no sentencing guideline for this particular offence, but the railway fare evasion guideline is analogous.

You will find this here:

Railway fare evasion (Revised 2017) – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

The guideline sets out various factors that could be relevant to the level of fine. This will depend on the facts of your case though.

Fines are based on your relevant weekly income (generally, your income after tax) subject to a minimum deemed income of £120 per week. If your only income is from state benefit then you are deemed to have an income of £120 per week.

You need to provide information to the court as to your actual income if you wish for this to be factored into the calculation. If you do not, the court will generally assume that you have an income of £440 per week.

In this case, provided that you have not engaged in aggressive, abusive or disruptive behaviour, the single bus fare evaded is relatively low in value. This suggests that there is lower culpability and lesser harm and the starting point would then be a Band A fine (50% of weekly income, but with a range of 25% to 75% depending on the presence or absence of factors increasing or reducing seriousness).

For example, if there are no aggravating factors and no previous convictions, and remorse and good character are shown, this would indicate a fine to the lower end of the range. Say, 25% of £440 per week = £110.

You then reduce the fine by one third if you have pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. Say, £80.

You then add on the £1.50 compensation for the evaded fare, victim surcharge (in our example, probably the fixed minimum of £32) and prosecution costs.

TfL has requested £225. The court must be satisfied that the costs are reasonable and that the total amount payable is not disproportionate compared to the maximum possible sentence. For this offence, that maximum is £1,000 and the courts do not generally care for quibbling about relatively low amounts of costs.

Therefore, in this example you would end up with:
Compensation: £1.50
Victim surcharge: £32
Fine: £80
Costs: £225
TOTAL: £338.50

This is just an example to demonstrate how the sentencing process normally works. Your case may well be different depending on the particular facts.

Do NOT copy-paste this post into the plea in mitigation box.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The fine calculation above is correct, though the court generally will stick at a Band A fine of 50% of weekly income and will very rarely drop below it. It also misses your credit for an early guilty plea, which would tale 1/3 off the fine element.

Very little that you offer in mitigation will move that figure - the SJP is fast and almost a "rubber stamp" exercise. A simple apology is enough. "I made a silly mistake and I'm very embarrassed to be summonsed to court"

If you were confident, you may want to appear in court and challenge the costs of £225, which are above the CPS usual costs, though there is an element in there to cover the investigation costs.

There is a handy fine calculator here. Your offence is very much Band A, unless there are other aggravating factors.

 

[tspaul26]

The fine calculation above is correct, though the court generally will stick at a Band A fine of 50% of weekly income and will very rarely drop below it. It also misses your credit for an early guilty plea, which would tale 1/3 off the fine element.

Very little that you offer in mitigation will move that figure - the SJP is fast and almost a "rubber stamp" exercise.

If you were confident, you may want to appear in court and challenge the costs of £225, which are above the CPS usual costs.

Just to clarify: the calculation I gave is only an example.

As Puffing Devil says, if you assume 50% of your weekly income after tax (subject to a minimum of £120 per week) then that will normally be the ballpark figure that the court will be looking at.

Then knock off one third for early guilty plea and add on the other stuff (victim surcharge is 10% of the discounted fine subject to minimum of about £30-odd pounds).

As I mentioned, the court will not be particularly receptive to quibbles over the amount of costs and you are more likely to annoy the judge if you try to take the point regardless of the legal niceties!

 

[Starmill]

The OP highlights their concerns about the affordability of the fine and costs. If they cannot afford to to pay the whole amount can they ask to pay in instalments instead?

 

[tspaul26]

The OP highlights their concerns about the affordability of the fine and costs. If they cannot afford to to pay the whole amount can they ask to pay in instalments instead?

It is possible to pay by instalments, but this will depend on the OP’s financial circumstances.

I will see if I can link to the form that deals with this.

 

[tspaul26]

The OP highlights their concerns about the affordability of the fine and costs. If they cannot afford to to pay the whole amount can they ask to pay in instalments instead?

Here we are:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/688361/mc100-eng.pdf

If disposable income is a concern then this should be flagged up to the court and payment by instalments requested based on income and outgoings. Not an entitlement though and if it is possible for the OP to pay in full straight away then he will be expected to do so.

 

[SteveM70]

Slightly off topic, but I thought the point of a victim surcharge was to give recompense to the victim of the crime. In cases like this, where the fare is paid and their costs are met, why is the surcharge still levied?

 

[tspaul26]

Slightly off topic, but I thought the point of a victim surcharge was to give recompense to the victim of the crime. In cases like this, where the fare is paid and their costs are met, why is the surcharge still levied?

It is (in theory) used to fund victim support services. It is not paid to the actual victim (if there be one) and is not compensatory.

 

[SteveM70]

It is (in theory) used to fund victim support services. It is not paid to the actual victim (if there be one) and is not compensatory.

Ah right, makes sense now. Thanks

 

[Starmill]

Since its introduction the Victim Surcharge has been much criticised on the basis that Judges and Magistrates do not have the discretion to disapply the minimum charge, and that they're often a total waste of time because it's impossible to collect them from near-penniless convicts upon their release from prison, so they just increase the burden of unpayable debts. They're also used to replace funding for public services which frankly should be coming from taxpayers funds and should receive proper resources. If the offender can afford to pay a high value Victim Surcharge and actually does so, this raises the question of whether the fine was set correctly in the first place, or possibly more accurately whether the guidelines allowed the Judge to impose a large enough fine. There is some noise campaigning to have them abolished.

To put it another way, it's quite questionable exactly what the Victim Surcharge is there to do that cannot be done better with a fine, costs order or award of compensation.

 

[some bloke]

caught with a wrong travel card

I know that what I did was wrong

I was thinking about apologising and that it was a silly mistake

A simple apology is enough. "I made a silly mistake..."

Is the position that TfL's case indicates dishonesty and you are not disagreeing with it?

If so perhaps it would be better to refer to a lapse of judgement (if that's what it was), rather than a mistake.

If the card was, say, someone else's Freedom Pass - which might indicate dishonest behaviour consistent with repeated use especially since you were commuting - you might want to consider that in your language as well.

 

[some bloke]

I don't mean that you should own up to other instances if they existed - just try to make sure that the language can't be seen as conflicting with the picture/s given in the paperwork as a whole.

 

[MattCoeld]

Welcome on board - though sorry about the reason.

I am assuming this was an open-and-shut case rather than one you could put down to "accident" (like a card one day over date....) - no need to give details.

Have you had any contact with TfL asking for your side of the story? If so, what did you say (briefly)?

I can't comment about the fine, except to say that it will be income-related and is likely to be well below the maximum of £1000, especially as you get a discount for pleading guilty.

The equivalent rail offence is "non-recordable" but even a "recordable" offence of this nature will be spent after a year. As they are prosecuting you for a single offence it is highly unlikely that it will affect your career prospects check(etc).

As to mitigation - show that you realise WHY what you did was wrong (it costs the TfL money!) and that you have learnt your lesson (always to have a valid ticket).
Sob-stories won't count for much.

Hi 30907,

Thanks for the quick response. This was an open and shut case - I'll hold my hands up and admit that I was wrong. TFL asked me a few months ago if I had anything to say, and I can't remember exactly but I believe I said that I did do it and that I accept the charges - not sure if this was the right thing to do or not.

I won't give them a sob story, but I will definitely show remorse and apologise for my actions.

Thanks for the insight, hopefully it will be alright in the end.

 

[MattCoeld]

As far as I am aware, there is no sentencing guideline for this particular offence, but the railway fare evasion guideline is analogous.

You will find this here:

Railway fare evasion (Revised 2017) – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

The guideline sets out various factors that could be relevant to the level of fine. This will depend on the facts of your case though.

Fines are based on your relevant weekly income (generally, your income after tax) subject to a minimum deemed income of £120 per week. If your only income is from state benefit then you are deemed to have an income of £120 per week.

You need to provide information to the court as to your actual income if you wish for this to be factored into the calculation. If you do not, the court will generally assume that you have an income of £440 per week.

In this case, provided that you have not engaged in aggressive, abusive or disruptive behaviour, the single bus fare evaded is relatively low in value. This suggests that there is lower culpability and lesser harm and the starting point would then be a Band A fine (50% of weekly income, but with a range of 25% to 75% depending on the presence or absence of factors increasing or reducing seriousness).

For example, if there are no aggravating factors and no previous convictions, and remorse and good character are shown, this would indicate a fine to the lower end of the range. Say, 25% of £440 per week = £110.

You then reduce the fine by one third if you have pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. Say, £80.

You then add on the £1.50 compensation for the evaded fare, victim surcharge (in our example, probably the fixed minimum of £32) and prosecution costs.

TfL has requested £225. The court must be satisfied that the costs are reasonable and that the total amount payable is not disproportionate compared to the maximum possible sentence. For this offence, that maximum is £1,000 and the courts do not generally care for quibbling about relatively low amounts of costs.

Therefore, in this example you would end up with:
Compensation: £1.50
Victim surcharge: £32
Fine: £80
Costs: £225
TOTAL: £338.50

This is just an example to demonstrate how the sentencing process normally works. Your case may well be different depending on the particular facts.

Do NOT copy-paste this post into the plea in mitigation box.

Hi there,

Thanks for the response. That's really helpful, hopefully the fine won't be too big. Just a quick one, if I earn more than £440 a week, is it worth me not stating my income so the fine is lower? I know that's really bad to say, but I am just wondering.

 

[MattCoeld]

The fine calculation above is correct, though the court generally will stick at a Band A fine of 50% of weekly income and will very rarely drop below it. It also misses your credit for an early guilty plea, which would tale 1/3 off the fine element.

Very little that you offer in mitigation will move that figure - the SJP is fast and almost a "rubber stamp" exercise. A simple apology is enough. "I made a silly mistake and I'm very embarrassed to be summonsed to court"

If you were confident, you may want to appear in court and challenge the costs of £225, which are above the CPS usual costs, though there is an element in there to cover the investigation costs.

There is a handy fine calculator here. Your offence is very much Band A, unless there are other aggravating factors.

Thanks for the help on the mitigation - I just want to show remorse and regret.

 

[MattCoeld]

Is the position that TfL's case indicates dishonesty and you are not disagreeing with it?

If so perhaps it would be better to refer to a lapse of judgement (if that's what it was), rather than a mistake.

If the card was, say, someone else's Freedom Pass - which might indicate dishonest behaviour consistent with repeated use especially since you were commuting - you might want to consider that in your language as well.

Hi there,

I had a pass that was only valid with a photo card, which I don't own. I tried it for a week but stopped obviously when I was caught. The charge is that I present my smart card on the smart equipment / pay the bus driver for the journey.

How would you recommend I approach the mitigation if they might think it was potentially a repeat offence? Just to note, there isn't anything on the charge that indicates this.

 

[some bloke]

It sounds like you could have gone on doing this for a long time and saved a large amount of money, so that it isn't unreasonable for it to cost you hundreds of pounds.

Unless you have specific circumstances that mean they should be lenient (I'm not sure what those could be), maybe just, if it's true, "I very much regret my actions and have learnt my lesson".

 

[MattCoeld]

It sounds like you could have gone on doing this for a long time and saved a large amount of money, so that it isn't unreasonable for it to cost you hundreds of pounds.

Unless you have specific circumstances that mean they should be lenient (I'm not sure what those could be), maybe just, if it's true, "I very much regret my actions and have learnt my lesson".

I am expecting the fine to be slightly larger because of the nature of how I was caught, but don't want to say anything that will harm my case.

 

[30907]

Hi there,

I had a pass that was only valid with a photo card, which I don't own. I tried it for a week but stopped obviously when I was caught. The charge is that I present my smart card on the smart equipment / pay the bus driver for the journey.

How would you recommend I approach the mitigation if they might think it was potentially a repeat offence? Just to note, there isn't anything on the charge that indicates this.

There have been a number of similar cases on here IIRC ("borrowed" passes, etc.)
TfL seem to take the approach of prosecuting for the single occasion when the offender is caught, on the basis that it serves as enough of a deterrent. It is straightforward for them and the court, so has considerable advantages.

They will "know" that many people will have "got away with it" on other occasions.

As they have taken this approach you do not need to say anything about other occasions. However, I agree you should avoid suggesting you made a mistake.
"I know I was wrong to.... and I undertake not to repeat the offence."

 

[some bloke]

Also, it would seem you are charged with a lesser crime than you committed in another respect.

In itself being charged with that offence doesn't imply dishonesty or intent to avoid a fare. What might be mitigation against a sentence for a more serious offence may not be so useful here.

the railway fare evasion guideline is analogous.

That guideline is for offences involving intent to avoid payment, or what the guideline calls "failing to produce ticket", which in fact also requires failure to pay on request and failure to give correct name and address.

Regulation of Railways Act 1889

An Act to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts; and for other purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Clearly we might expect some similar principles to apply to simple failure to produce a valid ticket. The general guidance mentions similar mitigating factors:

General guideline: overarching principles – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

 

[tspaul26]

Also, it would seem you are charged with a lesser crime than you committed in another respect.

In itself being charged with that offence doesn't imply dishonesty or intent to avoid a fare. What might be mitigation against a sentence for a more serious offence may not be so useful here.



That guideline is for offences involving intent to avoid payment, or what the guideline calls "failing to produce ticket", which in fact also requires failure to pay on request and failure to give correct name and address.

Regulation of Railways Act 1889

An Act to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts; and for other purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Clearly we might expect some similar principles to apply to simple failure to produce a valid ticket. The general guidance mentions similar mitigating factors:

General guideline: overarching principles – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Intent to avoid payment does not factor into section 5(1). The guideline is analogous and, under the general guideline, the court should have regard to it so far as relevant.

Note that the guideline starting points differentiate between the section 5(1) and 5(3) offences due to the different levels of culpability (strict liability versus intent to avoid payment/dishonesty respectively).

 

[tspaul26]

Hi there,

Thanks for the response. That's really helpful, hopefully the fine won't be too big. Just a quick one, if I earn more than £440 a week, is it worth me not stating my income so the fine is lower? I know that's really bad to say, but I am just wondering.

It is possible for the court to require particulars of your income and a failure to comply can itself lead to a further offence being committed in some circumstances.

I would suggest that you be honest about your financial circumstances, especially if you may need the option to request payment by instalments since you would need to provide your financials for that.

One final note of caution: attempting to game the system of fines by with-holding pertinent information does not on its face appear all that remorseful or contrite.

 

[some bloke]

Intent to avoid payment does not factor into section 5(1).

Yes - hence "or".

the guideline starting points differentiate between the section 5(1) and 5(3) offences due to the different levels of culpability (strict liability versus intent

Yes, though that railway offence which doesn't need intent to avoid has a maximum fine of only £500 (Level 2).

For analogous offences (not requiring intent to avoid) under the railway byelaws, and the present bus offence, it's £1000. Might that be taken into account in determining the percentage of weekly earnings?

 

[tspaul26]

Yes - hence "or".

Then I fail to see your point. Both offences relate to fare evasion on a strict liability basis. The railway fare evasion guideline is accordingly analogous and should be taken into account by the court.

Yes, though that railway offence which doesn't need intent to avoid has a maximum fine of £500 (Level 2) - in contrast to analogous offences also not requiring intent to avoid under the railway byelaws, and the present offence under bus/PSV legislation, for which it's £1000. Might that be taken into account in determining the percentage of weekly earnings?

Yes and no. The starting point under the specific guideline is based on relevant weekly earnings and regard must be had to inter alia the maximum sentence for the offence.

However, the maximum sentence for the ‘bus fare evasion’ offence is higher which means that this is less of an issue. If the application of the analogous guideline results in a fine of, say, £600 then this must be reduced to at least the statutory maximum (level 2) under section 5(1), but this is not obligatory for the offence libelled in this case as the maximum is higher (level 3).

Overall, I would not expect the court to care for this line of argument overmuch.

 

[some bloke]

I would not expect the court to care for this line of argument overmuch.

It isn't a point to raise with the court. I'm just wondering if the court would use higher percentages of weekly earnings for the bus offence than for the strict-liability Regulation of Railways Act offence, on the basis that the higher maximum fine indicates it should be treated as more serious.

 

[tspaul26]

It isn't a point to raise with the court. I'm just wondering if the court would use higher percentages of weekly earnings for the bus offence than for the strict-liability Regulation of Railways Act offence, on the basis that the higher maximum fine indicates it should be treated as more serious.

In this instance it doesn’t really matter because the starting points for Category 3 are the same under the railway fare evasion guideline for both of the offences, including for the section 5(3) offence which has a level 3 maximum (the same as the bus fare evasion offence).

 

[MattCoeld]

It is possible for the court to require particulars of your income and a failure to comply can itself lead to a further offence being committed in some circumstances.

I would suggest that you be honest about your financial circumstances, especially if you may need the option to request payment by instalments since you would need to provide your financials for that.

One final note of caution: attempting to game the system of fines by with-holding pertinent information does not on its face appear all that remorseful or contrite.

Hi tspaul,

Thanks for the information, I was always going to provide my financial details but I was just wondering if they had a process in place - which they clearly do. It was more of me just trying to understand about the case against me.

 

[Starmill]

The form to declare your income for the court linked to by tspaul26 even says on it that it's an offence to fill it in incorrectly or make a deliberate omission.