Summons to magistrates court

[Milton123]

Thanks everyone .... all very confusing with what I’m reading!
Is there a reason why my attachments aren’t being uploaded? I’ve covered any personal and sensitive information.
Thank you

 

[some bloke]

@Milton123, thank you for all the work you're doing at this difficult time. It's hardly suprising if receiving that strange paperwork adds to stress, and I'm sorry about the complications.

I can't see any reason why either an employer or a professional organisation should care about someone not paying a penalty fare on time. It's a lot less serious than many mistakes someone in the ambulance service could make at work. Nobody has accused you specifically of trying to evade a fare. But if it's in the conditions/rules, you should notify them as a formality, perhaps as the first thing to do.

If you're convicted, it's minor. And hopefully you haven't been, and won't be, convicted.

 

[Milton123]

here are the letters received ...

 

[Brissle Girl]

Is it possible that the magistrate has referred it because they think there is more to this than meets the eye, and thus that the result could be more favourable once the defendant states their case?

 

[some bloke]

Is it possible that the magistrate has referred it because they think there is more to this than meets the eye, and thus that the result could be more favourable once the defendant states their case?

Good point. For one thing, they may have realised that Milton123 can't be guilty if she gave her name and address.

Milton123, as two of the pages say "full court hearing", we might think the words "you have been convicted" are there by mistake. If you had been convicted and the hearing was just for sentencing, it would be odd to write "full".

 

[some bloke]

You can change your plea - if you can get a UNISON solicitor involved at least for an initial consultation, that would seem useful.

 

[Enthusiast]

They were uploading. They were simply unreadable. Anyway, I've managed to get the gist of them now but alas they don't help much. However I think the "you must enter a plea" phrase is probably a template letter (the justice system is full of these, often used inappropriately). It's my guess (and it's only a guess) that your guilty plea has been received and the SJ was not happy with your statement of means. Did you suggest you had a particularly low income or say anything else that might been seen as a bit doubtful? It is a bit odd because the maximum you can be fined in £333 (with a guilty plea). The guidelines suggest a range of a Conditional Discharge to a "Band C" fine (that is 1.5 week's net income) and I would have thought a SJ would have had no difficulty arriving at a suitable figure.

Good point. For one thing, they may have realised that Milton123 can't be guilty because she gave her name and address.

I'm afraid I don't share that optimism for the reasons I gave in my earlier answer. Contrary to the above, if your guilty plea has been accepted you cannot change it - with or without a solicitor - unless the court agrees. If you want to do so (and give the above defence a run - which I don't recommend) you will need to ask the court to re-open your case under S142 of the Magistrates' Court Act. They don't have to, and may not be inclined to do so when you tell them the reason.

To re-iterate what's already been said, the only sentences available for this offence are a Conditional Discharge or a maximum fine of £500. A community order or custody is not an option.

If you had been convicted and the hearing was just for sentencing, it would be odd to write "full".

It wouldn't be odd at all. A sentencing hearing (before a Bench of 3 Magistrates or a District Judge) is "full" hearing. The only "unfull" hearing is a Single Justice hearing which nobody can attend. When a SJ declines jurisdiction (for whatever reason) the matter goes to a full hearing.

You need to find out why your case has been referred for a full hearing and I suggest the only way you will do so is to attend. Ringing the court is likely to be unfruitful. You will be answered by a receptionist who will have little or no understanding of court procedures. Whatever you do, if you are told when making those enquiries that you do not need to attend after all, get that in writing. If not, you should attend as requested. ​

 

[baz962]

Just reading this and nothing much of value to add , as I know nothing about these matters. But I wanted to say Milton , thank you so much for the work you do and I hope that it works out very favourably for you .

 

[Milton123]

They were uploading. They were simply unreadable. Anyway, I've managed to get the gist of them now but alas they don't help much. However I think the "you must enter a plea" phrase is probably a template letter (the justice system is full of these, often used inappropriately). It's my guess (and it's only a guess) that your guilty plea has been received and the SJ was not happy with your statement of means. Did you suggest you had a particularly low income or say anything else that might been seen as a bit doubtful? It is a bit odd because the maximum you can be fined in £333 (with a guilty plea). The guidelines suggest a range of a Conditional Discharge to a "Band C" fine (that is 1.5 week's net income) and I would have thought a SJ would have had no difficulty arriving at a suitable figure.

I'm afraid I don't share that optimism for the reasons I gave in my earlier answer. Contrary to the above, if your guilty plea has been accepted you cannot change it - with or without a solicitor - unless the court agrees. If you want to do so (and give the above defence a run - which I don't recommend) you will need to ask the court to re-open your case under S142 of the Magistrates' Court Act. They don't have to, and may not be inclined to do so when you tell them the reason.

To re-iterate what's already been said, the only sentences available for this offence are a Conditional Discharge or a maximum fine of £500. A community order or custody is not an option.



It wouldn't be odd at all. A sentencing hearing (before a Bench of 3 Magistrates or a District Judge) is "full" hearing. The only "unfull" hearing is a Single Justice hearing which nobody can attend. When a SJ declines jurisdiction (for whatever reason) the matter goes to a full hearing.

You need to find out why your case has been referred for a full hearing and I suggest the only way you will do so is to attend. Ringing the court is likely to be unfruitful. You will be answered by a receptionist who will have little or no understanding of court procedures. Whatever you do, if you are told when making those enquiries that you do not need to attend after all, get that in writing. If not, you should attend as requested. ​

Thanks for replying ... I filled in the expenditure sheet - it shows me as having roughly £33 left at the end of each month - which is accurate. I’m having financial difficulties at the moment and on the expenditure sheet wrote that and am dealing with stepwise charity to consolidate debts. I did not mention why this was (marriage breakup) on the paperwork.

 

[Enthusiast]

Thanks for replying ... I filled in the expenditure sheet - it shows me as having roughly £33 left at the end of each month - which is accurate. I’m having financial difficulties at the moment and on the expenditure sheet wrote that and am dealing with stepwise charity to consolidate debts. I did not mention why this was (marriage breakup) on the paperwork.

It's your income only that determines the fine. The other information is used should you ask for time to pay or to pay in instalments. That said, I still find this puzzling. Even if the SJ had suspected you had understated your income he or she could have simply made a reasonable assumption and levied a fine accordingly.

Very puzzling. Do let us know the outcome.

 

[some bloke]

[Edit: thinking again]

 

[Milton123]

I’d just like to thank everyone for trying to help .... much appreciated.
I’m hoping tomorrow I can get some answers whether that be through legal help (I’m going to contact unison), a solicitor or through the court.
It’s nobody’s fault other than my own, just hope it doesn’t effect my career. I’d be devastated. Hopefully they will see my job as a positive along with my clean history. If I knew why it couldn’t be settled without me attending I wouldn’t be as anxious.
Just wish I’d have got to open the first letter sooner (or not at all seeing though my husband has been given a fine with no further action) Just seems odd I’ve tried to do right and give an honest guilty plea but may get a worse punishment.

 

[some bloke]

This may be a bit reassuring - the person here had, unlike you, lied about where she came from and admitted trying to avoid a fare.

I have been in contact with the NMC and fortunately given the nature of the conviction (if prosecuted) it is not relevant to my line of work as does not affect my competence to nurse.

 

[some bloke]

Employers and professional organisations know that people make mistakes and are not perfect.

If you haven't seen it, this page may be useful, including the section on "Assessing the seriousness...":

If the criminal offending took place in the nurse or midwife’s private life, and there’s no clear risk to patients or members of the public, then it is unlikely that we’ll need to take regulatory action to uphold confidence in nurses and midwives, or professional standards.

https://www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/...llegations/criminal-convictions-and-cautions/

Also the references to charges and convictions here:

https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/registration/guidance-on-health-and-character.pdf

 

[Darandio]

I'd just like to echo thoughts for the OP and thank them for everything they do. In terms of getting the advice you need from this thread, good luck on that one, yet again what should be a thread for people to give simple and clear advice has turned into a mish mash of confusion.

 

[najaB]

I’m absolutely mortified it’s come to this and cannot understand why it’s being now taken further.
I’m currently going through a marriage break down (hence why I wasn’t at home those dates)
Working for the ambulance service so am terrified about a criminal record

It's natural to be concerned about receiving a criminal record given the stigma that is associated with it, it's worth keeping in mind that there is nobody who reaches adulthood without breaking some law (e.g. littering). What employers are concerned about is offences that show either a tendency towards violence or dishonesty - in your line of work things that would make you a potential risk to vulnerable people. I don't think that failing to pay for a train ticket falls into that category. As others have said, have word with your union to see what their advice is. I suspect it will be "Don't worry".

I feel like they want to give me a much higher punishment - terrified of a jail sentence. I have 3 young children, a good job and a clean record. Nothing like this has ever happened to me.

There is zero chance of you receiving a custodial sentence. Typically, for this type of offence you would receive a fine of around £150. This will be discounted by 1/3 since you pleaded guilty early and can also be further reduced if you can show financial hardship.

Try your best not to worry about this, and thank you for the work you're doing.

 

[Llanigraham]

I’ve attached the letter received. I’m confused as to why its saying I must attend to enter a plea if I have already been convicted?

Much better now we have copies of the paperwork.
As far as I can see no-one has been found Guilty of anything YET.
The first attachment states that the Court states it is not appropriate for the Single Justice system and therefore the Magistrates require a full, normal Court hearing.
The charge is shown as not being able to provide a ticket. That is stated on the 2nd attachment. S5(1) seems to be correct, see #27 above.
The third attachment says that you MUST attend Court, however I see no date of a Hearing. If you had been notified of a date you would have also been asked to provide details of your earnings and to provide a statement of mitigating circumstances. Failure to do that results in the Court making a presumption of earnings.

I would suggest that the OP contacts her Union quickly over this matter.

 

[Llanigraham]

Good point. For one thing, they may have realised that Milton123 can't be guilty if she gave her name and address.

Milton123, as two of the pages say "full court hearing", we might think the words "you have been convicted" are there by mistake. If you had been convicted and the hearing was just for sentencing, it would be odd to write "full".

But that isn't what she is being charged with, or what the charge sheet states, or what S5(1) states!

 

[some bloke]

But that isn't what she is being charged with, or what the charge sheet states, or what S5(1) states!

She was charged with breaching s.5(1) which states,

"or give the officer or servant his name and address"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

That was the alternative open - at least at the time - to Milton123. As I said above, it is not mentioned in the written charge.

I'm not yet convinced that Milton123 is guilty, because if you have an obligation to do A, B, or C you aren't obviously in "default" if you do one of them. The drafters of the law could have said there's a criminal offence "where the passenger fails to pay a debt for the fare" but they didn't.

 

[najaB]

I'm not yet convinced that Milton123 is guilty, because if you have an obligation to do A, B, or C you aren't obviously in "default" if you do one of them.

We've had this discussion multiple times before and, regardless of your interpretation, people have been found guilty in circumstances virtually identical to those presented here. I do not see this as being of any immediate assistance to the OP so suggest, respectfully, that you continue this side-discussion in its own thread.

 

[Llanigraham]

She was charged with breaching s.5(1) which states,

"or give the officer or servant his name and address"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

That was the alternative open - at least at the time - to Milton123. As I said above, it is not mentioned in the written charge.

I'm not yet convinced that Milton123 is guilty, because if you have an obligation to do A, B, or C you aren't obviously in "default" if you do one of them. The drafters of the law could have said there's a criminal offence "where the passenger fails to pay a debt for the fare" but they didn't.

To quote from post #27:

The full text of S5(1) is this:
Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

You seem to have ignored some of the relevant wording highlighted above.

 

[furlong]

I'd suggest the OP tries harder to get professional representation here (e.g. to consider whether there are arguments that support there being no case to answer or an abuse of process).

 

[furlong]

You seem to have ignored some of the relevant wording highlighted above.

The "three fails" - but why is the quotation truncated in the charge? (Might it get amended?) What is this reference to 'penalty' in the first post all about? Was the correct fare offered on the spot? Was correct name and address provided? (Might the company be trying to develop new law?)

 

[furlong]

The alternative would mean that nobody need buy a ticket, provide their name and address if asked, simply ignore what follows and that's the end of the matter.

Which may then fall foul of a different law, but this particular one merely obliges a person to engage with the officer in one of those three ways.

 

[some bloke]

What's really important here is your welfare, and the welfare of the people you're trying to help.

At this time, it is sensible for the court and/or company to do what they can to support you in your work, or at least take it into consideration, if necessary giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Hopefully UNISON can be very helpful in this.

You could make clear in communications where appropriate that
- you work for the ambulance service,
- this matter is causing you stress
- taking time off for court has implications for your work
and that
- you are keen for a prompt resolution.

You or anyone else can find out from the court whether you have been convicted.

If you haven't been convicted, then anyone (UNISON?) can keep trying to get through to the prosecutor on the phone. They can say you work for the ambulance service, and offer that you pay the fare and perhaps an admin fee (but making clear that you are in financial hardship). If the prosecutors have any sense, they will accept this by the end of the day, regardless of whether you are technically guilty. It would be preferable for your MP to write to the company rather than you to have to take time off work to go to court.

If you have been convicted, one way forward might be to ask the court to adjourn the case for several months. Hopefully UNISON will help with legal advice - perhaps more than the standard 30 minutes, because this matter can have an impact on your work.

It might not be surprising if the court staff on 16 March already had their minds on other things and something went wrong with the paperwork.

I feel for you in this situation, and hopefully the union, the court and the company will take a sensible view in the circumstances. You may find that people have a lot of respect for what you do and that once you mention it, they are more than willing to sort this out with minimal stress to you. If for example the prosecutors don't immediately answer, someone can put a forceful case to the company management. We don't want someone dying just because you are supposed to go to court over something trivial.

Hopefully this will be over soon. Thank you again for what you are doing to help others in these circumstances.

 

[island]

Thanks everyone .... all very confusing with what I’m reading!
Is there a reason why my attachments aren’t being uploaded? I’ve covered any personal and sensitive information.
Thank you

New members face some restrictions in what they can post and upload, with some items needing manual approval in the early days. This is to help control spam.

 

[74A]

Looking at the correspondence there is something not right. Like you said the second page does say you have been convicted of the offence. But the third page says you can make a plea. I suspect the second page is wrong and you have not actually been convicted yet.

The single justice procedure notice is designed for simple cases. What happens is that some people write on the form they are guilty but the go on to make an explanation in which it appears they are saying they are not guilty. In these case the court will refer it for a full hearing so they can hear you in person and then decide weather to find you guilty or not.

I would ring up the court to confirm if you have actually been convicted of the offence.

 

[WesternLancer]

I’d just like to thank everyone for trying to help .... much appreciated.
I’m hoping tomorrow I can get some answers whether that be through legal help (I’m going to contact unison), a solicitor or through the court.
It’s nobody’s fault other than my own, just hope it doesn’t effect my career. I’d be devastated. Hopefully they will see my job as a positive along with my clean history. If I knew why it couldn’t be settled without me attending I wouldn’t be as anxious.
Just wish I’d have got to open the first letter sooner (or not at all seeing though my husband has been given a fine with no further action) Just seems odd I’ve tried to do right and give an honest guilty plea but may get a worse punishment.

Yes good advice from 74A to ring the court if you can

 

[Milton123]

Bit of an update ...
I managed to speak to a lovely lady at the court and she gave me some clarification on the matter.
My case was looked at my the magistrate and decided from my ‘guilty plea’ and the circumstances put forward that they hear from the northern rail prosecutor?
It’s a case heard in front of a legal advisor and Magistrate???
I asked if I had get been convicted and she said no.
She stated I need not attend court as they already have my plea that I sent them on the ‘single justice procedure notice’ via email.
I must of asked her about 10 times to clarify that part and she said I definitely don’t need to attend and no warrant will be put out for me not showing.
I asked if I should get a solicitor and she said although she ‘shouldn’t’ advice, she didn’t think it looked necessary. ????
She confirmed whatever happened, I would not be going to jail.

Feel a massive relief however still not fully understanding the matter. That was all the information she was able to give me and wouldn’t state what the magistrate wanted from the prosecution.

oh and it would more than likely be adjourned for up to 12 weeks.

 

[Enthusiast]

she said I definitely don’t need to attend and no warrant will be put out for me not showing.

It is unlikely in the extreme that a court would issue a warrant (either with or without bail) for a non-imprisonable offence which carries a maximum penalty of a £500 fine. They would simply deal with the matter in your absence, impose a fine and costs and let you know the outcome.

Just for added information, all Magistrates' Court sessions in England & Wales (apart from London) have been suspended from today. More details will be released later in the week explaining what will happen next. That is probably the reason why you have been warned of the likely lengthy adjournment.