My understanding was that the defendant was prosecuted under the TfL Byelaws and not the NR Byelaws, which are different instruments.The case is about the lawfulness for London Underground Prosecutor to prosecute under TfL Railway Byelaws within National Railway facilities rather than prosecution under the National Railway Byelaws. The issue has nothing to do with validity of ticket. The issue also had nothing to do with intention of the individual to travel which Regulation of Railways Act 1889 would have applied.
Post #4 provided the legal argument of the Defendant. London Underground Prosecutor informed the Magistrates that the copy of the National Railway Byelaws provided by the Defendant in which Byelaw 17 was excepted under section 24 was an outdated byelaw which should no longer be in the new National Railway Byelaw (the prosecutor never showed the magistrate that new National Railway Byelaw). That both TfL Byelaws and National Railway Byelaws have the same laws for Byelaw 17 and 18 as well as basis of prosecution.
London Underground Prosecutor then provided to the court TfL Byelaws of 2010/11 in, which with the exception of Byelaw 17 was included. That all the TOC including London Underground decided to make Byelaw 17 and 18 congruent which led to the updated version. That the National Railway Byelaws provided by the Defendant was therefore an outdated law which was no longer current. That the Defendant provided an old version of the National Railway Byelaws.
In summary, the Magistrate was led to believe that Section 24 with the phrase with the exception of Byelaw 17 has been repealed, then decided the case on the basis of the TfL Railway Byelaws which according to them carried the current version of the Byelaws. The Defendant was thereafter found guilty of the offence. The Defendant was also fined about £350 in total including London Underground Prosecution costs.
Aside from that, will the defendant be appealing to the Crown Court?