Northern Rail magistrates court

richyrichuk

hi folks,

i have a court appearance RE northern rail, i wrote a letter to the court explaining it was very inconvenient and would be costly for me to attend the local court where railway offence was committed and requested to be held locally to my home address, around 40 miles from where it was.

they responded with "Unfortunately, Northern Rail are not able to allow this transfer, the matter has to be dealt with by this jurisdiction."

firstly is it upto northern rail to dictate this? and if so what do you think would be the best way to deal with it.

if not then its upto the court i take it? do i have any grounds to move the court, or do they have any grounds for me NOT to move the court.

cheers
rich

Stigy

richyrichuk wrote: »

hi folks,

i have a court appearance RE northern rail, i wrote a letter to the court explaining it was very inconvenient and would be costly for me to attend the local court where railway offence was committed and requested to be held locally to my home address, around 40 miles from where it was.

they responded with "Unfortunately, Northern Rail are not able to allow this transfer, the matter has to be dealt with by this jurisdiction."

firstly is it upto northern rail to dictate this? and if so what do you think would be the best way to deal with it.

if not then its upto the court i take it? do i have any grounds to move the court, or do they have any grounds for me NOT to move the court.

cheers
rich

Railway cases are always layed with the court nearest, or in the juristiction to which the alleged offence took place, as opposed to the defendents home address. The also book many cases in on the same day so as to save time, and I doubt any court would accept just one case from a rail company as due to time constraints etc. What was the nature of the offence, out of curiosity?

AlexisV

Are you pleading guilty?

richyrichuk

thank you for taking the time to reply

Stigy wrote: »

Railway cases are always layed with the court nearest, or in the juristiction to which the alleged offence took place, as opposed to the defendents home address. The also book many cases in on the same day so as to save time, and I doubt any court would accept just one case from a rail company as due to time constraints etc. What was the nature of the offence, out of curiosity?

yes i appreciate its not ment to be convenient for me, and yes the closest station to where the offence was committed.

i was tying to do it on the grounds of...

"3 hours simply travelling, and further hardship incurred by having to apply for annual leave from my work"

it was a £1.90 rail fine as i only had a valid ticket for opp direction.
i am basing this on being dyslexic and flustered/confused at arriving at the station, simply, if u excuse the expression 'i got on the wrong side of the tracks'

AlexisV wrote: »

Are you pleading guilty?

i won't be no as i am pleading not guilt with extenuating circumstances ( i do have a list of everything contributing towards this)

Stigy

richyrichuk wrote: »

thank you for taking the time to reply



yes i appreciate its not ment to be convenient for me, and yes the closest station to where the offence was committed.

i was tying to do it on the grounds of...

"3 hours simply travelling, and further hardship incurred by having to apply for annual leave from my work"

it was a £1.90 rail fine as i only had a valid ticket for opp direction.
i am basing this on being dyslexic and flustered/confused at arriving at the station, simply, if u excuse the expression 'i got on the wrong side of the tracks'




i won't be no as i am pleading not guilt with extenuating circumstances ( i do have a list of everything contributing towards this)

You're not obliged to attend, although it always looks better if you do so when pleading not guilty. Having said that, in these circumstances the Mags probably wont hold it against you if you write a long letter and explain the situation thoroughly, including why you see yourself as not guilty.

I'm no lawyer, but should it not be "Guilty with extenuating circumstances"?

Or "Not guilty, due to extenuating circumstances"?

Voyager2002

Please take legal advice. It does sound as if you intend to admit the offence, and so a plea of guilty with extenuating circumstances would be more appropriate.

richyrichuk

Stigy wrote: »

You're not obliged to attend, although it always looks better if you do so when pleading not guilty. Having said that, in these circumstances the Mags probably wont hold it against you if you write a long letter and explain the situation thoroughly, including why you see yourself as not guilty.

I'm no lawyer, but should it not be "Guilty with extenuating circumstances"?

Or "Not guilty, due to extenuating circumstances"?

yes i think so guility due to EC may be the way.

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Please take legal advice. It does sound as if you intend to admit the offence, and so a plea of guilty with extenuating circumstances would be more appropriate.

i will be doing also i think

just a FYI, these are my points i am taking to court. ANY feedback RE this would help.
DEFENCE REMOVED

AlexisV

I feel sorry for you mate.

Maybe just tone down the emotional aspect. You accidentally went to the wrong platform and boarded the train which was going in the opposite direction by mistake.

It could happen to anyone, so wouldn't bother with the rushing/disorientation/dyslexia.

Just keep to an objective account of the facts.

You'll just have to take the journey all that way to court on the chin I think.

If I was a judge I'd be pretty peeved my time was being taken up with a case of someone who accidentally went to the wrong platform being given a penalty.

richyrichuk

AlexisV wrote: »

I feel sorry for you mate.

Maybe just tone down the emotional aspect. You accidentally went to the wrong platform and boarded the train which was going in the opposite direction by mistake.

It could happen to anyone, so wouldn't bother with the rushing/disorientation/dyslexia.

Just keep to an objective account of the facts.

You'll just have to take the journey all that way to court on the chin I think.

If I was a judge I'd be pretty peeved my time was being taken up with a case of someone who accidentally went to the wrong platform being given a penalty.

ok fair enough will keep it in mind, and think i'll keep dyslexia as it is medical and is not fully understood condition by many people.

Livingthedream

richyrichuk wrote: »

it was a £1.90 rail fine as i only had a valid ticket for opp direction

Your been taken to court for £1.90 :eek: unbelievable, what a waste of Northern Rail's money and the Magistrates time, I can't believe that they haven't tried to settle this out of court or have I missed this point.

I hope when you go to court the Magistrate finds in your favour and throws a wobbler at Northern Rail.

Please could you also post this thread on this Website, it's the Rail UK Forum, they will give you a lot more help.

Stigy

richyrichuk wrote: »

yes i think so guility due to EC may be the way.



I think this thread needs to be moved ideally, out of the parking tickets board, which is why I enquired about the alleged offence. Mods?


If you didn't receive a summonse, how did you hear about the impending court action? Assuming you are being charged with a Byelaw offence (18.1 in this case), this is a strict liability matter and no inention to defraud the railway is required. If being charged under S.5.3(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 then intention to defraud has to be reasonably proved for it to stand. It depends on how thye Magistrates see Railway Companies as to how they find you (guilty or not guilty) a lot of the time I'm afraid, although for strict liability matters such as this one, <Removed> another passenger who might or might not have made a mistake.

It would help if you could tell us how you were dealt with and what questions were asked, and whether or not said questions were asked under caution or not. If for example you decided to alight at this station and made no attempt to cross the station and return from the direction you just came from, then one might look at that as you actually intending to go to this station. Things like this dictate what the charge might be, too, for example, who's to say you didn't pick that ticket up of the floor and you had no intention of paying for your rail journey? Little things like this should have been bottomed out during questioning, and you'll by no know what the charge is as it'll be on correspondence.