Magistrate Procedure

vax2002

All, immaterial, until we know what he signed.

Rover_Driver

I think you will find that if he pleads 'Not Guilty' a new date is set. No witnesses are necessary at the first hearing, if he pleads guilty, it is dealt with then (although there may be a later date for sentencing)

If he pleads not guilty a new date is set for witnesses to attend and for the trial.

stone7

Was the station where he boarded fitted with the turnstiles?

If his OC was not scanned, the turnstile won't open.

Can you not obtain CCTV footage to show he entered through the turnstile ergo had a valid ticket for travel.

LINK

Joe_Horner

Haryo, that sounds like pretty well par for the course. There's always a problem where semi-official bodies are granted the power to levy penalties without any regard for due process - it may be "efficient" but it certainly isn't just.

From what you've posted above, my (non-lawyer) gut feeling is that he should have a reasonable chance of being found not guilty in a court. Outside the realms of TFL (or whoever issued the penalty) due process, including the presumption on innocence, still exist. That means it's not up to him to prove that he swiped the card, but up to them o prove he didn't. If there's evidence that the machines have failed to register in the past then that makes it rather hard for them to do so.

Honestly, the best thing you can do right now is to speak to a solicitor who has experience with these cases. Asking on here will get all sorts of opinion, ranging from seriously thought through advice from people with some legal understanding right through to crackpot mumbo-jumbo about stuff that bears as much likeness to legal reality as I do to a ballet dancer!

You've given a nice concise summary above, from which any solicitor should be able to give a fairly solid opinion of the best course of action within the "free initial appointment" that many will offer.

Bear in mind that, if he does defend it and wins, his costs (including the solicitor) should be paid for him.

Harryo

Thank you for the replies.

What he signed was a "South Eastern Rail Penalty Fare Notice / Receipt".

According to the Summons if his response now is a plead of guilty the case will be heard in two weeks. If his response now is a plead of innocent then a new date is set to enable the witnesses to be called and I assume the hearing in two weeks is cancelled.

There are no turnstiles at the station. Only a scanning machine on the entry (not very satisfactory really thinking about it). He says that is the way it is at his small local stations.

I suppose CCTV would possibly show if he passed something over the scanner. That would be some evidence. Although it wont show his oyster card, I don't suppose. Also it does not help with the actual charge, which is that he did not have a valid ticket, etc, even though he thought he did. I will suggest he go to the station and ask if they would hold a copy.

Also I will suggest he contact Oyster to see if they have a record of the trip on their system. That is an obvious thing to do but I have only just thought of it.

Stigy

The thing to remember here, is that the charge will more than likely be that of Byelaw 18(1), which is Strict Liability, therefore there's really no defence. The TOC official would have issued a Penalty Fare as it believed that there was no dilliberate intention to defraud them involved. The Penlty Fare, if unjustified, would have been written off at the appeals stage.

If you plead not guilty, then the RPI or other official that issued the Penalty Fare will be summonsed to attend Court and give his/her evidence. If you plead Guilty, whether you attend or not, the witness will not be summonsed to attend and give evidence, as there's no need to.

Vax wrote:

These types of cases are heard on one day and yes a signing in sheet magically appears at the front security check.
Do you have to sign it ? well they will cause a big fuss if you dont, they need it to be shown in court to compare the signatures to the contract that was signed.
So sign an X if they carry on.

If you can afford a solicitor, if the train guard fails to show, as they usually do, they send a company solicitor from the train company, then a clever solicitor will ask that the defendant be "identified to court by the accuser".
As they are not there and any adjournment must be agreed by both parties , the case goes out at the first hurdle.

If a defendant pleads not guilty, then any witnesses for the prosecution will be summonsed by the company they work for, and they have to attend, and from experience, they always do. If they're not summonsed, then the TOC isn't doing their job very efficiently, and in this sort of case, is probably the only way in which such a case would be won. If they plead guilty, there's no need for any witnesses to be called.

Just because a person doesn't sign a Penalty Fare, doesn't make the outcome of a refusal to pay it any less enforceable.

Bear in mind that the Penalty Fare is no longer applicable once it goes to court, instead, it's the initial fare that remains unpaid, and the PF is cancelled.

To the OP, CCTV is all well and good, but would it show a little green light appearing on the Oyster Reader? Also, how long ago was the incident? As CCTV is usually kept for 30-days in a Hard Drive. Cases tend to go to court about 6-7 months after the incident occured.

Harryo

Thank you Stigy. Well I have sought Legal Advice and it would seem:

1. The charge would remain even if it can (which it can) be demonstrated that South Eastern ignored my Son's offer to pay before they issued proceedings.

2. The charge would remain irrespective of whether the Oyster machine failed to function correctly (which cannot be proved by my Son and probably cannot be disproved by South Eastern).

3. What I find most alarming though is that the charge remains no matter who is to blame that my Son's card was not correctly activated, whether it be Oyster, South Eastern or my Son fault. Even if Oyster admits it was their fault because their machines were not working, my Son it would seem would still be prosecuted even though he was unaware the machine was not working.

I think my Son is just going to plead guilty to the charge as that verdict seems inevitable.

Thank you for all your responses.

vax2002

can you post up a scan of the penalty fare contract he signed.

Stigy

Harryo wrote: »

You're welcome.

1. The charge would remain even if it can (which it can) be demonstrated that South Eastern ignored my Son's offer to pay before they issued proceedings.

2. The charge would remain irrespective of whether the Oyster machine failed to function correctly (which cannot be proved by my Son and probably cannot be disproved by South Eastern).

3. What I find most alarming though is that the charge remains no matter who is to blame that my Son's card was not correctly activated, whether it be Oyster, South Eastern or my Son fault. Even if Oyster admits it was their fault because their machines were not working, my Son it would seem would still be prosecuted even though he was unaware the machine was not working.

I think my Son is just going to plead guilty to the charge as that verdict seems inevitable.

Thank you for all your responses.

1. The PFN would still have stood, that's correct. Once you step foot on a train without a valid ticket, you can be either PF'd, or reported straight to Prosecutions Dept for consideration. Hence the strict liability aspect of Byelaws. Bear in mind also, that Penalty Fares don't have to be applied. The only way out of this is if there's an issue with the ticket machines or similar, and that is usually remotely monitored.

2. If it can be proved there was a fault with the machines etc, then there's no case really. Problem is, proving it to be the case. If the reader beeped once so as to say all's well, then that will be what is logged with the system etc, only in this case, I'd imagine they know different, therefore they'd still look to your son as being in the wrong. His Oyster Card, when read, obviously showed it hadn't been activated.

3. If TfL admitted fault, there'd be no case. I don't believe they will though.

Harryo

Thank you Stigy. What you say is what I would have thought would be the case if the machine could be proved to be faulty. The Solicitor said otherwise however as the wording of the charge is ""that he boarded a train without a valid ticket..."", which does not appear to permit any allowances for anybody else being at fault, That was after me quizzing him on the implications of this wording and it may be I got the wrong end of the stick.

I spoke to Oyster and they verbally confirmed their machines and systems do break down and that it is not possible to be certain what faults will result. I have asked them if they could check their records for the day in question. So maybe that will bring positive news.

Another thing has now made me cross. I spoke to an adviser in the Court about the missing statement and errors on the Statement of Facts. He said the RPSS do not take payment installments. Did not believe that so I phoned them up and it is the case. So I assume that is why they issued the Summons to my Son (but without telling him that and giving him the opportunity to raise it. Therefore if you cannot afford to pay the £40 you are sent to Court, become a criminal and are fined even more that you still cannot pay. Cannot see the logic or moral correctness in that but perhaps it applies to all Fine situations.