Magistrate Procedure

Stigy

Harryo wrote: »

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.

In the National Rail Byelaws (2005), there's provision for faulty machines etc (Byelaw 23(2/3) I believe). This basically says that Byelaws for ticketing are not enforceable if there's not facilities in working order to buy a ticket before boarding. Having said that, the difference in this case is that Oyster prepay is not a valid ticket to travel unless you've tapped in at your origin, and out at your destination. Otherwise it's just means to carry electronic credit. That being said, if you could prove faulty machines, then Southeastern Trains would be frankly mean, to pursue a charge.

glider3560

Can I suggest you visit https://www.railforums.co.uk and post the details on the Fares board. There are plenty of people there with experience of penalty fares, prosecutions and Oyster technicalities.

TfL only keep Oyster records for 8 weeks. You'll need to act quickly if you want TfL to check if the Oyster card was presented.

Harryo

Thank you Stigy for the further information.

Thank you also Glider3560. Yes he is too late to obtain information about his Oyster card on that day. If there was a fault on the system then any details about that may still be available.

Harryo

Just to conclude - happy ending eventually.

My Son filled out all the forms as best he could. He wrote on the forms that he was not prepared to tick the box pleading he was guilty, as he considered he had done nothing wrong. He stated he was however prepared to accept judgement as if he was guilty to avoid attending court and the potential risk of higher costs and increased fine. He also wrote a supporting letter stating matters from his point of view, confirming he had offered to pay the penalty in installments and pointing out the errors which had been made by the claimant within their documentation.

He was found guilty and fined £167.

However a couple of days after the hearing he received a letter from the Court apologising stating that they had failed to pass over to the Judge the paperwork and letter he had sent in and would be reviewing as to whether the case needed to be re-heard. A further letter advised it was to be re-heard and my son was required to attend court.

On the due day my son and I attended court. His case was called and into the Courtroom we trundled. Only to find that the Judge had again not been sent the paperwork.

Case was adjourned for three hours.

Back into the Courtroom we went when the paperwork turned up.

Someone from the Court (possibly the Clerk) spoke aloud to summerise matters, concluding that he often uses public transport and has found the Oyster Card System to be very unreliable. Judge takes over and concludes that the case should be thrown out and my son found innocent.

Cost me a day off work and hours helping my son with letters, etc. but in the end it was worth it.

Thank you to all who offered advice.

Livingthedream

Harryo wrote: »

Just to conclude - happy ending eventually.

Thank you for getting back to us with a conclusion :beer:

Harryo wrote: »

Someone from the Court (possibly the Clerk) spoke aloud to summerise matters, concluding that he often uses public transport and has found the Oyster Card System to be very unreliable. Judge takes over and concludes that the case should be thrown out and my son found innocent.

Well done on the result, very surprised as normally a byelaw 18 which is a strict liability prosecution is watertight and not much has to be done by the prosecution to get a conviction. To get this throw out of court is a very rare turn up for the books.

Harryo, I don't know if you ever posted on the www.railforums.co.uk link that glider 3560 gave you, but if you did it would be worth popping back over there to give closure to that thread as well, as a few members over there would love to discuss a Byelaw 18 failure.

Joe_Horner

Thanks for reporting back, Harryo, and congratulations on the result.

If a Court official was prepared to weigh in with knowledge that the machines fail, the Courts must be as unimpressed as the public at this sort of "streamlining" of matters in which justice is thrown out the window for the sake of efficiency and profits.

Using strict liability for things like this is outrageous, especially where there are genuine techincal reasons that someone could be unwittingly "guilty".

Personally I'd like to see the judiciary awarding one penny fines and costs against the prosecution in such cases