Intention to prosecute?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Shamrock87 wrote: »

Hi, I was just looking for some advice about an 'intention to prosecute' I've just received for a journey I made about a month ago.

I bought my ticket from Kings Cross, went through the barriers and boarded the train. During the journey there was a ticket inspector on the train. I took my ticket out of the place I usually keep it (my Oyster card holder) to show it to the inspector and obviously didn't put it back. When I got to the station I was travelling to (Royston) I found I didn't have my ticket and approached the man at the barriers. He offered to let me pay a fine of £40, which I didn't have at the time. End of the month ect. He took my details and one month later I have this letter!

I have my bank statement to show I bought the ticket, there was an inspector on the train (although I asked when I got to the station and apparently they don't keep records of who was on what train!) and it was a non stop service, so I had to have passed through barriers to get onto the train and knew there were barriers at the station I was travelling to.

I've googled the consequences of this being taken to a magistrates court and lots seem to mention the possibility of a criminal record. I'm wondering how likely this is. My job (and any job likely to get in the future) require me to have an advanced CRB check. I'm concerned that me loosing a ticket will result in me losing my job and/or impact on any job I'm likely get. Sorry for the lengthy post, but I'm very, very worried about this.

I would think that if you can show you paid your fare and prove it by producing your bank statement, any sensible judge would throw the case out without a second thought.

London50

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I would think that if you can show you paid your fare and prove it by producing your bank statement, any sensible judge would throw the case out without a second thought.

While as I have said I am no expert on this I do believe that the train companies t&c would state that bit is NOT the fact of proving you bought a ticket but that you need to have the ticket to be inspected while using the rail network. Therefore if the ticket is not with the person travelling the t&c's have been breached so I cannot see a judge dismissing it.

matttye

Travelling with intent to avoid paying a fare = criminal offence.
Not paying a penalty fare = a civil matter.

There is a difference between the two. E.g. you may have lost your ticket, as in your situation, or you may have bought the wrong type of ticket for your train, or even boarded the completely wrong train. All of these could result in penalty tickets but none of them mean you've committed the criminal offence (unless you did so knowingly/deliberately).

Were you given a receipt which confirmed the journey details? It's been a while since I bought a train ticket so I can't remember if the printed card receipts contain the journey information or not.

If you can show that you bought a ticket that was valid for travel on the day in question, the prosecution are never going to be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you travelled with the intent of avoiding paying a fare.

In any event, if you explain the circumstances I'm sure they will let you pay the penalty fare.

matttye

London50 wrote: »

While as I have said I am no expert on this I do believe that the train companies t&c would state that bit is NOT the fact of proving you bought a ticket but that you need to have the ticket to be inspected while using the rail network. Therefore if the ticket is not with the person travelling the t&c's have been breached so I cannot see a judge dismissing it.

Are you talking about a civil judge or a criminal judge?

Non payment of a penalty fare is not a criminal offence, it's a civil matter. The criminal liability arises from travelling with the intention of avoiding payment of the fare.

If you can prove you bought a ticket that was valid for the entirety of the journey, then it would be a very strong defence to the allegation.

In terms of civil liability, there's no doubt he needs to pay the penalty fare.

notakid

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I would think that if you can show you paid your fare and prove it by producing your bank statement, any sensible judge would throw the case out without a second thought.

It means nothing. Remember a ticket is transferable. An open return will not have your name on it. You could, in theory give it to anyone.

The terms and conditions of carriage clearly state you must have a valid ticket to travel and be able to produce it.

The amount of people who come in to the ticket office expecting us to duplicate a ticket producing a receipt. If its lost, its lost. Its like going into the bank and showing the receipt from the cashpoint and expecting them to replace the tenner you have mislaid.

London50

matttye wrote: »

Are you talking about a civil judge or a criminal judge?

Non payment of a penalty fare is not a criminal offence, it's a civil matter. The criminal liability arises from travelling with the intention of avoiding payment of the fare.

If you can prove you bought a ticket that was valid for the entirety of the journey, then it would be a very strong defence to the allegation.

In terms of civil liability, there's no doubt he needs to pay the penalty fare.

As the OP states the letter is intention to prosecute I am taking it that it is for not having a valid ticket at the barrier. If that is the situation it will be a criminal matter and the risk of a criminal record,too many people use the excuse "I have lost my ticket" and proof of the purchase of a ticket is no defence as most rail t&c's as far as I know state you must have the ticket for the complete journey, so no ticket at the barrier IMO means you are not complying with those t&c's.
These days there are plenty of reports in local newspapers with criminal records for just these type of things. As I do not expect the OP to post just what will {or has} happened since posting I think it is just as well to put this one to bed

matttye

London50 wrote: »

As the OP states the letter is intention to prosecute I am taking it that it is for not having a valid ticket at the barrier. If that is the situation it will be a criminal matter and the risk of a criminal record,too many people use the excuse "I have lost my ticket" and proof of the purchase of a ticket is no defence as most rail t&c's as far as I know state you must have the ticket for the complete journey, so no ticket at the barrier IMO means you are not complying with those t&c's.
These days there are plenty of reports in local newspapers with criminal records for just these type of things. As I do not expect the OP to post just what will {or has} happened since posting I think it is just as well to put this one to bed

With respect, you're confusing the criminal and civil issues. The T&Cs of the rail company have no bearing on the criminal matter (apart from the decision whether to prosecute or not) - only the law does.

Proof of purchase of a ticket could go a long way towards defending an allegation of travelling with intent to avoid paying a fare. The prosecution have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you travelled with the intention of avoiding to pay for a fare, so if you can show that you actually did pay for a fare, then it would be much more difficult for them to prove. They would then have to show that you, for some reason, avoided paying for a fare having already paid for at least one. This would be harder than if there was no evidence that a ticket had been purchased.

yorkie2

notakid wrote: »

It means nothing. Remember a ticket is transferable. An open return will not have your name on it. You could, in theory give it to anyone......

They are "not transferable" but I agree that, in practice, what you say is true.

(Any name printed on the ticket would be the name of the purchaser anyway, who may or may not be the passenger)

DTDfanBoy

matttye wrote: »

With respect, you're confusing the criminal and civil issues. The T&Cs of the rail company have no bearing on the criminal matter (apart from the decision whether to prosecute or not) - only the law does.

Proof of purchase of a ticket could go a long way towards defending an allegation of travelling with intent to avoid paying a fare. The prosecution have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you travelled with the intention of avoiding to pay for a fare, so if you can show that you actually did pay for a fare, then it would be much more difficult for them to prove. They would then have to show that you, for some reason, avoided paying for a fare having already paid for at least one. This would be harder than if there was no evidence that a ticket had been purchased.

The railway company will most probably be seeking prosecution under Railway Byelaw 18

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter
any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a
valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity
when asked to do so by an authorised person.

This is a strict liability offence, the OP didn't produce a ticket when asked, the fact that they purchased a ticket has no relevance.

The OP should contact the railway company concerned and attempt to settle the matter before it goes to court

DTDfanBoy

katejo wrote: »

If I found myself in a situation similar to this (where I knew that I had paid for my ticket and had either lost it or been pickpocketed or accidentally left a travelcard at home - just examples), I would be very tempted to give a false name and address. Do the inspectors ask for proof of address? I wouldn't have such proof with me.
When I leave home in the morning or get off the train at the other end, my hand goes into my pocket to check that my Oystercard is there. On a longer journey I check tickets several times over!

I hope this case gets resolved without prosecution. I obviously couldn't work as a ticket inspector. I would want to give some passengers the benefit of the doubt, depending on circumstances.

You'd be incredibly stupid to give a false name and address, when detected the railway company would prosecute, I don't think any of them would consider settling outside of court in such circumstances.