Sorry, only just looked in, sometimes they are long days at Court on this side of the room too!

Not a lot that can be added, good luck with speaking to the prosecutor, make sure you attend with good time to spare before the Court session begins because cases involving attenders are always dealt with first.

Thank you guys. Josh, I hope that's helped.

HB

Hi Guys,

firstly just want to say a big thank you to the guys on this forum, especially those who have posted on here and assisted me with my problem and worry.

I attended court this week at 10am.

Had to wait quiet a while as they were a fair few people who had to be seen.

I had a word with the TFL prosecutor before the case who was also acting as a clerk.

She was nice enough to listen and hear me out.

I stated everything I had to and was genuinely sorry and ensured she understood this.

I genuinely felt the prosecutor would not give me any of their time but she went and got my file and gave me time to explain and get my message across, I was very nervous.

Following this she confirmed that there was nothing that could be done regarding the case and no settlement was possible, she stated I had already been rejected by email and despite the fact she understood she confirmed that was their position.

I thanked her for her time and let her know it was important for me to have just been able to speak to her and at least i knew i had tried.

She also informed me that the majority of people there were being charged with the main charge (Rora) and I had been charged with a 'byelaw' charge which she described as a lesser offence - strict liability (as opposed to dishonesty or fare evasion)

She confirmed that I would be fined accordingly 'Band A' based on the charge.

I was called in and pleaded guilty, and said my piece.

The magistrates stated that they had noted my early guilty plea and also remorse and apology and taken this into account.

I was fined the following:

£75 fine

£6.30 for ticket to TFL

£90 for tfl/court fees (not sure-she spoke really quickly)

£15 victim surcharge

= £186.30

I expected the fine to be much more hence was a little surprised, especially as I had seen a number of Freedom pass cases on here worth a great deal more.

I also didn't understand why they did not charge me with fare evasion and the main act, im guessing this must be due to the evidence I provided.

I asked them about the byelaw and whether recordable etc and criminal records however the prosecutor stated they were not sure (brilliant)

bottom line im glad its over, im glad its behind me and im glad I can learn and move on.

Thankyou to all those on here who helped me, OC,HB,firstclass... genuinely appreciate it and would urge you to continue doing so as for a lot of lost souls you provide help which we would otherwise never have.

Thanks Guys, from reading on here for 6 months I decided I MUST post an outcome as you guys always request, and when you read a thread with no outcome cos the OP has legged it after getting your help, its annoying, rude and frustrating wanting to know what happened.

Well there it is guys, that's how it ended for me.

Word of advice for all those out there in similar positions, read around here, get all the advice from the very helpful knowledgeable members and learn from your mistakes, nothing in this world is for free, we live and learn, if you can afford to pay fines you can afford to pay a railfare, I learnt this the hard way.

Thanks again. (iambilly give it up mate)

Extremely surprised the prosecutor wouldn't settle.

I'm also a bit confused about the prosecutor being acting as a "clerk". Are you saying the TfL prosecutor was also employed by the court?

Hello again.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm a bit confused about what the outcome was too, but I think you did a great job with negotiating on the day.

Please consider staying around here, using other forums and advising other people on this one based on your experience.

My best, HB

Yup she would not settle, stated the whole freedom pass thing was big fish etc... and she stood by the fact that they had already stated where they stood by email and unfortunately she wouldn't be able to change that. I was gutted but expected it.

and the clerk thing basically - Ii asked her if I could speak to the TFL prosecutor as she was taking names of people who had arrived. She stated she was the TFL prosecutor and was only taking names (clerk duites) as the clerk was not present.

So bottom line the outcome was the fine as stated above and conviction of the byelaw offence. Hope that clarifies things guys. I did ask them about the byelaw and criminal records but they wernt sure - which inspires great confidence

Anyway thanks for your kind words HB appreciate them, will endeavour to stay around and help others

"Although convicted, it will not show on a standard criminal record,

but it will on an enhanced record check.

If you are a policeman, lawyer, nurse, teacher etc, civil service, then they all require an "enhanced" check.

Equally, the US Embassy could also check the record if/when you apply for any visas etc".

This - technically - has nothing to do with this thread, but it sparked my interest for another reason.

The 'US Embassy' cannot 'check' the record of anyone; what happens is that you have to apply to ACPO for an output of your criminal record if you're applying for a Non-Immigrant Visa.

The US - along with many other Countries - Canada, Aus/NZ, etc - now ask on landing cards whether you've been convicted of any offences and if, like me, you lied and said no but subsequently got found out, then you wont get in without a Visa interview.

I would point out that if you've ever travelled to the US and on the landing card where it says have you ever been arrested or convicted of any offence of Moral Turpitude (MT) and said no and the truth is opposite then you could be on dangerous ground if they pull you for interview at the Border.

I always said 'no' to the turpitude question as it sounded to me like, well, nasty stuff and I've never gone anywhere near there.

However, I found out to my cost that MT means ANY offence of dishonesty - including our old friend, drink-driving.

I always said 'no' to the turpitude question as it sounded to me like, well, nasty stuff and I've never gone anywhere near there. However, I found out to my cost that MT means ANY offence of dishonesty - including our old friend, drink-driving.

...and fare evasion/avoidance!

...and fare evasion/avoidance!

Unfortunately, so

Hi my name is Hash and I’m also going through exactly what josh is going through I just wanted to ask will I be getting a criminal record or should I try my best like josh and pay the remaining fines

Hi my name is Hash and I’m also going through exactly what josh is going through I just wanted to ask will I be getting a criminal record or should I try my best like josh and pay the remaining fines

Hello and welcome to CAG.

Please start a new thread of your own and tell us what happened to you.

Tagging onto someone else's old thread doesn't work.

Best, HB