Oh, Rebel! Please don't admit to reading the Metro, it is only given away at railway stations for people to put on the seat so that when they put their feet on the seat they do not leave muddy marks. Have you ever felt that Nemi is your own 22 year old daughter?

As a result of work commitments, I found myself at Basildon last week. (When I say 'found myself', this is not an exploration of mysticism and the teachings of the Bhuddha, 'I was there'.) Asterix is right, the station has a general air of delapidation, bits of what are clearly 'railway land' is litter strewn and disgraceful, and the clock outside is stuck. The question is 'what to do about it'. The train operator has just published the results of the passenger satisfaction survey, which 'proves' that the majority of people think that their stations are clean and wonderful. If you disagree, use their 'comment forms' and tell the railway about your views. When you are asked if you have five minutes to do a survey, don't bury your head in your Catherine Cookson, answer the questions. Write to the local papers, your local Council and even your MP. All companies, including train operators, publish the address for their company secretary. If you haved 'issues', write to them.

As to 'bonuses' paid to staff, my local railway does not link 'prosecution' numbers to the staff appraisal bonuses. That said, if a member of the revenue protection team was simply lazy, I assume that they would not get their appraisal bonus. I do hear rumours that another 'east London' railway may have a scheme that requires that staff submit a target number of prosecution reports. However, there are enough people who throroughly deserve to be reported that I do not think that it has any impact on their judgement. (My opinion, others may disagree)

It sounds like the time for grovelling was November, and it may now be too late. I am familiar with prosecution work by my local railway, the majority of people prosecuted did not answer the various enquiry letters. That said, misuse of Freedom passes is seen as being towards the serious end of fare dodging, and it may be that they would not have settled anyway. You could try writing a 'very sorry' letter. I would suggest that you stick to your situation, and do not mention the 'ones that got away', in my view (and others may disagree) they are not relevant to what you did, and pointing them out will not endear you to the prosecution team. I further suggest that your letter contains a candid insight into your life. Explain why you were not thinking straight. Prosecutors generally do not like to put a person into Court if it is obvious that the Court are going to ask 'why are you adding to this unfortunate person's suffering'. Do not like to, but still will if the case is 'compelling'. If the matter does proceed to Court, I see no harm in mum coming along too. But think about whether mum will help or hinder your case. I know a few mothers that will manage to get themselves locked up as well! The Court will not tell your employer, but, if the offence is charged under Section 5,3,a of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (This will be shown on the summons), it is recordable on the 'Criminal Record'. It is likely that in your conditions of employment there is a clause requiring that you tell your employer of the case. Some employers will require that they are informed at the point when it becomes clear that the case could be going to Court. Have a discreet chat with one of your union reps. It may even be that your union will fund a solicitor to defend you. Properly defended, if you have clear 'issues' going on in your life, clear and compelling issues, the Court might be minded to absolutely discharge the matter. Might, might not. Don't forget that Courts hear all manner of 'stories', many of which are clear fabrications.

A conviction for a byelaw offence is not 'the end of the world', especially when it is 'feet on seats'. It has no suggestion that you assualted anyone, or acted in any obscene or grossly offensive manner. Yes, it would be better not to have a conviction at all, but don't get too hung up over it. I am interested to know if anybody knows how succesful Merseyrail are with their 'costs' claims. The Courts in south Essex regularly award the local line £65.00 costs on a byelaw offence, and £110.00 on the more serious and recordable 'Sec 5 RRA' offences. If you do go to Court in Greater Manchester, it might not be wise to tell them about 'Essex Magistrates', as a Magistrates Court is not bound by the decision of 'another Magistrates Court', but I do wonder if there is an argument to be made that the costs claim is excessive. 'Costs' should not be 'punitive', nor should they generate 'profit'. The claim should reflect the costs of the preparation of the case, and should have some form of breakdown as to how the figure was reached. From various posts, threads and press articles, it does seem that Merseyrail push a lot of cases into Court, and I wonder if their costs could, through reasoned argument, be pegged back a bit.

As an aside, both Collins and Majewski were 'Essex' cases. Both have some elements of comedy woven in to the awful nature of the crimes being scrutinised.

Even Colonel Mitchell walked out of 'The Crater'. I do urge you to take all of your papers to a solicitor, just to have an eye run over them. If you have to walk away from this action, you will not have the pipes & drums playing you home.

The guilt or otherwise of your daughter is central to the whole issue. If she is guilty, but you are seeking to use a JR to negate the case, you may find yourself in fairly hot water. When I used the phrase 'levels of mens rea', it was from a background of concept and thought of many and variou offences. There is an element of 'guilty mind' in offences where that guilty mind only has to be 'reckless as to whether' an accident happened, or an injury occurred. The mens rea for 'avoid rail fare', Sec 5,3,a (or b) RRA 1889 can be very fleeting. It can be that a passenger, walking towards the excess window with money in their hand, suddenly has an impulse, maybe the clerk looked away, and just keeps walking, whereas Sec 1 Theft Act 1968, the guilty mind intends to permanently deprive the owner of property. Legal cases can focus on very fine points. Recommended reading is R v Collins. Never mind the outcome, but study the process by which the fine point was identified and discussed. It also has some relevance on the difference between 'acts preparatory' and 'attempted'. As the noble Judge indicated, we do not need to consider whether you should keep your socks on.

What a wonderful image. Sadly, I am not in that one! I am not camera shy, just that most camera owners are concerned about frightening their children. For the serious (miniature) anoraks, please note that the track is dual guage. Think how many more excuses that can generate! The club has tracks for 3 1/2", 5" elevated, 5" ground level and 7 1/4" guage locomotives. Don't tell 'real railways' about driver's pay though. The drivers bring their own trains and pay for the privilege of driving them. The insurance company insist that all trains have a guard, and that the platform will be staffed whenever passenger trains are being run. Bit of a contrast to full size practice. The nearest 'mainline station' doesn't have any staff on site until some time after the first train, and staff leave site long before the last one.

My favourite railway has one price for all classes, at any time of day. Admittedly it doesn't go very far, but all of the passengers enjoy the ride, and return every Sunday. Instead of clicking on links to the Daily Mail, you could search for the Canvey Railway on the internet. I hasten to add that I have no connection or financial interest with that superb outfit. My local mainline claims to run 90something % of trains on time. Canvey run 100%, as they don't have a timetable. Trains do sometimes have difficulties with slugs on the rail head though.

Don't get desparate, it is not the end of the world as we know it if you are convicted. That letter does look a bit 'final', but I suppose that there is no harm in writing a 'thank you for your letter', and point out your remorse. It may also be a 'trick', although others may have different views, to include a cheque to the value of their costs claim and the avoided fare, made payable to LU, which may make it easier for them to accept a settlement than all of the trouble of returning your cheque and still prosecuting.

For further light reading, I suggest 'elastic deformation of steel'. Dew is a pretty good lubricant, and therefore quite likely to upset a round steel wheel on a flat steel rail. You might also wish to read 'conicity of rail wheels' and how to calculate root radius between tyre and flange. Or you can stick to the Daily Mail. Is Fred still going? I know Flook retired some years ago.

Or you could have gone to your local station, spoken with a nice young lady (OK, an old biddy, fat bloke, whatever) and got the service that you required. And helped keep the unemployment statistics down.

For the levels of 'mens rea' (Guilty mind) required in 5,3,a offences, please read carefully the footnotes in Stones. Of course the prosecution have to prove mens rea for a 5,3,a offence, but the actions can be used to demonstrate the intention to avoid the fare at the point when it was due. The phrase that you need to understand is that 'there is no requirement to import the intention to permanently deprive'. Old Codja will correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that part of the judgement in Corbyn v Saunders? This law has been tried and tested for many years. There are a whole raft of related cases. I understand the desire to chase justice all the way through the system, I understand the desire to protect one's own family. But when my children were little, I also always felt a need to fully understand what the alleged offences were, and how big the teacher was, before 'going up the school'. I wish you luck, but I urge you to tread carefully.

The criminal attempts act definition is useful, but of course, section 5,3,a of the regulation of railways act covers 'or attempts'. Without reading the evidence, we may not accurately define the point when we think that the attempt was 'complete'. Oysters, including Freedom passes, can be used without getting them out and displaying them. I am uneasy that the OP may be barking up some wrong trees, and my honest opinion is to go and visit a criminal defence solicitor and get some solid advice before plunging into litigation. I would suggest a provincial firm, not one of the ambulance chasers, but one that will give honest opinion. People tell me that I am a clever bloke, well, maybe, but any 'cleverness' that I may display is generally after I have been and checked with a much cleverer bloke, just to make sure that when I launch into a lengthy argument, I don't look silly when the other side says 'but it was Thursday'. (Or whatever it was that I have missed.) I do urge a 'second opinion'.

I fear that the whole world will not 'scream as one'. Most of the world is too concerned with self interest and trivia, and never considers the consequences of their own actions. They never look deeper than the 'headline', and never examine whether the headline accurately reflects the story. Whether the story is 'human rights' in Uganda, or oil exploitation in the Niger Delta, or the supposed rights and wrongs of the 'intervention' in Iraq, the man on the Clapham omnibus is still more concerned with football and the price of fish in Tescos. Where was the 'world' when Saddam Hussein was lodging complaints against Kuwait for illegal slant drilling, and the robbing out of Iraqi oil reserves? When he went to 'the right forum', he was ignored. What does the 'world' know, or care, about what happens in Mogadishu to African peace keepers captured by rebels? Ugandan soldiers tortured by children, dragged lifelessly around the streets? What of the terrible and long term effects of 'depleted uranium' ammunition, so vigourously fired into targets in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and every other theatre that western forces fight in? I regret that I do not get very excited about the fate of one woman, in Persia or elsewhere, when the most powerful nations in the world are doing such wholesale damage to the environment of the whole planet. And the man next to me on the train is reading about football.

As the offence did not involve 'driving', you do not need to fill in 'vehicle' details, but you do need to put your National Insurance number on. A very high number of defendants in 'minor' matters like this end up with penalties being deducted from benefits. Fine defaulters are costing 'the system' huge amounts. The form MC100 is part of the 'collection' process. It is also very important for it to be filled in correctly such that penalties imposed are 'fair' in relation to the particular defendant.

If I read the story correctly, the passenges were 'marched off' at their destination. (Please correct me if I misunderstood that) They were not deposited at a mid way station where the next train would be next Thursday. That 'police' assisted suggests that the train manager had been unable to obtain sufficient details for an unpaid fare notice. I have often examined 'why' police attended or failed to attend, and in the first instance, they would have needed a solid reason. The whole matter could have been dealt with, on the train, by the train crew. All they needed was 'the tickets', names and addresses, and they would have or could have issued an 'unpaid fare' notice. Virgin will be effectively prevented from commenting until any potential legal action has been concluded, whereas the passengers seem quite content to 'go public' with the story.

Why was this case found guilty at the Magistrates Court in the first instance?

The first issue to be examined was the first hearing at the Magistrates Court. Did your daughter respond to the summons? If not, why not? If she did, what was the outcome? Was the decision of the Magistrates Court challenged by an appeal at the Crown Court? There were opportunities for the allegation of fare dodging to be challenged in 2007. If there are good reasons why they were not, then the first recourse is to apply to a Crown Court for leave to appeal out of time. A Crown Court Judge will listen to 'the argument', and has the authority to allow an appeal. You need to exhaust the 'proper' processes before escalating the action.

And there I was thinking that I could write all my dreams and memories in threads about fare dodgers being prosecuted!

I ceased to trust the fifth estate when a friend of mine was killed in a flying accident. The 'sundays' picked up the story, it happened on a Saturday afternoon, and they cheerfully printed a lot of speculation, all couched in terms like 'a witness said' so that they could not be held liable. When the CAA published the full accident report, it was old news, and the press did not feel a need to print the established facts. They did not even print the checkable facts which were available on the day of the accident, admittedly that was in the pre internet days, but there were enough people who could tell you all about inverted running of Gypsy Major engines in those days that they could have avoided most of the innacuracies. My views were reinforced after another fatal flying accident, involving an aircraft that I knew well (I did not know the pilot), again, they printed a lot of speculation, and again failed to publish the accident report.

There are accusations of 'corruption' floating around, and I take a view that some 'railway company' practices may not be as honourable as they should be. However, the one area where I find the accusation laughable is in 'prosecution'. It is one activity undertaken by railways that is exposed to scrutiny by a body that is not allowed to be 'partial'. Magistrates that hear 'railway' cases must not have any financial or emotional interest with the 'railway'. If the outcome of the case at the Magistrates Court was not 'right', it can be heard on appeal at the Crown Court. I have yet to meet a Judge who is frightened to pass judgement on the 'worthiness' of a case. I have not met a Judge who could be corrupted. (That isn't to say that there aren't any, just that I have never met one) The whole process of prosecution in Criminal Courts is far better scrutinised than, for example, passenger satisfaction surveys.

Incidentally, seeing the 'Railway' chap on a Monday, which at that Court is 'trials day', I engaged in the usual friendly banter, and suggested to him that he would be out in time for coffee. Then he was whisked away by 'defence Counsel', in a usual pre trial sledging custom. The very simple issues of 'failing to show a ticket', 'giving false name' and interfering with the comfort of a person on the railway', in this instance pushing the TI, turned into a four hour trial. I cannot begin to imagine how that happened, and did take the time to ask afterwards 'what was that all about'. The evidence was apparently pretty straightforward, but Defence looked for every 'wriggle' known to man, and a few that aren't. It boiled down to 'prosecution' sticking to the 'points to prove' and having the evidence neatly lined up. There were accusations of fabrication, bullying, overt racism and intimidation. However, the plain evidence, which was not discredited, was solid. I did not hear the case, and will not therefore give opinion specific to that case, but often, 'defence' tries to rely on issues that have nothing to do with the charge, and generally, the principal of 'stick to the point' is the way to go. Of course, that particular prosecutor may have had, over the many years he has been 'performing', wisdom imparted by some very wise old birds. As well as the odd 'kicking' which can be a very good way of learning how to avoid pitfalls. One of his witnesses suggested that he had actually gone to sleep during defence. The long and the short of it is that he would probably not gone to first hearing if the case wasn't 'solid', and he certainly would not have gone to trial on a 'not guilty plea' without a pretty certain 'win', and he had the time to 'think it over' with 'defence' before the trial started. The 'guarantee' of his not proceeding with an unfair case is that he will be back in front of those same Magistrates (on Friday) and will not want them to think that he is not a reasonable man. Defence Counsel had never previously been to that Court, and is likely to never go there again. In other posts, I have often suggested that if you feel a need for a 'brief', you should get one of the regular performers from that Court.

Well, that is one side of the story.