The 'choices' in this case are with 'the railway'. It is true that prosecuting 'under 18s' is not a first choice, but it is 'available' to them. The points to prove the offence are all there, so it is time to ask if you can pay some form of settlement rather than going to Court. Write the railway a nice letter, apologise, tell them a little about your circumstances, promise them that it will never happen again. As one of the generation that seems to be thought of as a bank for my heirs, may I say that part of growing up is the taking of responsibility. I wonder if 'mum' may have left 'enough', but you failed to budget?

Perhaps he was carrying out research! One hopes that the authorised collector of penalty fares dotted all the correct 'i's. Now that laws regarding wheelclampers are changing, 'news' folk will be looking for a new (or recirculating an old) bete noir. The general public do like to read some 'jobsworth' stories, which tend to miss the point of why the 'jobsworth' is needed. I was interested to read that local authorities may stop some of their 'prosecuting the bin criminals' who put cola tins in the garden waste bin, so maybe it will again be the turn of the railway ticket inspector. Speed cameras are 'old news', and the press need to run the same story with a different 'authority' figure to lampoon.

I chewed this subject over with the 'local bloke'. There is a general, if not policy, idea that every September there will be a 'purge' near the stations where the college kids travel to. Young lasses with more make up that the rocky horror show, tattoos and boyfriends, all on their way to various very meaningful courses at the 'university' who will all claim to be 15, and therefore entitled to 'child tickets'. Inspectors, most of them being parents, some of them many time over, will 'smell a rat' and cheerfully run out of penalty fare notices before October. Just to make the point, those that nominate themselves by being less pleasant than average will be prosecuted 'pour encourager les autres'. Hopefully, by the time that they have watched 'Battleship Ptemkin', they will have got the idea that they need adult tickets, and things can get back to normal. Not too many law students at my local university, and apparently, maths, that is to say 2011 minus 15, is not a strong subject either. If you have parental responsibilty, please tell your children that fare dodging is a crime, and they are geting to the age where 'mum' may not be able to 'make it better'.

From discussions with and observations of railway prosecuting folk, they have more work than they can properly cope with. As such, the 'trick' seems to be to make it more easy for them to accept an out of court settlement than it is for them to prosecute the case. Reply to their letter. Most cases that my local line prosecute are the ones where the passenger simply ignored the 'process', which can be a bit like grannies old mangle. It will keep going, and if you get caught in it, it will slowly just pull you in. A reply which makes it clear that the 'passenger' is not taking the case seriously will cause the report to be thrown onto the 'pile' of work for 'court', a reply that makes it clear that 'settling' is going to be a long process will cause them to think '20 minutes to sort out the summons or 40 minutes to work through a system to recover the fares in installments?'. My local 'bloke' has several objectives with each case. In the main, they are to show that the passenger now knows that what they did was 'wrong', to recover fares that have been avoided and to cover the costs of the time involved in dealing with the case. He also does have a 'need' to prosecute a 'good' number of cases, but for you, the 'good news' is that there is no shortage of work, so unless there was an 'aggravating feature', that is to say 'unpleasantness' towards staff, he would then look for the 'quickest' way to move the report from the 'in tray' to the 'finished tray'. One thing that will almost certainly ensure a prosecution is a 'high handed letter' reminding him that last Whit Monday the train was late and you think that their service is rubbish, along with a comment on the line that 'I will not pay a penny towards your rediculous costs'. I would also not be pleased to have to try to rescue a case after such a position has been taken. For 'the accused', the thought process needs to be along the lines of looking for the least painful solution. Different train companies will have different 'costs', a normal out of Court settlement with my local company will often be much less than £100.00, but if they have been obliged to spend time trawling through CCTV or ticket machine records, they will look to recover the costs of the staff time. If the case does end up in Court, the costs will normally be awarded in full, and my local line will normally ask for £110.00, that is in addition to any fines or compensation for the fares 'avoided'. If the case took longer to prepare, the costs claim will 'go up'.

My local line does prosecute 'youths' in the Youth Court. If the notice is 'ignored', they would check with the local 'Youth Offending Team' who might deal with the matter by way of various levels of warning, or they might suggest, if she is a known offender, that the case be prosecuted. It can lead to a referral order, a supervision order, a fine or ultimately, if it is one of a line of offences, Youth Custody. I would suggest that the notice is 'paid'. I am fully aware that youngsters will get up to all sorts of mischief without thinking through the consequences, and that the 'goody two shoes' will be told by her mates that 'you never get caught' or 'they can't do you for it', but us old folk need to keep reminding them that they will get caught, and that the consequences 'grow' as time goes by. She needs to take responsibility for her own actions, this time it is the relatively minor matter of bunking a train fare, next time it may be having a puff on a naughty cigarette, or pinching make up from Boots or whatever. Parenting does give you grey hair!

Many people finding themselves on the sticky end of an accusation of fare avoidance get very 'twitchy', most, I am told, have no previous experience of the legal process. A person with 'no previous convictions' will be treated as such. The justice, or otherwise, of how they are treated will cause much confusion, and many will feel that the potential penalties are very harsh. The 'generally good person' probably has a job. As such, the Court will start to consider a level of fine at the declared weekly income. The result is that the 'generally good' often end up with a fine that is much more than the unemployable habitual offender. The 'well known offender' from last Wednesday is quite likely to end up having his fines 'remitted' (squashed) whilst he serves time for either the offence for which he has a suspended sentence already, or the offence for which he is about to be committed to the Crown Court. And he will cost you and I rather a lot to feed and water whilst he is 'inside'. Life, I fear, is simply not fair. However, penalising 'good' people is possibly (Probably?) more to do with sending a message to all of the other 'good' people that they know to 'stay good' than it is to do with changing the generally bad folk that I meet too frequently. I wasn't born 'cynical', life has just pushed me that way.

If and when cases like this find their way to a Magistrates Court, the Court may well take into account whether you had opportunities to deal with it 'outside' Court. My practical suggestion is 'pay' and put it behind you.

When people sit in my office with tales of woe, the first thing (actually, the second thing, the first is my hourly rates) that I tell them is to be honest with me, I find it difficult to help when I am missing a few facts. Since 1977, I would be stretched to think of a case where the truth is freely told at a first meeting, it tends to 'leak' from the accused as the evidence is presented. I think we all agree that the payment should not have been taken, but I also think that 'letting that issue go' may be the easiest solution to the issue of whether your daughter could be prosecuted, with all of the consequences, for what may be seen by some as a crime.

Only time will tell. I think that going with a bit of an open mind may be wise. 8 years of having season tickets, which are supported by photocards, might cause them to ignore your thought that you did not know that you cannot transfer tickets. Of course they will take notice of how much you have spent with them in the past, they will not want to criminalise a 'good customer'. But, do those tickets prove that you are a good customer, or a good 'fiddler'? I suspect that they will have already looked at your season ticket histories. Sometimes, it can be as well to offer the prosecution as little as possible, listen to their questions, which should be 'only' about the current transferred gold card issue, although they may caution again and look at other issues if any have been disclosed. By all means explore whether the case can be settled outside of Court, but ensure that you make it clear that you are looking to settle with 'the company' outside of Court, the question to an inspector 'is there another way we can settle this?' might be seen as an attempt to bribe the inspector. It will depend who is carrying out the interview whether this is something that they can discuss on the day.

Ladies, gents, are we at risk of 'personalising' this thread? Things are never 'black and white'. 'Fare dodging' must be considered, if in the same spectrum, lesser than criminal damage, the prosecution of fare dodging is 'summary only', shoplifting (theft) is 'triable either way'. That is to say, fare dodging is only heard in the Magistrates Court, theft can be heard in either 'Mags' or the Crown Court. Under the old rules of whether a country is socialist or not, it is normally considered that if a 'state' spends more than 25% of GDP, the country is socialist, and my own view of world history is that socialist countries are the ones where petty crimes are punished most severely. That is just a personal view. However, minor crime is often an indicator of a propensity to commit crime generally. (often, not always) As such, it may well be that paying attention to minor crime is very sensible. In one of my local Courts yesterday was a man I know well. He was there for 'bunking' a £2.10 fare. He had in his possesion at the time property which was probably shoplifted, and was 'committing offences whilst on bail'. I know him well, the Court is very familiar with him, and whilst he was there, a passing policeman asked me 'what is he here for?' as he too knows him well. It may well be that he has his liberty removed as a result of a prosecution by the local railway whilst currently on a 'suspended sentence' for theft and also on bail for another theft. It follows that the areas he lives and steals (incidentally, they are the same) will be a better place without him.

I think that the answer may be 'carefully'. Your daughter obtained discounted tickets which she was not entitled to, and showed a 'YP' card with a date partially rubbed off. I have seen and handled many different types of ticket on various different types of 'ticket stock'. It never ceases to amaze me that the only part that ever rubs off is the one part that 'matters'. It may be that your daughter was 'lucky' to get a penalty fare rather than being reported for prosecution. That said, it all seems rather wrong for a payment to be taken from another person's card. Without hearing a tape recording of the conversation, which does not exist, we do not really know what transpired between them. My practical advice is for you to recover your money from your daughter.

Whether it is 'extreme' to potentially ruin lives/careers and so on over a £5.00 fare, you need to remember that it is the actions of 'the offender' that are being examined, not the choices of the prosecuting authority.

'Mitigation' are any factors which will make the 'crime' seem less bad. If you try to think like a Magistrate, or 'the man on the Clapham omnibus', and look at what you think is mitigation, do those things make it less bad or more bad? The warning for anyone trying to reduce the impact of being found guilty, or pleading guilty, is that if your mitigation varies enormously from the truth, the prosecutor, and in some circumstances, the defence counsel, may leap to his or her feet and tell the Court that they are being misled.

As some of the regular readers will know, I am a great believer in 'railways'. As a solution to the nation's transport needs, and an alternative to 'cars', they are very important. As such, I feel that the way that the franchise holders exercise their temporary stewardship of the railway should be very closely scrutinised to ensure the best results for the nation. They, being 'businesses' are more interested in the best results for shareholders. Which is presumably why they seem to source some staff from the cheapest people possible. Let me make it clear that I know that a lot of staff on the railway are excellent, work hard, do a good job and so on. Which is why it is so galling when you find some people who really need a kick up the chuff. On Friday, I had to use my local station. The person attending to the automatic ticket gates was a disgrace. Unshaven, looked like he didn't own or use a comb, certainly doesn't have access to shoe polish. I bought a cheap day return, which is valid on the 9.19 service. I know this, the clerks and staff know this. The 'programmer' who sets the way that the gates work obviously does not know this. To get through the gates with a cheap day return prior to 9.30 requires that you 'seek assistance'. The scruffy oik took his time responding to my 'request for assistance', which begins to eat into my time to get tea from the cafe on the platform. (With my blocked arteries, I do not need stress triggers) His general mode of speech matches his attention to the dress code. I have read his companies manual on talking to customers, which he certainly did not follow. My normal English phlegm overrulled my desire to tell him that I am not his 'mate'. I did have time to wait for the following service, but I chose to meekly tolerate his generally poor behaviour, maybe what I should have done was explain to him that I would require to see his manager, and that I found him to be a disgrace. But, being a fairly regular passenger, I think 'waiting for the manager' would have taken rather longer than I had. Perhaps that is why this member of staff is so bad. The general annoyance was very mitigated on arrival at my destination. The chap on the gates there, a big but very gentle and polite man did all the right things, and did give me a customer comment form.

From your original post, I think 'they' have enough for the Section 5,3,a Regulation of Railways Act offence. At this stage, the choice is 'theirs', wait for their letter, see how the land lies.

The 'important' facts seem to be in 'the evidence', which would tend to make a defence difficult, but the omission of your explanation does give 'the defence' something to pick on. However, I feel that your explanation is 'only' mitigation, and as (after a guilty plea) mitigation is not normally challenged by 'prosecution', I do not think that it is a big issue. At this stage of process, I feel that the best that you can do is to attend Court, plead guilty, tell your version of events and then set out your 'income'.

I disagree. The 'facts' do not always need a caution to remain admissable as evidence. The points to prove are 'travelled by train', which is obvious from the fact that the OP arrived at a station without coming in from the street, and then asked for a ticket from 'the last stop'. 'Without previously paying the fare', the op waked up to the window and asked for a ticket. 'intending the avoid the (correct) fare'. The OP offered a fare from the previous station, where it sounds impossible to have got on without a ticket. Best practice required cautions, if the member of staff is 'regularly employed in detecting offences', but the lack of a caution does not negate the evidence.

Without seeing all of his record, it is hard to say. I think he would, at the worst, be fined. Avoid rail fare offences can carry 'prison', but only for 2nd & subsequent offences. When he comes out, he should be clear of any previous 'suspended' sentences and 'old fines', so I think that this would be seen as a 'fresh' matter. There is an argument that I have heard, but never used, that as 'the offence' was prior to 'custody', and could have been charged for hearing at the same time that he was given custody, there could be grounds for a dismissal. Could be, needn't be. The problem with advising in open forum is that we never do, and indeed should not, have all the facts. A rare time that I would say 'see a solicitor'.

A line near me makes comparisons between themselves and a continental rail system. I rather suspect that they hope that very few of their passengers have ever used a foreign railway. I cannot claim to be a regular user, but I have travelled on various European railways. Apart from graffitti on trains serving Brussels, and the sleeping drunks outside Limoges Benedictine, I have been unable to fault them. Perhaps that is why SNCF is in the running to break into the American market. In the dim distant past, British railway engineers could supply the world, now, it is the Chinese who look set to re-instate rail links across Africa. A foreign government considering heavy investment in a rail system may well take note that our stations are dirty, the best trains that we have are predominantly 'foreign' built, and large chunks of our infrastructure has names that most certainly are not 'British'. 'Plasser-Theurer' is not a name you will find on many graves in Swindon, nor Scheidt and Bachman in Doncaster.

My standard advice is to 'not commit crime', however, there remains a number of folk who will break laws. My second line of advice is to seriously consider taking a deep breath and admit the offence, it draws some of the sting from 'what happens next'. It is no fun to enter 'not guilty' pleas when the only possible outcome is a finding of guilt. It has always been my experience that Courts and prosecuting authorities are far more charitable when there is a clear acceptance that what has been done should not have been done, and a display of remorse.

Of course, you rail professionals will know that when the evidence is solid, the only 'wriggle' left to the defence is to attack the behaviour of the inspector and the quality of thw written statement. I don't suppose that when a passenger makes a fuss about being caught, perhaps submitting complaints and counter accusations, you have ever considered being more meticulous than usual in the preparation of the paperwork to deny a grey haired advocate the chance of even doing that?

From the tone of your posts, it is easy to see that you are not an old 'jail bird', who would currently be totally unconcerned by the whole thing. I agree with the idea that there are sevearl different charges that could be laid, but the probability is that the railway will stick to what it knows best, which is the 'avoid rail fare' issue. Privately, they may have all manner of theories, but the only thing that counts are the matters that they can actually demonstrate. Until you are contacted by them, please try to relax. Even when you do get a letter from Virgin, keep it in perspective. The issue is a train fare, not murder.

'Next', the railway will consider if they can 'prove' that it was you. They will look at 'how' you were identified, and the 'quality' of that identification. Were 'documents' shown that proved it was you? It is just a feeling, but if they are 'inviting' you to go and see them, I wonder if the value of fares avoided was particularly high, or if the nature of the offence was 'more than' just avoiding a fare. If you do not 'play their game', the only way that they can 'force' you to meet them would be to raise a summons, wait for your 'not guilty' plea and oblige you to turn up for a trial. That can be avoided by you attending, meeting the Inspector, who (hopefully) will say 'that isn't him'. It is for 'them' to prove that it was you, not your problem to prove that it wasn't, but there is an'easy way' and a 'hard way'. I am always in favour of the easy way. Equally, if there is a person who can effectively impersonate you, it may be in your best interests to assist Virgin to work out who he is. He may have only 'bunked a fare' this time, but next time it could be obtaining credit, or worse.

As this thread develops, there are several issues emerging. The risk to 'brother' is that his 'good name' has now attracted a mention. He currently stands accused of using a transferred ticket. He needs to do something about that, unless 'daughter' takes care of the issue. Daughter has the difficulty of explaining the 'loss' of her season ticket. 'The Railway' may well be able to make the link, and work out who the 'boyfriend' is. If they do 'work it out', boyfriend may well be back at liberty, and therefore easily prosecuted. It is probably true that the railway would not seek a production order to get 'boyfriend' to Court if he were 'inside' at the time of hearing, but the Court would be very likely to allow an adjournment to a date after his 'short' custodial sentence is over. I still feel that the best course of action is to 'tell the truth'. From time to time, the devil needs to be shamed.

I think that was a tad harsh. What she needs to think about is that continuing a lie turns 'bunking a fare' into conspiracy to defraud. I suggest that 'the boyfriend' comes clean, takes whatever 'punishment' is coming, and puts the issue behind him.