I wanted to give you all an update to to thank you again for the earlier posts, when I noticed that two more Caggers added new posts (to whom I am grateful) and to whom I'd lke to respond: i) the strict liability still stands - indefensible ii) I do not see 'the RPI had originally offered an opportunity to accept a Penalty Fare Notice' as an offer nor an opportunity. [However, if that is the legal terminology used, it seems 'skewed' in favour of the company]. Instead, I perceived the that RPI had made a foregone conclusion that he was issuing me a penalty.... end of/without discussion. iii) I didn't swear or make any offensive comment - and neither did he.... it was the total behaviour (raised voice, increase vocal pitch, frowning and snarling by the RPI, in front of all passengers) that I propose could be conceived as more-than-just offensive, but threatening as well. iv) I did not propose 'awkward' as a term, in the first instance. I merely posed that such would be the case if the definition extended to include 'asking questions about [due] process and what the RPI was doing'. v) 'unless no facilities were available' - apparently there were facilities on board, at the time and during the time of travel (based on the statements laid by the prosecution - they said that they made regular anouncements about a) holding a valid ticket; and b) that they were in the middle of the train if anyone needed assistance. I would agree to point a) refute point b). Update: I contacted the Prosecution department. They - understandably - challenged me, sternly warned me about future travel arrangements by train, but finally offered a non-negotiable settlement. I quickly jumped at the opportunity and was told that the case will be dropped, after relieving me of an certain noticeable amount from my visa debit card. I want to say that I have much appreciated your advice and direction and have taken some lessons away with me. Three, which stand out are: ...Lesson one: buy the valid ticket (with appropriate dates, times, carriage) before travel.... or obtain permission (obtaining proof, such as an upgrade ticket, in the meantime) from the correct 'authorised person'; ...Lesson two: Know your rights and obligations; and ...Lesson three: don't ask too many questions Kind regards to all

I accept the strict liability type of the offences now. And yes, I did say "no" when he asked for my address (since I'd already shown my named photo id) once he said that the issue was no longer a penalty notice, but rather a report . However, I said "no" to the report and pleaded to pay the penalty fine, to which he replied "It's too late for that" - his behavior tantamount to bullying and scare-mongering. That is when a passenger intervened and asked the RPI take the matter elsewhere. Thank you for all of your posts. Also, after reding posts on several other threads, I have a much clearer idea about my rights and obligations (in specific relation to Bye laws no.s 19 and 23 (1). I shall keep you all informed.

Thank you for your replies thus far and, yes, if asking questions about process and what the RPI was doing, you can safely assume that I had become awkward. As an aside - I admit, when someone challenges or charges me (as in this case), I feel I have a right to know a) under what reasons they are charging me and b) what the procedure is. Even the police have to expressly state such reasons and procedure - along with the challengee/ chargees rights and obligations. I received none of that, until begged answers to the questions. Importantly, does that mean that both byelaws (ie. 19 and 23(1)) are strict liability offences? If so, then I may not have a 'leg to stand on'. What kind of mitigating circumstances could I give to the court, if I appeared with either a "guilty" or "not guilty" plea?. I know that the RPI and guards have a job to do, but if they are rude and increasingly malicious in their 'interview' count - not as a mitigating circumstance to the offence - but as to situation which gave rise to it? There have been erroneous and misleading statements and omissions made on the witness statements (filed by the prosecution department), which don't match with my recall of the events - nor my statement to the prosecution departent. These include, not stating the he was an RPI and not a Guard (with a ticket issuing device), the procedure, what I was obligated to provide, nor what the RPI was entitled to receive from me). I asked for an upgrade... nothing more.... operating under a misunderstandiing that I could buy one on the train. In relation to Bye law 19 - I couln't get up from the seat since he was standing over me, whilst I became "awkward" by asking whether or not they carried issuing devices on the train (again, to which he said "No.") He still did not give me any explanation about procedure. In relation to By law 23 (1) - I gave my travel photo i.d. upon request, for the RPI to inspect, only for him to ask for further i.d. I didn't have any, so I said so. His reply was "I don't believe you." [Now that, very much gave me great cause for concern] What became obvious, was that his tone of voice became raised (bearing in mind it was a confined space, it seemed a) immediately after me requesting an upgrade, said "No." he said "I'm issuing you with a penalty, I.D." b) told me that they don't have a ticket issuing devices on board (which directly conflicts with their witness statements) c) challenged why I was sitting in First Class [i.e. I accept the fact of the challenge but not the tone of voice] d) Although there was a Guard, he didn't appear at all in the carriage (for the 40 or so minutes that preceeding the "interview" nor after) e) There was no announcement to say that the Guard was on board, nor that he had a ticket issuing device f) All throughout the "interview" this is what I noticed about this particular RPI: i) his voice was 'loud' and consistent - his pitch had increased notably.... ii) he seemed either angry or at least very frustrated at my questions (which I made to him, only to understand what was happening) iii) didn't notice or care that a firs class passenger had been standing almost 5-10 minutes while he interviewed me. - Why didn't he remove me from the carriage first to both allow the passenger to take the seat and continue the "interview" in a more civil fashion. In fact he didn't remove me from the carriage untl until after another passenger intervened and asked the RPI to take the issue somewhere else. iv) he accused me of lying (in front of the entire carriage) by saying "I don't believe you!" v) and he shouted "I'm not apologising" when he misheard me beg my apologies ("Apologies") to the passengers in the carriage. He obviousl thought that I was demanding an apology from him - which makes no sense. This was all so surreal and humiliating. Do some RPIs blatantly intimidate passengers on purpose? Why? I was dressed in a suit, with laptop - not like some under-dressed thug. (no offence intended). What should I do? Should I enter a plea of "Not Guilty" and fight the allegations or "Guilty"? [At the moment, I am much of a mind to fight my corner - but the strict liability nature of the offence could dissuade me] Do I contact the court for proceedings information? Do I contact the prosecution department, begging their forgiveness and offering to sette out of court? Do I contact a lawyer? Please, more advice

Thank you Honeybee13 and RPI. Yes, it would appear that by asking questions I became awkward. I appreciate the point about taking first class abuse very seriously. Does this mean that both byelaws are strict liability. If so then I don't think that I have a 'leg to stand on'. Question: What about mitigating circumstances for the court? Can the abrupt and menacing behaviour of the RPI be such a circumstance? 1) In relation to Byelaw No. 19 - I had no choice but to remain in the seat whilst the RPI was answering and questioning me - he was blocking me in so that I couldn't get up; (I had no idea about the procedure and the RPI did not outline a) by what reason they were questioning me, b) my obligations under those reasons, nor c) what information he was entitled to ask. Instead went directly into "...I'm issuing you with a penalty notice." 2) In relation to Byelaw No. 23 (1) - I produced my travel photo i.d. immediately, when he'd asked. To which he then asked for another form of i.d.. I said that I didn't have one, to which he replied, "I don't believe you." (What else could I done to identify myself?) 3) All the while, the entire carriage had continued to fill up, insomuch that a first class passenger with a valid ticket, was still standing whilst the RPI questioned me. 4) He didn't remove me from the carriage until another passenger interrupted and requested that he 'take the issue, somewhere else'. As I did, under his direction, gather my belongings and leave the carriage, I apologised to the passengers in the carriage ("Apologies."), to which he said in a raised voice "I'm not apologising!". 5) He did not allow me to pay the penalty fine... by saying "It's too late for that, now." 6) His treatment of made me feel that he was deliberately singling me out, chastising and making a public example of me. My conclusion of this is that his actions became malicious 7) He failed to meet his organisation's charter, i.e. to provide their customers with "Friendly, helpful and polite staff". I know this seems one-sided, but it was such a surreal and humiliating experience. Actions: What should I do? Should I plead guilty? Should I try to settle out of court, by begging on the mercy of the Prosecution department? Should I contact the Court? Should I contact a lawyer? Further thoughts and direction would be greatly appreciated.

Hi folks, I dearly need some advice. Yesterday, I received a letter, summoning me to appear before the Magistrates Court on Monday to answer alleged offences under Byelaws No. 19 and No. 23 (1). I'm very worried. I had previously correspondended with the Prosecutions department (i.e. confirming my details and listing mitigating factors) but heard nothing back, until the summons. The background to the summons was that I was travelling in the First Class cabin without a valid ticket, hoping that I could get an upgrade. The carriage was empty when I got on [and for 10 stops, thereafter] and believing that since my trip was 58 minutes long that a Commercial Guard or Revenue Inspector would have asked for 'tickets'. The problems started that the eleventh stop. The carriage suddenly filled, and along came the Inspector. When I asked for an upgrade, the inspector said 'No.' I asked whether or not they had ticketing machines on board.... to which their reply was 'No.' [nb: Ironically in the inspector's witness statement mentioned that their duties included 'issuing tickets']. The inspector clearly didn't like my questions... Any way a penalty notice quickly became a report - which seemed disproportionate and unecessary. Needless to say, I felt like I was being treated like a criminal. This is the first time that this has happened to me and I'd like to know whether or not I should plead guilty. Are these strict liability offences or do they require intent? What would be the case if one or both applies? Please help. Anxious