London Underground

[Wriggler7]

You also think that you have a good chance with this case. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. I think that they would have no difficulty in satisfying the Court that it was you that was spoken to. All Inspectors and prosecutors know all about 'Turnbull', and you did have your brothers card. If you base your entire defence on 'it wasn't me', you would miss any chances to say later, 'it was me, but I didn't want to avoid the fare'.

 

If they are willing to settle that matter for just £60.00, my inclination would be to 'swallow'. Pay it, put it behind you. Your alternative, to have your day in Court, will potentially cost you 6 times that as well as the time and trouble of attending.

[Grotesque]

I forgot to say earlier, and Wriggler7 touched on it that if you deny it was you that were stopped, as he says they will have taken the deatils of your brother's Oyster card down: so they know his name and address. Difficult to claim it wasn't you if (for example) you have the same surname and live at the same address. Your student oyster is also registerd to you so it will not be difficult tio cross-reference the info.

 

On the otherhand, if they 'accept' it wasn't you, you would then be liable to the far more serious (and imprisonable) offence of theft of that Oyster card.

[Old-CodJA]

How can you get a hold of the evidence they have against you? The inspectors notes that you signed?

Does it matter if the are 2yrs old? Do they still have them?

 

Yes, if the case was put before the Court, which it must have been for a fine to be ordered, the papers will still be available for several years yet.

 

If you make a statutory declaration that 'you didn't know about the prosecution', the Court will notify the prosecutor.

 

The likelihood is that if they feel the case was strong enough in the first place, TfL will simply re-issue a Summons requiring you to respond or attend Court and they will start the prosecution again.

 

.

[saraheve]

Thank you very much Old-CodJA.

How do I get information about the case? Like what was said by who etc?

 

Yes, if the case was put before the Court, which it must have been for a fine to be ordered, the papers will still be available for several years yet.

 

If you make a statutory declaration that 'you didn't know about the prosecution', the Court will notify the prosecutor.

 

The likelihood is that if they feel the case was strong enough in the first place, TfL will simply re-issue a Summons requiring you to respond or attend Court and they will start the prosecution again.

 

.

[saraheve]

Am I better off contacting TFL directly?

[Old-CodJA]

Thank you very much Old-CodJA.

How do I get information about the case? Like what was said by who etc?

 

If a new Summons is issued, you will receive a copy of the statement/s containing the evidence upon which the original case was / is based along with all the relevant notices regarding the Court process.

 

If you haven't already made a Statutory declaration, the penalty imposed by the Court is still your liability.

 

If you have, then TfL will send you the papers along with their new Sunmmons advising the new hearing date.

 

You can write to the prosecution unit and ask for a copy before then if you wish.

[Ochola90]

Hmm peoples views are interesting... Has anyone successfully challenged TFL prosecution case and being successful?

[Wriggler7]

The short answer is 'yes'.

 

'Cases' are challenged all the way through the process, and all of the 'prosecutors' that I know are quite happy to 'think again' before taking a case to Court.

 

All of us make mistakes, and the time to think on the quality of evidence, or the 'need' for a case to go to court or not, is most definately before walking into the Court room.

 

All 'officers of the Court', prosecutors, defence briefs, probation officers and so on, will at some time in their life been made to feel very foolish in front of a Bench, and I still can feel the sweat that ran down my back when I was carefully dissected in Chelmsford Crown, even though it is many years ago.

 

As such, it is my experience that any prosecutor with more than a fortnight's experience will be very sure of himself before taking a case into Court.

 

That said, there are always odd surprises, and some cases are dismissed or found 'not guilty' for lack of evidence.

 

I suspect that if you look closely at the track record of Tfl cases, the vast majority where there was a chance that the 'prosecution' would fail, they will not proceed.

[Wriggler7]

I have on odd occassions sat through some London Underground cases at the City of London Magistrates. (As well as some c2c ones in Basildon, Grays, Barking and 'London Eastern' ones at Havering and Southend.

 

The thing that has always struck me is how well the chaps know the very narrow bits of law that they are dealing with. It is all they do, they do a lot of it, and they (in my experience) understand the potential defences, and the appropriate rebuttals. Now, if you ask them the time limit for a 'NIP' for a section 22 road sign, that is a whole different business, and you might well have them stumbling for a while. But I guess it would only take Old Codja a couple of minutes to look it up, and give me chapter and verse. And they do not prosecute failure to comply with anything other than 'railway' laws, and in the main, only those relating to 'fare dodging'.

[honeybee13]

Hmm peoples views are interesting... Has anyone successfully challenged TFL prosecution case and being successful?

 

Hello again. After the views expressed on your own position, do you think you have a case against TfL?

 

HB

[Old-CodJA]

I have to agree with Wriggler of course. As a prosecutor I too can well remember the Bench's reaction to my mistake that made absolutely sure I take great care not to make another.

 

Yes, very occasionally a case will be dismissed for lack of evidence, but as Wriggler said it will be rare indeed that any prosecutor puts any case forward if they are not as certain that they will secure conviction.

[Wriggler7]

One of the greatest safeguards of our liberty is the way that cases are scrutinised by Magistrates. Prosecutors (and all the rest of court room regulars) understand that, and when a 'report' is received from a young and excitable constable/inspector/store detective, before it gets into Court it will be examined by someone who has been on the wrong end of a 'Court' at some time in their career.

 

When an advocate tries to make a point that is 'flawed', (maybe a point is being 'stretched', or maybe the 'evidence' isn't solid) there is a strange atmosphere in the Court room. The Court legal advisor will often make a minor comment, the Magistrates will start to fidget slightly. The gallant prosecutor will hesitate. If he then chooses to plunge ahead with something that is simply wrong, he will feel all of the eyes of the Court upon him, and if the penny doesn't drop, he will be shredded, and I have seen 'hard' 'advocates' leave Courts almost in tears.

 

It does mean, for any of you who think that the case against you is 'wrong', that all of the prosecutors that I know will think very carefully about the potential defences before the court date, and avoid being made to look foolish in Court.

[saraheve]

Before they send a summons will they give me the chance to answer? What is the first letter sent?

 

Old-CodJA, if you consider the age of the case (2yrs soon) do you think they will revisit it?

 

 

If a new Summons is issued, you will receive a copy of the statement/s containing the evidence upon which the original case was / is based along with all the relevant notices regarding the Court process.

 

If you haven't already made a Statutory declaration, the penalty imposed by the Court is still your liability.

 

If you have, then TfL will send you the papers along with their new Sunmmons advising the new hearing date.

 

You can write to the prosecution unit and ask for a copy before then if you wish.

Edited December 17, 2010 by saraheve

[Ochola90]

Erm in a way i do think i have a good case ive still got a week until i have to pay the fine so im still in 2 minds at the moment or Whether to take this to court or just pay the fine and forget the whole thing.

[SRPO]

Erm in a way i do think i have a good case ive still got a week until i have to pay the fine so im still in 2 minds at the moment or Whether to take this to court or just pay the fine and forget the whole thing.

 

Depends what you are charged with, if its a strict liability offence then you will no doubt lose in court.

Only you can decide what you want to do but as you have said it was a mistake on your part, I take that as an admission of liability.

[Ochola90]

Tfl are charging me with fare evasion..

[SRPO]

Tfl are charging me with fare evasion..

 

That term has many meanings, the exact offence is needed for any other 'advice'.

[Wriggler7]

Quite right. Fare evasion could be the 7 year old kid bunking his way home from school, it could be the ring of master forgers using stolen machines to make fake tickets, and anywhere in between.

 

At each level, there will b different laws broken, each with their own potential consequences.

 

'Act and section' please.

[Ochola90]

Letter just says you commited a fare evasion to the Regulation of the Railways Act...

[Wriggler7]

So we are in Section 5,3,a (or b) Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Recordable offences, punished normally at Band B of the Magistrates guides.

[Wriggler7]

Section 5,3,a requires the prosecution to prove that you travelled by train, without previously paying the fare and with intent to avoid paying. On the first two points, I think that they have the case proved, but on the third, I am not so sure. To be blunt, you explanation of why you had your brother's oyster, and how you ended up using it by mistake reeks of bovine droppings, but, it could be enough to stop the case being proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However: what does the witness say? When he spoke with you, didyou have your brother's Oyster in your hand ready to 'swipe out' (having already used it to swipe in).

[Wriggler7]

In my line of work, I would be happy to defend this case, because I would get paid, and if you lose, it isn't me that gets the fines, convictions and so on. Before full advice, anyone giving 'advice' would want to see the witness statements, the station layouts, the Oyster prints and so on.

[Wriggler7]

With the cost of 'proper advice' being what it is, my 'suggestion' is that you should 'swallow' and 'pay'.

 

If you take advice and 'win', the legal costs to you will be more than £60.00, if you lose, they will be another £200.00 to £300.00. And there is still the possibility that when you say 'take me to Court then!', a Tfl prosecutor will look at the case and charge the lesser, and more easily proved, byelaw offence.

[SRPO]

Section 5,3,a requires the prosecution to prove that you travelled by train, without previously paying the fare and with intent to avoid paying. On the first two points, I think that they have the case proved, but on the third, I am not so sure. To be blunt, you explanation of why you had your brother's oyster, and how you ended up using it by mistake reeks of bovine droppings, but, it could be enough to stop the case being proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However: what does the witness say? When he spoke with you, didyou have your brother's Oyster in your hand ready to 'swipe out' (having already used it to swipe in).

 

 

Just to clarify the points to prove for the prosecution: That you travelled on a train without having previously paid the fare & with intent to avoid the obligation to pay the fare due before travelling. There is no defence of intending to pay during or after travelling.

[Ochola90]

Section 5,3,a requires the prosecution to prove that you travelled by train, without previously paying the fare and with intent to avoid paying. Well eventhough i had my brothers oyster card.. I had enough money on my student oyster card which was enough for me to get to my destination.

When the ticket man spoke to me i told him i had my student oyster card in my pocket and i accidently swiped the wrong card (in a rush train was arriving) I told him there was sufficent funds on my oyster card to get to my destination. i even offered to swipe my oyster card on the oyster system to prove it. He didnt listen eventhough at the end of this he swiped me out the gate and then i swiped back in with my student oyster card.

 

When he spoke with you, didyou have your brother's Oyster in your hand ready to 'swipe out' (having already used it to swipe in).

 

No i didnt have my brother oyster card in had put it in my pocket