First capital connect prosecutions

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, exactly that, the Magistrates have a set of guidelines that they must work to and the maximum penalty that they could apply was a fine of up to £1000 on each charge. They have given credit for a first offence and I assume that you pleaded guilty.

 

Of the total of £301.30 imposed by the Magistrates, FCC will receive £86.30 and the remaining £215.00 goes to the Court.

 

.

[Wriggler7]

The above comments are 'right' (in my view).

 

I long ago queried the 'fines & costs' that my local railway had acheived with an afternoons prosecuting. The majority of people convicted of rail fares matters do not write to the Court, do not attend and get substantially higher fines.

 

Any person getting a summons needs to 'engage' with it, and submit 'means forms'. I often see results from the 'local railway'. People who plead guilty and declare that they are on benefits will be fined as little as £17.00, people who ignore the matter completely are normally fined £350.00.

 

A very recent case, where the defendant has a whole raft of previous convictions for many things, the Court have ajourned the case 'for reports', indicating that they are considering 'all options', which does include 'custody'.

[AP]

I wrote a letter to FCC. Also a letter to the court. Both stating that it was a first offence and won't be repeated. I also sent back my means form.

 

So it appears I have saved £49.

 

My main gripe is that I have acknowledged I have done wrong, but wasn't given an opportunity to 'rectify' the 'mistake'. Not by the inspector, FCC, or the courts. Just a big fine.

 

And the people who persistantly travel without a ticket and get fined £20 - What's the difference. Albeit, they could get caught by the same inspector, but most I see just get the £20 fine.

 

So my mistake of using a pre paid ticket is deemed 15 times more serious?? What a crazy world we now live in. This is definitely a case where the punishment does not fit the 'crime'.

[SRPO]

I wrote a letter to FCC. Also a letter to the court. Both stating that it was a first offence and won't be repeated. I also sent back my means form.

 

So it appears I have saved £49.

 

 

 

I think that you will find that you actually saved £285 by answering the summons.

 

You are'nt an accountant are you?

[AP]

I was basing my savings on Wriggler7's comment:

 

"people who ignore the matter completely are normally fined £350.00"

 

Unfortunately, I'm not an accountant!

[SRPO]

I was basing my savings on Wriggler7's comment:

 

"people who ignore the matter completely are normally fined £350.00"

 

Unfortunately, I'm not an accountant!

 

 

Fine '£350' + costs + fare + victim surcharge, however in your case you had 2 charges, therefore the fine would most likely have been £575 + the rest had you not answered the summons.

[Wriggler7]

I understand your anger at 'some people' getting away with things and others paying what they feel are disproportionate fines. I often wonder about those issues myself.

 

However, you (we) cannot blame the railway for all that is wrong in society.

 

The typical serial minor offender does not have a paid job, or at least, he doesn't on the day that he goes to Court. He therefore declares an income of £90 a fortnight, money that you and I cheerfully give him by order of Government, and therefore, for committing the same offence that you have just been charged with, will pay a fine of maybe £20.00. The costs will be reduced, and he will end up having fines taken from benefits.

 

He may very well bunk his fare to and from the Court, and probably, because he is content to jump over fences, he will get away with it dozens of times for every time that he is caught.

 

When he is convicted, it will not stop him from getting the sort of work he wants, either because he simply doesn't want work, or because his work will be of the cash in hand variety that doesn't ask for references.

 

Because his offences will carry the possibility of 'prison', he may very well get representation by the 'duty solicitor'. You did not, you would have had to pay.

 

I re-iterate that these aspects of 'law and order' are outside of the control of 'the railway', they are social ills in the society within which we are obliged to live. I do not know 'the answer' to them, in my dark moments, I might end up with solutions of a rather final, and therefore quite unnacceptable, variety.

[AP]

Thanks Wriggler7. I am starting to think you are on my wavelength. With the greatest of respect, I originally thought the mods on this forum were seasoned prosecutors, or ex ticket inspectors, hence all the good advice given.

 

So what you are saying is that society is to blame, and not the railway companies. Then I believe that the railway companies have taken this stance as society allows them to do so. Then comes the question - what sort of person or people are creating this society and why is no one batting an eyelid?

 

A bit off the point and going forward, how does one ask for the automated announcements (on every station platform) to be switched off? Do we really need to be told (twice) about a fast approaching train? (which on my line is every minute). In the 'old' days, a yellow line was sufficient. Now there are yellow lines painted on the 'slow' tracks as well. Or surfaces are slippery because we've had 30 minutes of rain. Another one of society's ills? Health and Safety gone mad?

[Wriggler7]

Easy to wander 'off thread', and end with a general rant about how bad things are, and how good they used to be!

 

A lot of 'posters' have deep experience of the rail network, and railway 'law', they do not necessarily 'agree' with those laws, or the 'outcomes' of prosecutions, but we are obliged to live in a 'real' world from time to time.

 

Railway revenue protection is about 'keeping the 'honest' honest'. Most people do not break laws or commit crime because they are fundamentally good people, many because they respect law, and quite a few because they know the consequences of breaching those laws, and do not want to be forced to accept the penalties involved. However, if the railways did not prosecute people who are fundamentally 'good', who have made 'just one error of judgement', then there would be an increasing temptation to 'pinch a bit' on the part of those good people. Temptation should never be put in people's paths, some will fall from grace, as it were.

 

At the bottom end, there are people who will breach all and any 'law' or social norm, that care not one jot about your property rights or your entitlement to enjoy life. They also don't mind a bit if they benefit from the safeguards that are in place to protect the innocent, be that legal aid, rules such as doubt going in favour of the accused and so on. I have met more than a few such folk. That probably acounts for the incidence of depression so prevalent amongst 'law professionals'!

 

This isn't the place for it, but there does need to be a debate about how to address these issues.

[Burzyn]

Easy to wander 'off thread', and end with a general rant about how bad things are, and how good they used to be!

 

A lot of 'posters' have deep experience of the rail network, and railway 'law', they do not necessarily 'agree' with those laws, or the 'outcomes' of prosecutions, but we are obliged to live in a 'real' world from time to time.

...

This isn't the place for it, but there does need to be a debate about how to address these issues.

 

Thanks for that Wriggler, very thoughtful.

They ask for things like profession and national insurance. I gather they would like to know the profession, because they would know if one should be concerned about the criminal record. Any idea what use do they have for my NI??

 

Cheers

[AP]

How does one know if they have a criminal record? If the offence is recordable or non recordable. The letter from the court says 'notice of fine and collection order' but no mention of a record.

[Burzyn]

How does one know if they have a criminal record? If the offence is recordable or non recordable. The letter from the court says 'notice of fine and collection order' but no mention of a record.

 

it depends whether you've been found guilty of fare evasion or violation of railways bye-laws. If the first you do have a criminal record, but it's significance is being overstated by TOCs. If it's the latter, you have little to worry about. It's more or lss the same as the speeding ticket.

[SRPO]

it depends whether you've been found guilty of fare evasion or violation of railways bye-laws. If the first you do have a criminal record, but it's significance is being overstated by TOCs. If it's the latter, you have little to worry about. It's more or lss the same as the speeding ticket.

 

Apart from the fact that a speeding ticket is not a criminal conviction where as a conviction even for a lowly byelaw is.

Also byelaw offences are 'non recordable' but must be disclosed if asked.

[AP]

Is there anyone I can contact to find out whether bye-law or Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offences are recordable, non-recordable. Whether one has a criminal record and how long this stays with you. Spent and unspent convictions. Some people say that there is no criminal record. Others differ. Is there a definitive guide to this? Will the court be able to answer my questions?

[SRPO]

Is there anyone I can contact to find out whether bye-law or Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offences are recordable, non-recordable. Whether one has a criminal record and how long this stays with you. Spent and unspent convictions. Some people say that there is no criminal record. Others differ. Is there a definitive guide to this? Will the court be able to answer my questions?

 

This subject has been covered many times, the answers are available on the net or you can do a search on this forum.

[Stigy]

Is there anyone I can contact to find out whether bye-law or Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offences are recordable, non-recordable. Whether one has a criminal record and how long this stays with you. Spent and unspent convictions. Some people say that there is no criminal record. Others differ. Is there a definitive guide to this? Will the court be able to answer my questions?

Byelaws non-recordable. Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Recordable.

[JDMs2k]

I'm just going through this same process.

 

I really only have myself to blame as the ticket collector warned me that it would be far cheaper to pay the penalty fare than tackle it through the courts. Some how I thought he was just blagging and I would get away with it.

 

Luckily for me and thanks to lots of reading on this site, FCC have accepted my offer to pay the fare and their costs and it'll be left at that - no court, no criminal record, but definitely never, ever again.

[Pres22]

Seems an interesting point at the end re criminal record - surely the courts advise when they issue the fine and verdict ?

[AP]

No they don't which is why it's all so unclear!

[SRPO]

Its not for the court to 'help' anyone, the idea is that defendants obtain legal advice.

[Pres22]

I can understand its down to the defendant. But surely someone/judge gives a verdict. And that verdict must say if a criminal record has been issued?

[AP]

Why legal advice when the case is finished? A clear explaination is all that's required re the above.

[SRPO]

You can ask the magistrates legal advisor if you will get a criminal record once convicted, most magistrates wont know.

[Wriggler7]

If a Court finds a person guilty of a 'recordable offence', then a 'criminal record' is created. The full list of 'recordble offences' can be found on the internet if you research something along the lines of 'recordable offences, England & Wales, PNC' or something like that.

 

On 'railways', 'Byelaw offences' are 'not recordable', offences contrary to Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 are 'recordable', strangely, offences contrary to Section 55, British Transport Commission Act 1949 (? memory failure, is that the right year?) which relate to 'trespass on railway' are 'not recordable'.

 

If the case is brought by 'police' under acts such as the 'Offences against the Persons Act 1861' or the 'Offences against property act 1861' they are recordable, and once we get into the various 'theft acts' they are recordable.

[Rshnieder]

Hello, I would like some advice please. I was recently stopped at west hampstead station an when I produced my oyster card for inspection was told that I had not touched in. I had run for the train and through tha barriers and did touch my card to the reader but obviously too quickly and it didn't register. I had headphones on so didn't hear it and got on the train. I had more than enough credit on my card to pay the £3 for the journey.

 

I refused to pay the £20 penalty fare very politely and had some banter with the inspector who explained what would happen and read me my rights and asked me all the relevant questions which I answered.

 

I received the letter from FCC asking me to explain what happened which I did and today I have had another letter through to say they are taking this forward.

 

What can I expect and where does this leave me? I feel like they are making an example out of me since this was an honest error.

 

Any advice for me? I am a new parent and am living with my wife and daughter on 1 salary as my wife is looking after our 12 week old on maternity leave.