Jump to content

London Underground - Prosecutions

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3572 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I've battling now since 2007 to get my daughter's name cleared.

I'm now so fed up I'm finally doing the following

1 Lodging Judicial Review papers within the next 7 - 10

days for the manner in which the dsecision to prosecute

was arrived at, but more importantly, the cover-up by the

very top people in LU. Two Human Rights issues also

included ;

2 I've already sent a Letter before Action to the relevant

manager for misfeasance in public office. If no response

is received within the next 9 days I will join him with

another senior manager in a High Court Claim for around


3 I will then be bringing a private prosecution against the

RCI for perjury inder the Perjury Act 1911. There are

also those who aided and abetted alleged forgery and

conspired to pervert the course of justice.

How can I afford all this?

Well, it all started becasue my 26-year-old daughter who

looks nothing like me (I'm a 72-year-old bloke!!)

inadvertently used my Freedom Pass.

Obviouly nobody is going to be so stupid as to attempt a

[problem] given the obvious physical differences.

So with me being an OAP getting Pension Credit and my

daughter on Income Support it doesn't cost me a penny.

I'm not a lawyer but I did a law degree - which helps!

However, I wouldn't recommend this course of action

because it's e.f.f.i.n.g hard work ...

What I need though is to win the initial argument to get

the permission to go forward - tricky bit that .... ut's a time

delay thing.

However the other two acyions will go ahead between

now and June - no limit on indictable offences and 6

years limitation on tort.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm....Purjury, aiding & abetting forgery and perverting the course of justice. Forgive me, but it all seems a little "Hollywood" to me. Then again, I surpose anything is possible. I'm assuming your Daughter was found guilty at the Magistrates' Court? That being the case, and given that you seem far from contented, I'm asuming this decision was appealed and heard at a Crown Court? That being the case, and given the time all this has taken, I assume that appeal failed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You give little detail on the salient points of the case and so it is difficult to make relevant comment. However, it does appear that you have perhaps failed to exhaust the 'proper' processes.


If you have completed a law degree, you will have some idea of the complexity and cost of the actions that you propose. Therefore, you may consider whether attempting to use taxpayer money to fund this project is entirely reasonable and in the public interest.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?




Understand all your points about

Guilty in Magistates Court etc etc .... examined all the issues.

Due to miscommunication with the Mag Court she didn't appear. For a whole lot of reasons the appeal, although filed, was not followed up.

In any case the LULprosecutors passed the matter over to TfL Legal because of "complications" - and their case MUST also have been flawed because they used the lies in the RCI's WS.

[incidentally when I did speak to the prosecutor on the one and only occasion, he had the nerve to tell me that " ... intent is a matter of fact and and doesn't have to be proved ..." These people are not legally qualified.]

However, there were other internal developments relating to the lies in the RCI's Witness Statement which led to LUL senior managers (at the highest level .. covering up the whole issue.

For instance its REPP (Revenue Enforcement and Prtosecution Policy) is flawed because


Sec 5(3(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 refers to


... any person TRAVELLING or attempting to travel ..... avoiding payment ... with

INTENT to avoid payment ...


whereas the REPP only ever refers to "evading a fare" ... they are not the same thing.


Moreover, the Specification of the Charge read : ... you did ATTEMPT to travel.with

intent to avoid ...


What is "an attempt to travel"?? And how do you prove "intent" if the attempt were not


So while your points are well taken and recognised the whole thing is far too involved to explain here.


Anyway, I would recommend commuters to get a copy of the REPP - funnily enough, after I'd made all my interim argmenmts up to the hearing postponed on 08 April 2008, a new version dated 27 July 2008 appeared very speedily.

To other posters:

I would suggest thgat the waste of money is on the side of LUL chasing 90p. Direct costs in terms of inrecoverable costs dur a related breach of contract action and another in tort for negligence were £4000-odd. Management time racked has run into about 1000 man-hours.

But don't worry folks, I'll keep y'all posted. If I get an oral hearing for the JR then on the balance of probabilities I should subsequently get a declaration in my favour.

The private prosecution (chances of conviction according to CPS evidential criteria) and the misfeasance (sufficient evidence) shouldn't prove too difficult


to win.



Thanks for your interest though ...



Link to post
Share on other sites

I took great care to ensure that I HAD followed and exhausted the proper procedures ... problem is that in the particular circumstances LUL doesm't have any, and they refused to set up an ad hoc one and nobody took ownership of my complaints. An internal investigation was set up in July but nothing has resulted from it.


Aware of the complexities - particularly JR - arguments sorted, papers in order and being lodged next week.


Re taxpayer funding ... So far, in the pursuit of 90-pence it has cost LUL £4000-odd in unrecoverable direct costs and about 1000 management man-hours at a very expensive (executive) hourly rate.


This was all because the RCI, despite the caveats on the MG11a, embroidered her witness statement and the aforegoing executives are now attempting to cover it all up.



Link to post
Share on other sites

[incidentally when I did speak to the prosecutor on the one and only occasion, he had the nerve to tell me that " ... intent is a matter of fact and and doesn't have to be proved ..." These people are not legally qualified.]


What is "an attempt to travel"?? And how do you prove "intent" if the attempt were not




Naturally, I offer no opinion here, nor make judgement. However, the following, (mostly paraphrased from the CPS site), may be of help.



A person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA 1981), section 1(1) if s/he does an act which is more than preparatory to the commission of the offence with the intention of committing an offence.


The offence consists of both actus reus and mens rea.


In each case it is a question of fact whether the accused has gone sufficiently far towards the full offence to have committed the actus reus of the attempt. If the accused has passed the preparatory stage, the offence of attempt has been committed and it is no defence that s/he then withdrew from committing the completed offence.


An attempt is an offence of specific intent. It requires an intention to commit an offence to which section 1(4) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 applies.


A person may fail to carry through the offence because it is not possible for her/him to do so .(Unsuitable id photo?) It is necessary to ascertain why the attempt has not succeeded in order to determine if s/he can still be prosecuted for attempting to commit an offence. There is a crucial distinction between what is factually impossible and what is legally impossible

Edited by Maxwell TM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"accidently" using a freedom pass? how many times has that sob story been posted......

Views expressed in this forum by me are my own personal opinion and you take it on face value! I make any comments to the best of my knowledge but you take my advice at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

T Maxwell

Everything clear about the mens rea and actus reus. The RRA 1889 was formulated when rail travel was a luxury and when an old lady fell off the train because the platform was too short immunity from luability was found on page 562 of the Conditions of Carriage.

Time came when so many were committing "non-payment of fare" offences that the mag courts were getting clogged and they then delegated the generating of paperwork to "approved prosecutors" e.g. LUL's Prosecutions Department.

Either S5(3)(a) is an offence of strict liability requiring no proof of intent or it ain't - they can't have it both ways.

And say again in its REPP LUL only ever talks about "evasion" (tax things: special narrow meaning). Does this require mens rea?

What has happened in practical terms is that S5(3)(a) RRA 1889 has unlawfully been turned into a "regulatory offence" purely for the purposes of deterrence and administrative convenience.

I find no statutory or anything else which permits LUL to do this.

Attempted theft or any other of the inchoates would have an element of "proximity" and/or other strong circumstantial stuff.

"Attempting to travel" does not ...

So at what point and how does someone "prepare to attempt to travel"

(a) when they put a foot on LUL property or


(b) when they make towards the train but

then change their mind because a txt

from the baby-sitter says their child

has taken ill ;

© when they open the door, lift a foot and

make as if to board bur then see a friend

and decide to with them by bus rather

than by train.

Despite the above LUL still has to provide evidence of mens rea at the end of the journey. So the Specification of Charge should read "..travelled or attempted to travel".

This is NOT semantics.

We know the difficulty caused by the Theft Act [as it was] and the Bigamy Act [as it was]. Lately there was comment about the validity of some church marriages because of the change in wording of the ceremony.

There is a vast difference between "there are strangers on my land" and "there are strangers in my land" ; or, by a short-sighted witness who was too far away and says "he drove his car into the ramp" instead of "he drove his car onto the ramp".


Mr Speaker I called the Hon Member a liar it is true and I am sorry for it [... and the Hon Member can put the punctuation marks where he likes ...]

My view is that the public cannot afford to challenge LUL because of its labyrinthine admin and overwhelming financial firepower.

However this case [i will use armed forces jargon ...] they've *****d with the wrong marine ...

All it's costing me is lotsa computer ink and midnight oil.

You opinion appreciated ... thanks ...


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?


The OP seems an intelligent chap & I applaud his desire to defend his offspring......however....the quote above is probably the most important response so far.

If you havent got access to Stones, just google Corbyn v Saunders, you will see that the prosecution have little to prove when showing mens rea, making it 'almost' strict liability in real terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites



You talk about levels of "mens rea" ... do you mean "levels" of mens rea?

It's like having levels of pregnancy ... wot?


Anyway, if you look up LUL's REPP on the internet and go through it you'll get the core of my argument: there is a host of other factors which bears on this case - too long to explain here.


The guilt or otherwise of my daughter is NOY the point.

It's about the " ... manner in which the decision to prosecute was arrived at - that's what JR is all about ... got nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

And it's not about overturning a decision in a Mag Court - that's the Crown Court route.


In other words I'm saying this:


... LUL did all those things they ought not to have done and left undone all those things ought to have done ...


If you go through the REPP you'll see what I mean.


Sure I'm looking out for my offspring because my ole Gran plaguerised the motto of the Argyll & Sutherland for the family:

Nemo meam familiam impune lacessit (nobody wounds/provokes my family with impunity) ... or in the vernacular: don't mess around with a 'van Harte' ...



Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To wriggler


Glad you're playing devil's advocate ... pun intended!

I'll try again though ... I am not seeking to hegate the decision I'm challenging the whole basis upon which the decision was made. The RCI's Witness Statement bore no relation to the physicalities i.e what she saw from where she was positioned for observing. At the mainline station in question she said my daughter touched in with her Oyster card as she came in from the street.

To cut a long story short I visited the "crime scene" myself and her statement is a load of tosh. These lies were then used to draft the Statement of Facts despite my pointing out this. There is prima facie evidence of forgery of her signstujre because the writing in the Raw Notes made at the time and the signature showed such blatant inconsistencies that I spent £350 on a handwriting forensic report. While the report was not 100% conclusive the opinion is 70 -30 against LUL.

I also obtained trhe transcript of the Mag Court hearing and the evidence given doesn't her WS. But as I also said my daughter didn't appear due to a misunderstanding with the Court and was therefore found guilty in her absence.


However .... I obviously can't use the transcipt in evidence in the JR because I am not challenging the decision of the Mag court ... but what happened before it got there. That is a legitimate challenge under JR ... plus my argument for applying beyond the 3 month stipulation ... but the 3 month thing is also legally a bit iffy anyway.


If there wasn't an argument to be made then there wouldn't be any need for lawyers - I'm not one of course ... just think things through.


Just because Corbyn v Saunders has been around for 30 years doesn't NECESSARILY make it right - personally I disagree with it (well, I would have to, wouldn't I), and I've got an argument to make. If the judge throws it out ... well then fine ... I'll have egg one my face ... that's before ... and at 75 it doesn't bother me ...

But you can take it from me that judging by the correspondence I've had from the very top of LUL they're aware that they have a problem ....


Not bothered about the cost because it won't cost me a penny and LUL won't be able to get any dosh from me.


Right now got to get back to paginating and referencing the two binders for the High Court ... big hurdle is to win the argument for permission to proceed.


Keep y'all posted.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Well im sure my fellow london council tax payers will be glad you will have cost TFL a shed load of our cash because your daughter was caught using your (tax payer funded) freedom pass.

I sincerely doubt there was any intentional wrong doing on the part of LUL in bringing the action, there is simply no motivation to do so.


I imagine that your action will end up in the 120,000 case backlog at the ECHR after the matter is thrown out of the UK courts, its just a pity that everyone else has to pick up the bill for your vexatiousness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re 'vexatiousness', I refer you to both 'Vexatious Litigants & Permission in Judicial Review Proceedings' by J Pierce and 'Administrative and Public Law' e-bulletin and a judgement by the ECJ March 2010 and which in my view now supplants Burkett.


The Inspector had no business lying in her Witness Statement.

Under the provisions of the REPP LUL was required to review the papers and to take into account mitigating circumstances which they did not, nor did they call for them when they ought have done once they had been made aware ... hopefully by now you will have checked the REPP.


The mitigating circumstances regarding my daughter are rather delicate and I have no wish to broadcast them, otherwise my gut instinct and legal logic would have warned me off three years ago. Sufficient to say that she was distracted over a personal situation that particular morning ( an epileptic 9-year-old being one of the problems) and absent-mindedly picked up my blue wallet by mistake at 0645H to get to work believing it to be hers. I had an identical blue wallet to hers because I had also had a regular Oyster Card to travel before 0900H to get across to look after my grand-daughter or get her to school while her mother was at work.


I use my FP to go to church. So by your logic she nicked my card purposely to prevent me from going church (there still are people who do this thing ...) and generally to cause me inconvenience so as to use it herself


She's not a layabout single-parent - she worked bluddy hard at the time. I was round the previous evening helping out with her epileptic daughter until the grandmother came round on the Sunday morning while my daughter was at work.

There is medical documentary evidence as well as from her school regarding the grand-daughter and an attestion from my priest who confirmed that I had been attending mass regularly at 0900H every since 2002 when he became parish priest. So I'd have gone from her house to church.


I only mentioned the above because you've seemingly lost your objectivity and went on to make some rather silly inferences resembling something lumpy I occasionally step on in the park (very unpleasant on a summer's day ...) and to draw unfounded conclusions.

In our family we do NOT steal from each other ... geddit??


When I first started on this saga it was with the SSR/RCD (SubSurface that there therefore must be a Surface Railway?

I was always intrigued by you reflex actions regarding, Corbyn, definition iof 'attempt' and backlog of 120k HR cases.

And yes, as it happens, part of the JR and the misfeasance action does indeed take in Articles 6 and 8 ... perceptive and very revealing ...


Revenue Control Inspectors should not lie in their Witness Statements and their bosses shouldn't cover up. There is sufficient high quality "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence for the CPS to intervene in the private prosecution which is due to be lodged as soon as I get the JR thing out of the way. And I'm going to make damned sure she gets indicted ... and the rest who are involved - regardless of seniority.



I've already written an open letter to her about her lies on a point-by-basis and published it by sending it by fax for everybody to see - I hope she asks LUL to sue me for defamation ... in fact I've actively encouraged it ... but to no avail ...




Edited by miromike
Link to post
Share on other sites

My quoting of the CAA 1981 was merely as background information in response to

"What is "an attempt to travel"?? And how do you prove "intent" if the attempt were not "completed"??"


Wriggler 7's commentary re S5(3) of the RRA 1889, expands the theme and of course, has more bearing on cases of this nature.


I had forgotten about 'Collins,' although he was 'raised' during my first acquaintance with Module 1 English Legal System :-)


Perhaps this case has become something of a hobby horse for the OP. It would also be interesting to just how committed the guilty party remains to this course of action as the case is almost 4 years old. Nevertheless, to invoke a complex legal process, whilst immune from its potentially massive costs, (to be borne by the taxpayer), appears cynical in the extreme.


The OP is obviously a concerned citizen who feels that a wrong has been done. As such, he may consider that competent, (and not necessarily costly), legal advice could prevent further wrongs stemming from his action. On the other hand, a positive legal opinion could ease his progress towards redress.

Edited by Maxwell TM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of course I have hard evidence ... I would HAVE to have it wouldn't I???:


the RCI's statement compared with my own vist to the "crime scene",


the raw notes made at the time (WS subsequently produced varies fron it).


the Staement of Facts prodised using the falsities in the WS,


the sketch of the layout from where shw was observing at the time (LUL wouldn't give

permission for photographs),


Although of no use in the JR I also have the transcript from the Mag Court which shows that

she omitted the false statements from her testimony.


All the above was brought to the attention of the LUL bosses - hence the refusal for photographs.


But as said previously, due to miscommucation with the court my daughter was not at the hearing (we couldn't haved afforded a solicitor anyway.) Paid a barrister £350 to advise on an appeal - but he was more concerned about how easy it was going to be for the OTHER side, rather than how he could find an argument in our favour ... no Perry Mason moment for him - not for the sake of a 90 pence fare offence. So we fired him and missed the deadline ... didn't have anymore dosh anyway.


So to all those folks who've baging on at me about costing the taxpayer money ... slag off LUL ... the JR papers go in during the next few days.



Link to post
Share on other sites

To Maxwell TM


The case is not " ... 4 years old ..."; it has been " ... ongoing for 4 years ..." ... as a legal man the words - and where you put them are essential ...


It's like SRPO talking abour levels of "means rea", when he really meant "levels" of mens rea ...


Massive legal cost??? I offered on up to thgree occasions to meet LUL to settle this internally with an apology,re-imbursement of my out-of-pocket expenses of around £2000 up to about November last year and a donation to Help for Heroes (I'm an ex-serviceman by the way) but got the brush off.


So ... p-l-e-a-s-e ... DON'T talk to ME about cynicism ...eh?


In any case if and when I win my two upcoming actions against LUL - take it from me I WILL regardless if the nay-sayers on here - of around fifty-kay, I'll dock my expenses, plus a bit for inconvenience and the rest WILL go to Help for Heroes.


Hobby horse? If people try to stitch me up then they take consequences ...

I re-qutoe you my family motto (albeit plaguerised): nemo meam familiam impune lacessit - no one wounds/provokes my family with impunity ... so there ...



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...