Summoned to appear .......

[Romford1]

Hi all, total newbie here so please be gentle. All advice greatfully received.

 

I got stopped on a Romford to Liverpool Street train in October and have just received a summons. The train was the 8.53 and totally packed with 30-40 people standing on the front 2 carriages I could see. I got on at the 1st set of doors behind the driver where about 8 people were standing and looked right for somewhere to stand/sit allowing more people behind me to board the train. Nothing to the right with about 20 people standing in the aisles so I turned left into a part of the carriage (I now know as First Class) where 7-8 people were seated and sat in the first seat I found next to the door. At 8.55 as the train gathered speed the Ticket inspectors arrived and started to question me. I tried to point out that I was unaware it was the First Class section and gave him my valid 7 day Oystercard. I was asked for my details which I fully supplied and was cautioned (1st time ). At no time did I get the option of trying to leave the carriage or offered to pay a penalty fare which I would have done straight away. At the end of the questioning I was given a prefilled sheet with just Yes's and No's on for my replys and told to sign. I continued to explain that I didn't know it was First Class but nothing was changing the situation. I tried to amend the answers especially the one asking if I had seen the signs but the best I could change this to was "Yes, once pointed out".

 

I received a letter asking for further details and tried to explain the situation but heard nothing back before the summons yesterday.

 

I understand I was in the wrong part of the train and am willing to pay for my mistake (2 minutes into the journey) but don't want any kind of court details on record against me.

 

Suggestions please.

 

Thanks kindly.

 

Romford1

[rebel11]

Hi Rom

 

Welcome to CAG

The guys will advise as soon as they are available.

[Old-CodJA]

I'm afraid that my opinion based on what you have told us, is that the best you can do in this situation really is to write again, asking if the company will allow you to settle by making a payment to cover the fare and any reasonable costs that they have incurred to close the matter without Court action.

 

Harsh as it may seem, the inspector does not have to allow you to move, or to pay the difference of fares in that situation. The inspector might have issued a Penalty Fare Notice in some circumstances, but is not obliged to do so. I don't know if this is the case, but it may be that First class season ticket holders have complained about 'abuse of the accomodation' for which they pay a higher fare, so the company may have a policy of applying the rules rigidly on their routes as a deterrent.

 

There is special provision in the season ticket rules which makes clear that a Standard class season/weekly is not valid in First class and if a traveller wishes to travel in the First class accomodation, the appropriate ticket must be held.

 

I don't seek to excuse higher fares for barely different seating, or any policy the company might have. Personally, I wouldn't have a First class on busy commuter routes at all, but that is just my unimportant opinion.

 

The fact is that there is a higher fare for the difference in class, however minimal the accomodation differences, and where First calss exists it is clearly signed on all trains.

[Grotesque]

Nothing to the right with about 20 people standing in the aisles so I turned left into a part of the carriage (I now know as First Class) where 7-8 people were seated and sat in the first seat I found next to the door.

 

Did you wonder why one side was rammo and the other half empty???

 

On a lighter note, it was because to your right was 20 people who didn't want to get nailed to the wall by Inspectors, and to your left, 7-8 people with more money than sense!

[Wriggler7]

My journey to Romford was on a very clean and newly tarted up 'dusty bin' (Class 321 to an anorak) I read the warnings on the first class compartment, and any GE (Sorry- NXEA) staff may want to point out to management that the warnings mention penalty fares but fail to mention 'prosecution'.

[Burzyn]

My journey to Romford was on a very clean and newly tarted up 'dusty bin' (Class 321 to an anorak) I read the warnings on the first class compartment, and any GE (Sorry- NXEA) staff may want to point out to management that the warnings mention penalty fares but fail to mention 'prosecution'.

 

To prosecute for 'fare evasion' they would have to prove intent. In your case it would be very hard to prove it unless you've admitted it.

[RPI]

Is pretty easy to prove, if the inspector hadn't been there then how would the FC fare have been paid?

[SRPO]

To prosecute for 'fare evasion' they would have to prove intent. In your case it would be very hard to prove it unless you've admitted it.

 

Oh goody, a thread on mens rea

[Burzyn]

I'm afraid that my opinion based on what you have told us, is that the best you can do in this situation really is to write again, asking if the company will allow you to settle by making a payment to cover the fare and any reasonable costs that they have incurred to close the matter without Court action.

 

I don't think anybody would disagree with your points. Having said that, one magistrate court session costs hundreds of pounds of the taxpayer money and one should bring the case to the court if he cannot find justice in any other way.

[Wriggler7]

To look at the elements of 'mens rea', guilty mind, intent to avoid fare, it is useful to look at all of the footnotes in Stones Justices Manual on Regulation of Railways Act offences. Some of you will be surprised as how little 'mens' is required.

[Old-CodJA]

Wriggler7 is spot on as always. The intention to avoid a fare might occur at any time during a journey.

 

For example, a traveller might board a train at a station with every intention of buying a ticket before travelling, but is unable to do so because the ticket machine is unexpectedly out of order and there is no-one available to pay before boarding..

 

That traveller may have boarded the train with the intention of paying the staff on the train, but finds it absolutely crammed and impossible to get through to find someone to pay and equally impossible for the staff to do a ticket check

 

On arrival at the destination station that traveller does not go to see the on train staff at the platform to pay before the train leaves as he should, but heads out of the station exit without going to the machine, station staff or booking office.

 

The traveller started out with no intention to avoid a fare, but by the time the journey was completed had exhibited a changed intention simply because the opportunity presented itself.

 

If this traveller is questioned by an inspector at the exit from trains, this will frequently be quite enough to secure a conviction.

[Burzyn]

If this traveller is questioned by an inspector at the exit from trains, this will frequently be quite enough to secure a conviction.

 

I'm under impression that in this case, if Romford came to court I gave the 'right' answers, he might get away with conditional discharge or avoiding the conviction altogether. What he's done cannot be compared to giving the false name or jumping over the barriers Even if he's intent is proven, the culpability is low.

 

I think he might self-incriminate himself completing the questionnaire. Should he be informed that the questionnaire can be used as evidence in court?

 

All things considered, they should let him go with a warning (at most), if he re-offended, there would be iron clad case.

[Old-CodJA]

I'm under impression that in this case, if Romford came to court I gave the 'right' answers, he might get away with conditional discharge or avoiding the conviction altogether. What he's done cannot be compared to giving the false name or jumping over the barriers Even if he's intent is proven, the culpability is low.

 

I think he might self-incriminate himself completing the questionnaire. Should he be informed that the questionnaire can be used as evidence in court?

 

All things considered, they should let him go with a warning (at most), if he re-offended, there would be iron clad case.

 

Personally, I agree that might be the case and especially IF a case for intentional fare evasion were considered. However, from Romford1's post, all we know at present is that he/she has received a Summons and reading back through the thread and unless I have misread, I cannot find any confirmation of the actual charge alleged in this case. The company may have charged with ‘intent to avoid a fare’ given that a First Class fare was due, but no matter how unlikely, they might easily have charged the Byelaw offence.

 

It has been ruled that to be valid for any journey, a ticket must be valid for the: place, day, date, time of train and class of accomodation occupied. A standard Oyster card will not be valid in First Class and therefore is not a valid ticket. In the case of Gillingham v Walker (1881) it was established that a passenger travelling in First Class with a Second (now Std) Class ticket had not paid 'his fare'.

 

National Rail Conditions of Carriage state the following:

 

Condition 38.

Travelling in First Class accommodation with a Standard Class season ticket. If you have a Standard Class season ticket, you may only travel in First Class accommodation (which includes occupying seats or standing in any part of the carriages) if:-

 

(a) you have paid the difference between the full single fare for First Class accommodation and the full single fare for Standard Class accommodation before the journey starts;

 

(b) you have paid any other applicable supplement specified in the notices and other publications of the Train Companies; or

 

© you have received permission from on-train staff. In all other cases, if you travel in First Class accommodation (or the equivalent) with a Standard Class season ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a valid ticket

 

Perhaps Romford1 can confirm what has been alleged by the Summons?

 

.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[tyronem]

i wonder if anyone can help me i thought i had swiped my oyster but had not was thrown of tram who put me in hands of transport police i explained i had swiped the journey is only 60p they ignored me got agressive with me told me if i did not give them my details i would be cs sprayed at which point i told them i wont respond to torture and i am epilptic they ignored me as i went in to my back pocket to give them a letter with my name on it i was cs sprayed in the face i then had a fit was taken to hospital then 3 weeks later had a heart attack which i belive was caused by the spray as it was my first and i am 32 i have another one since and have trial for fare evasion what shall i do.

[SRPO]

i wonder if anyone can help me i thought i had swiped my oyster but had not was thrown of tram who put me in hands of transport police i explained i had swiped the journey is only 60p they ignored me got agressive with me told me if i did not give them my details i would be cs sprayed at which point i told them i wont respond to torture and i am epilptic they ignored me as i went in to my back pocket to give them a letter with my name on it i was cs sprayed in the face i then had a fit was taken to hospital then 3 weeks later had a heart attack which i belive was caused by the spray as it was my first and i am 32 i have another one since and have trial for fare evasion what shall i do.

 

1 of 2 things will happen:

1) You will become very rich from compensation you will receive from the police.

or

2) You will get convicted of fare evasion.

[Wriggler7]

If a person is suspected of an offence (any offence) and a police officer requires a name and address, they put themselves in all sorts of jeopardy by not giving it.

 

There are clear rules for the use of force by police (and for that matter, anyone else who has 'powers' to use force).

 

If police used excessive force, then this poster will find that there are many solicitors who will fall over themselves to represent.

 

The original offence may have been 60p, but by not giving details, the poster has elevated the matter.

[Old-CodJA]

I agree, the offence of fare evasion is compounded by refusing to give details when asked.

 

As for the other allegations made by the OP, with the greatest of respect to every volunteer that comes on here to give constructive suggestions, I believe that comment is well beyond the scope of this forum and the poster should consult professional legal advice as soon as possible.