Byelaw no 19 Prosecution - Any advice please?

[rvss3ll]

My wife has received a summons for travelling in a first class carriage with a standard ticket. Any help or advice that members are able to offer in relation to this would be very welcome. The facts are as follows:

 

This was a commuter train from Cambridge to Liverpool Street during the morning rush hour. She boarded at Broxbourne and was inspected one stop down the line.

 

She had a valid ticket to travel but standard Class.

 

There was disruption- the train was four carriages instead of the usual eight. The Standard Class carriages could not be boarded because there was not even standing room.

 

She was in the early stages of pregnancy but has sadly since miscarried. Although we are blessed with three children my wife has a hstory of miscarriage and has been seen by a specialist in this regard. Whenever she has been pregnant she takes utmost care. She wrongly thought it would be okay to use the First Class carriage in these circumstances but the inspector said she had no written medical evidence of pregnancy and so was not interested.

 

She had no proof of identity on her at the time but gave a valid name and address and signed a form (she cannot recall what it said).

 

She did not deny to the inspector that she knew she was in the wrong carriage, but explained that she could not board the correct carriage (he could clearly see this for himself) and that she was pregnant, but he was not interested in either excuse. The carriage my wife was in was mostly full of standard class passengers (who would have been otherwise unable to travel on that train because it was so full) who all promptly left the train at the next stop. Only my wife and one other passenger was cautioned.

 

The incident happened on 28th February but she has not been summonsed until now, 21st July, to appear on 25th August.

 

The offence is under ByeLaw no 19 of the Railway Byelaws, under Section 219 and schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000.

 

The fact that she may now receive a criminal record will probably ruin her career. She works in a bank but had just resigned to look for better opportunities, but she will not find any further employment of that kind with a criminal record.

 

 

Any help or advice would be welcome. But I wondered specifically whether:

 

(1) there is any time limit under which a prosecution of this kind must be brought.

 

(2) if she is convicted whether a byelaw prosecution requries her to answer "yes" when asked if she has been convicted of a criminal offence and whether her "crime" will be reportable under a Criminal Records Check on the national criminal database.

 

I will not take up too much space explaining how upset we are at this, and how disproprtionate it feels to us that despite her being pregnant she is deemed to be a criminal for boarding a train with a a valid ticket but sitting in the wrong seat, by not having written documetary proof of her condition, when it would have been impossible for her to sit, or even stand, in a correct seat. On that same service I have witnessed dozens of passengers without any tickets whatsoever, some of whom have paid a penalty fare, others of whom are let-off without paying anything.

 

Over officious, arbitrary and capricious application of the law embitters otherwise law-biding and decent people to the detriment of all of the law, and to the detriment of all of us all who live under it.

 

 

With thanks in anticipation

 

R

[rebel11]

Hi rv

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will be happy to advise as soon as they are available.

 

Some of the guys here work in the industry, they will advise.

[Grotesque]

Hi rvss3ll, firstly sorry for your loss. You certainly don't need this.

Apologies for the delay in replying.

 

Firstly, don't panic. You should be OK, if that is a true and accurate recount of the facts.

 

Yes, briefly, the railway have the right to prosecute. And yes, the Inspector has the right not to use discretion. In fact, without justifying his lack of sympathy, 'discretion' is very much frowned upon within that department within that department in these times.

 

This will sound harsh, or cynical, but if you can prove the salient points of your post above in hardcopy, I would (almost!) put a years wages on them dropping this prosecution. Pregnancy is legally speaking a disability, which the railway will not wish to be seen to make worse. Therefore your better half was, according to NEEA's own procedures categorised as an 'at-risk' passenger.

 

They will KNOW about the short-formations / service disruption that day.

 

It is poor, from your point of view, that you have to prove her condition and your subsequent loss; but remember Inspectors and Prosecution departments hear a lot of stories, some of which are more true tan others, if you understand my meaning?

 

Incidentally, strictly speaking, yes, the inspector was correct: when pregnant, the passenger needs to take a GP (or other medical authority) certificate to a booking office, fill in a form, and carry a railway-issued letter of authority to travel. Only THEN is the right to first-class travel accepted (when no other seats are available). However, this is not as significant as it sounds in the context of your wife's mitigation.

 

From the railways' point of view, they will not wish to potentially be blamed for inducing a miscarriage through stress. The worse case scenario, from their point of view.

 

So you need to write ASAP, explaining the circumstances and providing all th evidence you can, however personal; sorry about that. I think they would be -shall we say- making a very brave decision if they continued with the case through due process.

 

Good luck! And all the best.

G.

[Old-CodJA]

I am not going to add much in this instance.

 

(1) The time limit for laying the information before the Court in order to apply for authorisation of a Summons is 6 months from the date of the alleged offence.

 

(2) No, the breach of Byelaw is a strict liability matter, it is not a charge of dishonesty and is not recordable.

 

You state that only your wife and one other traveller were cautioned and several other standard class ticket holders had been in the carriage at the time of ticket examination. Don't read too much into my question, but did your wife and the other person who was cautioned refuse to leave the carriage?

 

.

[rvss3ll]

Thanks, G, I appreciate your support. I don't see however how my wife will be able to prove she was pregnant. We could prove that she has a medical history of miscarriage and has been under a consultant in relation to this, but she was not so far on that occasion as registering her condition with the GP so there is no proof. I had not meant to imply by the way that this incident was responsible for miscarriage, although I don't suppose having to commute in a cattle truck every morning will have helped.

 

When you say write ASAP I presume you mean to mean to London Eastern Railway rather than the court?

 

R

[rvss3ll]

Hi Thanks for the information on time expiry. I can see from this that they have summonsed three days before the time expiry would have applied. I don't mind at all your question about my wife refusing to move.. she didn't refuse. She was cooperative, the inspector said that she should answer his questions and sign the form and the chances were it would be taken no further. The other passenger was arguing with the second inspector, we don't know what became of her because she disembarked and the inspector follwed her. Everbody else got off whilst my wife was still being interviewed.

 

R

[RPI]

Did you recieve any correspondence before the court summons?

[rvss3ll]

No, nothing by way of correspondance for nearly six months, then a summons. My wife did not understand that she might be summonsed: she thought she had been "cautioned", and in fact the witness statement from the ticket inspector said that he had issued her with a caution. I presume that is what she had signed- to accept a caution, but she doesn't really understand what she signed. She was not given a copy of anything.

 

R

[Nystagmite]

Pregnancy is legally speaking a disability

 

It's not.

[Grotesque]

A temporay disability, but a disability all the same.

[Nystagmite]

A pregnancy is a lifestyle choice - not a disability. It's certainly not defined as a disability under the Equalities Act.

[Old-CodJA]

No, that's right, it is regarded as neither a disability nor an illness, but is nonetheless a condition that may be recognised as a contributory factor in attempting to mitigate something like this.

[Grotesque]

Thank you, thank you all