Jump to content


Caught by Railway Inspector


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3681 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I was caught by a railway inspector on 9th of september for not touching my oyster card in Romford and instead touched at stratford also i did this previously once and i got a letter from prosecution uni t to explain the situation. I replied back to them giving my apologies and saying I was in hurry and forgot to touch. I used to be a regular traveler (4 years) and i used buy monthly pass, but since june i have been using pay as you go due to less usage of underground/overground. Will i be charged with a theft charges. I am so worried that i will end up in jail. can anyone suggest me what to do. I am in a big trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, It is most unlikely that a prison sentence would

be handed down by Magistrates or a District Judge (criminal)

for an offence such as this unless of course there has been

constant abuse of the system, the more likely outcome is

a fine for fare dodging depending on the value of the journeys

not paid for or a penalty fare order that can vary again linked

to the amount the minimum used to be £20.00 but that may have

changed.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The history of your oyster card usage can be checked... with or without the actual card

 

Undoubtedly they will be looking to see if you do this regularly comparing this with the statement you gave to the inspector

 

This could result in appearance at the magistrate's court and a criminal record

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already posted this on the 'Fare Evasion' thread, but hope it will alsp prove useful in your case

 

Where someone has used the same 'system' in order to regularly avoid paying a fare over a period of two weeks or so, that could be considered 'prolonged', but it is very unlikely that a Theft Act charge would be alleged in these circumstances.

 

In my experience, this will normally be addressed by giving the offender an opportunity to declare any misuse prior to the incident for which they were initially detected and listing these dates & journeys as TIC's. That is a list of other similar offences to be Taken Into Consideration. The offence will then normally be charged as a breach of Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) with a number of similar matters to be considered.

 

If an offender pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity following service of a Summons they will be given credit for that by the Magistrates and normally, this will be dealt with by conviction and fine only. The maximum fine that can be imposed for a first offence is £1000 and this will normally be reduced to £350 as what is known as the 'entry level' if no plea is entered and no 'previous' is known.

 

If a guilty plea is entered, this will be further reduced at the discretion of the Magistrates. Where TICs are concerned, further penalties may be applied, dependent on the level of 'aggravation', or where the offender is of previous good character and has co-operated fully with the prosecution, they may choose to increase the fine slightly as an aggravating feature on the first charge and then impose 'No Separate Penalty' on the other charges.

 

The defendant may also be ordered to pay part or all of the prosecution costs and a victim surcharge of £15 will be added to the total. This is levylink3.gif imposed by the government on all persons who are fined by a Magistrates Court.

 

There will be very little chance of any reduction in fines etc if a 'Not Guilty' plea is entered and the defendant is then convicted at a later trial

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying can I speak to the prosecution manager and request him to settle this out of court I am ready to pay fine of 1000 pounds Because if I get convicted I will be out of job and my life would be devastesd and I won't have any other chance of getting job. In my profession

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't offer to pay £1000, when they might be willing to settle for a lot less.

 

Thanks for replying can I speak to the prosecution manager and request him to settle this out of court I am ready to pay fine of 1000 pounds Because if I get convicted I will be out of job and my life would be devastesd and I won't have any other chance of getting job. In my profession
Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be a level of acceptance …

If you have done what you are being accused of I doubt very much if the prosecutions office will accept what is in effect a bribe to pervert the course of justice

This would create a two tier system for fraudulent travel those that have cash and can pay their way out and those that cannot!

I doubt very much if your offer will be accepted

Edited by cletus1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I, at what stage is this now, has a summons

been issued??

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum fine that can be imposed for a first offence is £1000 and this will normally be reduced to £350 as what is known as the 'entry level' if no plea is entered and no 'previous' is known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any more instances of not using

the card that they will find out about???

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be a level of acceptance …

If you have done what you are being accused of I doubt very much if the precautions office will accept what is in effect a bribe to pervert the course of justice

This would create a two tier system for fraudulent travel those that have cash and can pay their way out and those that cannot!

I doubt very much if your offer will be accepted

 

A long way wide of the mark I am afraid. Read back through these many threads over many years and see how many times a poster has come back to say that they were relieved that the prosecutions office accepted their offer of settlement.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to by 'precautions office'. If this were to proceed it is a private prosecution brought by the rail operator (TfL) and the principle of mitigated costs, or administrative penalty is well understood by the CPS and the Courts.

 

It is a practice positively encouraged where young people (under 18) are concerned and for matters of a minor nature, where there is no previous history, can be encouraged by the Courts (and often is).

 

If Mr X has committed a minor offence, for which a summary prosecution can correctly be brought, there is nothing to stop him from asking the prosecutor if the case can be settled administratively to protect his good name and nothing to stop the prosecutor from accepting or declining his request if authorised to do so.

 

Many people employ solicitors to argue their case and very often all this results in is that the solicitor makes the same request for administrative settlement on behalf of their client, but of course then that 'client' has two payments to make. One to the solicitor, which might very well have been avoided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, It is most unlikely that a prison sentence would

be handed down by Magistrates or a District Judge (criminal)

for an offence such as this unless of course there has been

constant abuse of the system, the more likely outcome is

a fine for fare dodging depending on the value of the journeys

not paid for or a penalty fare order that can vary again linked

to the amount the minimum used to be £20.00 but that may have

changed.

 

Yes, a custodial sentence is usually only ever considered in the very worst cases where continual premeditated fare evasion has resulted in previous convictions and even then, it almost always results in community service punishment these days.

 

A Penalty Fare should not be confused with prosecutable matters. A Penalty Fare is a civil remedy that may be issued in some cases of travelling without ticket. If the Penalty Fare remains unresolved or unpaid, it may result in the issue of a Summons

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing people to buy there way out of potential prosecution would set all sorts of legal precedents

 

The decision is not based on any payment

 

 

Do we take it that you are employed in the decision making process then?

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the criteria used are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we take it that you are employed in the decision making process then?

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the criteria used are.

 

 

The criteria that is used is simple, if you evade your fare and you are caught by one of the revenue inspectors you will be prosecuted on most occasions

 

If you inadvertently picked up your partners pass and used it that day then the likely outcome will be an advise notice, if you have been doing it for weeks and you lied to the inspector and this is identified during the investigation then you will be visiting the magistrates

 

does that sound fare ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that answers my question I'm afraid

 

YOUR statement, quoted in my last post was as follows:

 

Allowing people to buy there way out of potential prosecution would set all sorts of legal precedents

 

The decision is not based on any payment

 

Frequently, the TOC do accept an administrative settlement, and many thousands of cases have been settled this way over many years. Please read the posts of so many cases involving people happy that they were settled this way.

 

Therefore, what are the criteria used to discontinue the prosecution if not acceptance of the alleged offenders' offer?

 

Considering that you appear to be giving what you probably genuinely believe to be definitive advice, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the practical processes that have been operating for all of the 30 odd years that I have been involved in this work and for a lot longer than that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision if a case should be prosecuted within LUL is made by the revenue investigations manager or one of the duty revenue managers the decision is not driven by a “compromise agreement”

 

Hello cletus. I thought compromise agreements were to do with employment law. Fwiw, the singular of criteria is criterion, little known fact these days.

 

OP, in case it helps and you feel as confused as I do :). If you click on a poster's username, it tells you about them. You may wish to choose between the advice of Old-CodJA, a senior prosecutor from memory, or cletus who hasn't yet told us what his/her expertise is.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoke & mirrors springs to mind.

 

The question is clear:

 

Is the case to be prosecuted? (which means Summonsed to Court)

 

or,

 

Is the case to be discontinued in favour of the alleged defendants' offer? (Which means collecting a payment.)

 

It doesn't matter what the job title of the person is who makes the decision, it could be the CEO, the Revenue Manager, the Prosecution Manager, or any other person authorised to do so.

 

There is only one question, whether to accept an offer to discontinue, or to continue to prosecution.

 

If the latter then the matter goes to Court, if not, they take a payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the same practice were adapted to all criminal offences then the justice system would be in disarray

 

You cannot allow someone to buy them self out of being prosecuted if there is a case then there will be a summons if there is no case then there will not

 

If as you say some TOCS are extorting money out of people, because that is exactly what it is then this is disgraceful

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they have on the spot 'Penalty Fines'?, why not just take everyone to court?

 

If the same practice were adapted to all criminal offences then the justice system would be in disarray

 

You cannot allow someone to buy them self out of being prosecuted if there is a case then there will be a summons if there is no case then there will not

 

If as you say some TOCS are extorting money out of people, because that is exactly what it is then this is disgraceful

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...