Railway ticket: Student arrested using photocopy discount card

[firstclassx]

No point in writing any letters. Neither will the OP receive a verification letter.

 

The CPS won't be interested, nor will the police be.

 

This isn't to do with a Train Operating Company. The Metropolitan Police are dealing with the offence. The TOC will have identified the offence, and then reported it to the police.

 

You cannot settle "out of court" with the CPS in the manner people on this forum are used to.

 

The OP has been charged (MG4) and bailed to appear in court at a later date in relation to the offence.

 

If the CPS are running a Section 5(3) prosecution, I can guarantee you that something is amiss with the story provided on here.

[honeybee13]

Thank you for that, OC.

 

I wonder if you could clarify something for me please, because I'm confused. Who issues an MG4? I'm struggling to sort out what's happening between the police station and the court because there only seems to be one document.

 

HB

[45002]

Hi HB,

 

Once the OP receives the verification lertter from the TOC he will have the relevant case reference and it cannot do any harm to write with an apology and ask if they will allow such a disposal, bearing in mind the usual note that, they are not obliged to agree.

 

It is always worth asking.

 

All the best

 

OP already got a court date http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?379451-Railway-ticket-Student-arrested-using-photocopy-discount-card&p=4112717&viewfull=1#post4112717

 

honeybee, thanks

Yes it is a Charge sheet MG4, with bail conditions at the bottom to surrender to Mags court

 

On 4th Feb 2013...

 

Is writing to TOC a pointless excises ?

 

I can guarantee you that something is amiss with the story provided on here.

 

I agree ....

Edited January 21, 2013 by 45002

[firstclassx]

OP already got a court date http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?379451-Railway-ticket-Student-arrested-using-photocopy-discount-card&p=4112717&viewfull=1#post4112717

 

 

 

On 4th Feb 2013...

 

Is writing to TOC a pointless excises ?

 

Correct. The TOC couldn't care less at this point.

 

This is between the OP and the CPS.

[honeybee13]

Thank you guys, I'm beginning to get to grips with this.

 

HB

[45002]

Correct. The TOC couldn't care less at this point.

 

This is between the OP and the CPS.

 

OK,Thanks ...

[Old-CodJA]

Sorry folks, yes, absolutely correct - not the TOC dealing with this one

 

I read the message alert and responded in relation to the thread I was reading a moment earlier - should never confuse cases!!

 

My fault for not reading the entire thread again. I had missed the reference to the Met.

 

Very unlikely that the OP can avoid prosecution & conviction (but never say never)

[chillysnow]

Thanks for your contributions

It isn't the CPS who would be dealing with this but the BTP prosecution service in fact. They are charged to deal with this kind of case

Having looked at the process so far, the person in question would not appear to deny that he infringed the railway byelaw by not carrying the original of the rail card with him. (also see various other threads for this kind of thing eg byelaw 18).

I think what he would regard to be relevant would be that the Section 5 charge would require "intent to avoid payment" .

He would deny this because

1) He owns a valid Student Discount Card (plus its photo ID) - and can show the original

2) He showed his copy to the ticket seller at the purchasing station

3) He paid for the fair

4) He showed both the copy (with photo) and the original receipt to the ticket inspector

 

Speaking as yet another 'internet lawyer' I gather that - with 'intent' the prosecutor would have to show evidence of an element of 'mens rea' , which is a guilty intention

 

I do appreciate the help offered here but posts from someone who can 'guarantee there is something amiss with this story' shows elements of predujicial assumptions that I can only hope that he or (anyone else for that matter) never faces in court.

 

Does anyone have any advice which may help the person in this case please

 

Many thanks

[firstclassx]

Thanks for your contributions

It isn't the CPS who would be dealing with this but the BTP prosecution service in fact. They are charged to deal with this kind of case

 

Many thanks

 

You are incorrect. The Met Police, (like any other police force), can prosecute any railway offence. The BTP are not involved here.

Even if BTP were involved, the majority of cases still goes through the CPS like any other force.

 

There are many different laws that could be applied here.

 

Section 3- Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 could equally be the offence. Indeed, I am quite surprised that this offence isn't the actual charge.

 

You take your chances pleading "Not Guilty" at court, but the bottom line is, unless you can physically provide the genuine railcard in time for the court case, I don't rate your chances. If the copy of the railcard had been cut down to size and placed in a ticket wallet, then it is very, very dodgy and clearly was being abused.

 

An A4 photocopy of a railcard is one thing, but if it has been cut to size and subsequently in two ticket sized parts, the court will be very unforgiving.

Edited January 22, 2013 by firstclassx

[BazzaS]

Thanks for your contributions

It isn't the CPS who would be dealing with this but the BTP prosecution service in fact. They are charged to deal with this kind of case

Having looked at the process so far, the person in question would not appear to deny that he infringed the railway byelaw by not carrying the original of the rail card with him. (also see various other threads for this kind of thing eg byelaw 18).

I think what he would regard to be relevant would be that the Section 5 charge would require "intent to avoid payment" .

He would deny this because

1) He owns a valid Student Discount Card (plus its photo ID) - and can show the original

2) He showed his copy to the ticket seller at the purchasing station

3) He paid for the fair

4) He showed both the copy (with photo) and the original receipt to the ticket inspector

 

Speaking as yet another 'internet lawyer' I gather that - with 'intent' the prosecutor would have to show evidence of an element of 'mens rea' , which is a guilty intention

 

I do appreciate the help offered here but posts from someone who can 'guarantee there is something amiss with this story' shows elements of predujicial assumptions that I can only hope that he or (anyone else for that matter) never faces in court.

 

Does anyone have any advice which may help the person in this case please

 

Many thanks

 

BTP prosecution service?

a) BTP or Met?. A changing story as it was Met a short while ago.

b) Neither the BTP or Met make the decision to proceed. They will refer to the CPS or charge and allow the CPS to proceed to summons.

 

As for "posts from someone who can 'guarantee there is something amiss with this story' shows elements of predujicial assumptions" :

 

People will reply according to their knowledge and experience. When "industry experts" point out that it is most unusual for the police / CPS to undertake a S5 RRA 1889 prosecution rather than leaving it to the TOC, and that in their experience, that suggests that "there is more to this than meets the eye" : then that is their experience, and it sounds a rational and reasoned comment.

 

Taken with the unusual aspects (Met? BTP? Your comment of BTP prosecution service rather than CPS), there does indeed seem to be some evolving story here.

That isn't prejudice , but fair comment : for the reasons stated!

 

One wonders if your friend is giving you the whole story, and you might wish to refer these points back to them, rather than accuse a poster of prejudice.

 

You have posted for advice : you've been given advice.

If you only want "advice you'll like", then by all means make that clear : but you'll get less advice and / or less reliable advice.

[45002]

Thanks for your contributions

It isn't the CPS who would be dealing with this but the BTP prosecution service in fact. They are charged to deal with this kind of case

Having looked at the process so far, the person in question would not appear to deny that he infringed the railway byelaw by not carrying the original of the rail card with him. (also see various other threads for this kind of thing eg byelaw 18).

I think what he would regard to be relevant would be that the Section 5 charge would require "intent to avoid payment" .

He would deny this because

1) He owns a valid Student Discount Card (plus its photo ID) - and can show the original

2) He showed his copy to the ticket seller at the purchasing station

3) He paid for the fair

4) He showed both the copy (with photo) and the original receipt to the ticket inspector

 

Speaking as yet another 'internet lawyer' I gather that - with 'intent' the prosecutor would have to show evidence of an element of 'mens rea' , which is a guilty intention

 

I do appreciate the help offered here but posts from someone who can 'guarantee there is something amiss with this story' shows elements of prejudicial assumptions that I can only hope that he or (anyone else for that matter) never faces in court.

 

Does anyone have any advice which may help the person in this case please

 

Many thanks

 

Plead Guilty and hope the court is leant

[chillysnow]

@Bazza S - some excellent point there!

[BazzaS]

@Bazza S - some excellent point there!

 

They may not be excellent points : but I hope they are rational & reasoned.

 

So, Was it BTP or Met?.

Or, CPS?.

 

Have you had a look at the many threads here re: S5 RRA 1889, and noted if they refer to prosecutions by the TOCs or by the (police / CPS)?.

 

Then, are you still accusing firstclassx of "prejudice"?

 

It is all very well asking for help.

When an "industry expert" (which I am NOT, by the way) raises concerns as to the completeness of the information, and you turn on them and accuse them of prejudice : do you feel that will inspire them (or other "industry experts") to help further? Or focus their (voluntarily given) time and efforts on other threads?

 

Good luck.

[chillysnow]

Thanks for your advice - yes we are having sent directly over, the original Student Card , with the photo ID, together with it's receipt

[BazzaS]

Thanks for your advice - yes we are having sent directly over, the original Student Card , with the photo ID, together with it's receipt

 

Why would that make any difference?.

 

No one has expressed any doubt that a Railcard was held.

The issue is if when a valid ticket was requested, was a valid ticket shown : and the T's & C's of the railcard state the Railcard (not a photocopy) must be shown with the ticket for it to be valid.

There is nothing stopping the TOC pursuing a Bylaw 18 if the S5 RRA 1889 fails.

 

To be entirely sure : the ticket was purchased at a ticket office rather than a ticket machine?.

 

Was your friend offered a penalty fare and refused it?

Which might then lead to "intent to avoid a fare"

(Sequence of events : possible Byelaw 18, offered penalty fare as an alternative, PF declined, this then used as evidence of intent to avoid fare). I'm not saying this happened, but wondering if it is a possibility.

Edited January 22, 2013 by BazzaS

[Old-CodJA]

If either the Met, BTP or any other Police Force decide that they have sufficient evidence to charge an alleged offender, it will be the CPS who present the case.

 

As Bazza correctly points out, both the S.5 charge and the Byelaw 18 charge may be laid in such a case.

 

We always have only the OP's side of the story in these cases and there may be something in the inspector's statement, or that of the Police Officer called, which will make very clear why this is being pursued differently to usual

 

Police are normally only called to assist in dealing with public order issues, or to identify an alleged offender in cases of difficulty. However, if an alleged offender continued to be unco-operative in the presence of a Police Officer, or if that Officer thought a more serious offence was evident, I can see why the Police might take over and report..

 

Chillysnow, it was your post that referred to the Met, but now you say BTP. Which was it please?

 

BTP have been known to get involved in ticketing matters because they were called to assist and then refer the case back to the TOC in some instances. I dealt with one such matter only last week.

[chillysnow]

Thanks for your kind reply

Strangely , I spoke to the original duty solicitor last night, he claimed that the BTP had a different prosecution service?! Even in this case where he was definitely arrested by the Met. I have never heard of this - and can find no reference to it, I am sure you are right.

 

So

- He was definitely arrested and charged by the Metropolitan Police

- He was charged only on Sec 5(3) of Railways act - which he is contesting

- He would accept having infringed Byelaw 18 (requiring him to carry the original document)

 

The other relevant points I should make clear (from previous posters questions)

- He bought and owns a currently valid Student Discount card together with the photo ID

 

It was the ticket inspector who decided to call the police, who were waiting at the platform at the next train stop.

 

I think what you are saying is that there should be more reason apparent as to why the inspector may have taken such action. My line of thinking at the moment (without having seen the Inspector statement) is that:

- Using a black and white photocopy of the document would instantly appear to the inspector to be a fraudulent attempt

- My friend's use of English is not very good, I would say about 50%. (That is why I am writing this on his behalf.) He would have been very confused with the situation and likely unable to explain himself

 

Another point to note - i understand from some sources that the Ticket Inspector is bound to write a statement in a notebook or similar and ask the Passenger to sign this - is this the case? It did not happen in this instance.

 

Thanks for your attention

[sailor sam]

Can I ask why someone would have a student railcard and 'leave it in their own country'? And then why would they keep a copy of the same on his/her person while they are staying in the UK?l

 

Dosn't make sense to me.

[Old-CodJA]

- He was definitely arrested and charged by the Metropolitan Police

- He was charged only on Sec 5(3) of Railways act - which he is contesting

- He would accept having infringed Byelaw 18 (requiring him to carry the original document)

 

If he is charged by the Metropolitan Police and they have issued a Summons, all talk of BTP and other agencies is irrelevant. CPS will present any prosecution

 

I think that you have mis-quoted the alleged offence above. The charge would be likely to be under Section 5.3 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889), not the Railways Act.

(Part 5 of The Railways Act [2005] deals with various miscellaneous provisions, not including fare evasion.)

 

Byelaw 18.2 requires him to show a valid ticket and where a discount has been claimed against presentation of the Railcard, that original Railcard forms a part of the ticket and must be shown at the time of travel.

 

I am sorry, but neither I or any other user can give specific advice in these matters. We are not party to the statement submitted by the reporting Officer and do not have sight of all the evidence.

 

I apologise if I am wrong, but I assume that you are not a lawyer and are merely trying to help your friend understand English language better.

 

Given the preceding posts, I do think that there must be something relevant that perhaps you are not fully aware of either.

 

I strongly suggest that your friend seeks qualified legal advice of a solicitor specialising in criminal law and who is familiar with the Court at which any case is listed for hearing.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[chillysnow]

Thanks for your reply - yes we are contacting solicitors - but trying also to get as much help as possible here

[45002]

Can I ask why someone would have a student railcard and 'leave it in their own country'? And then why would they keep a copy of the same on his/her person while they are staying in the UK?l

 

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Hello sailor sam

 

Look at the question I asked chillysnow in bold here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?379451-Railway-ticket-Student-arrested-using-photocopy-discount-card&p=4112827&viewfull=1#post4112827

 

and asked chillysnow again here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?379451-Railway-ticket-Student-arrested-using-photocopy-discount-card&p=4113065&viewfull=1#post4113065

 

then look at the reply I got from chillysnow here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?379451-Railway-ticket-Student-arrested-using-photocopy-discount-card&p=4113112&viewfull=1#post4113112

 

It is very clear now the chillynow is not telling us the correct story and clearly wont listen to any advice !

 

Think it's a wasting of time now asking any question of the chillysnow and giving advice ...

 

I would love to be public gallery when this case Does come up in the magistrate court ...

Edited January 22, 2013 by 45002

[sailor sam]

Agreed 45002, But I think she/he should be prepared for the same question(s) when it gets to court. I think a guilty plea is their only option to avoid a more severe penalty.

[honeybee13]

Agreed 45002, But I think she/he should be prepared for the same question(s) when it gets to court. I think a guilty plea is their only option to avoid a more severe penalty.

 

I agree, SS, we've said that before on other threads. If the story isn't stacking up here, then there's every chance that it won't stand up to questioning.

 

HB

[chillysnow]

Yes thats the story.

He is a foreign student, studying in the UK.

He keeps a scanned copy of all their documents on the internet

- something I would advise other people to do when they travel abroad

 

When they arrived back in UK (they had passport, thats the only document they need), they had forgotten all of the other documents , and also house keys

 

They *own* a valid student discount card, which they are now in possession

 

If the story were wildly different , I wouldn't waste your (or my) time trying to seek help here

 

@honeybee - yes as you say it is essential to get opposing views/ look for chinks in the story, as a magistrate or jury might. But as well as a help forum, this is also here to *support consumers* in their actions. "Bang to rights" and "plead guilty" are not examples of helpful or supportive behaviour that one would expect to see in a forum such as this

[sailor sam]

It still dosn't explain why he/she would keep a UK railcard in their own country AND carry a photo copy of it with them when they return to the UK. At the end of the day (as previously been pointed out), the rail card was not produced at the time of travel thus making the ticket invalid. Producing the actual rail card at a later date MAY prove that at the time of travel, the passenger indeed held the correct rail card entitlement but it is irrelevant to producing the card when requested.

 

Sorry but a guilty plea is the best option as I see it.