Contract law should never be enforced through the criminal law. Railway companies should be able to impose penalty fairs and collect as a debt under the civil system. Even the Financial Services Authority, when it imposes fines on individuals or large organisations, is only allowed to collect them "as a debt"

"You will not get a conviction record as the railway would have to prove intent to avoid payment under section 5.3(a) of Regulation of railways act 1889." And first they would have to actually charge you with that.

"However, it is important to define what the charge is and not refer to this as the criminal act of intentional fare evasion, because it is not." Never referred to it as such.

"If, as a result of an infrastructure failure, an employee of S.E.T gave you a note allowing you to pay at the end of your journey, that journey with S.E.T ended at Blackfriars where facilities were available to you." Firstly, the byelaw does not require a note, simply that permission was given. Secondly, he was told he could get a ticket at "the other end". I agree that this is an ambiguous phrase but is it entirely unreasonable to believe that someone would understand this to mean at the end of his journey rather that this particular leg? Thirdly, you have defined journey very narrowly. There is no support for your interpretation within the byelaws. "It seems that F.C.C staff have reported you for being found to be on board one of their trains, having boarded at Blackfriars and for failing to show a ticket on demand." In circumstances which under the very next paragraph of the byelaws do not constitute an offence. "I guess the question that will have to be asked of the Magistrates is, was it reasonable to expect you to have complied with the requirements of current legislation in paying your fare 'at the first opportunity'." You guess wrong. He has been charged under a specific provision. That provision is stated above. It is not a defence to the charge to have paid the fare at the first opportunity. He has to provide a valid defence and he can do so. "unwise to lay allegations against named individuals on a public forum as you have done here" Why? It is only unwise to lay allegations against an individual where they are untrue. Their only possible recourse they have would be an action in libel (where no cause exists if the poster has not lied) and they are going to find it very hard to prove damage because I'm fairly sure no one cared about their reputation prior to or after this event. This attitude contributes to the complete lack of accountability in service organisation because of this belief in a cloak of employment. You are still responsible for your actions personally when acting in the context of your employment. If you do not want your name to be used in a negative context do not create a situation where this might happen. Further, this ******** may be committing an offence under the railway byelaws in his own right as 24(3) Identification of authorised persons An authorised person who is exercising any power conferred on him by any of these Byelaws shall produce a form of identification when requested to do so and such identification shall state the name of his employer and shall contain a means of identifying the authorised person.

You have an absolute defence to the charge. Railway Byelaw 18(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if: (i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or (ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or (iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket. 25 (1) "authorised person" means: (i) a person acting in the course of his duties who: (a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or (b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or Return the prosecution form indicating your intention to defend the charge. The interchange does not matter in the slightest, as the byelaw requires there to be facilities at the station where you begin the journey. Even if it did you would fall under 18(3)(i) since you were given permission by an authorised person (the originating station officer) and you have evidence of this. Personally I would send a letter to the prosecuting authority pointing all of this out but prepare to defend. I would also demand a full apology from the prosecutions manager. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that a magistrate will convict you of the charge as stated.