Letter from Railway Prosecutions Unit - what to do?

[Wriggler7]

Old Codja must go to very civilised Courts, the Ushers where I go will lend you a pen, and that is about it. I am normally horrified that so few people attending Court are capable of filling in a form. Most Benches will ask the defendant questions if the form isn't properly filled in.

[Old-CodJA]

LOL! Yes, there are some harassed souls who will be less tolerant when it comes to disinterested and unprepared defendants, but you can always ask and if the completed form isn't easily read you can bank on the Bench being fairly persistent in their questioning of your stated income & outgoings.

[Wriggler7]

The prosecutor also has a duty to inform the Court of anything that he knows that may assist the Court. When an Inspector asks a passenger 'do you work?', it may be that the Inspector is trying to establish whether the passenger makes the journey regularly, but the prosecutor will read the answer to the Court, who may take account of the answer in setting a level of punishment. I know that Inspectors smile every time someone says 'I earn more in a day than you do in a week'.

 

It may temporarily allow the passenger to think 'that told the little Hitler/jobsworth railway inspector', but the educated Inspector will know that ultimately, it may increase the fines.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, I love them, don't you?

 

I well recall an incident at an outer London station where a ticket-less traveller, who was described as a particularly 'mouthy' young professional, grinned and waved a wad of notes (estimated at a grand) in front of an inspector when he was 'nicked' whilst avoiding a fare during part of a very successful plain clothes follow through exercise from London stations some years ago.

 

He tried a 'not guilty' plea.

 

The Magistrates relieved him of a very large part of that wad 8 weeks later and it was the inspector that was grinning on leaving Court.

[Wriggler7]

A common trait with defendants to the east of London is to state that they do not work and they do not sign on. They have absolutely no income!

 

How on earth can the Bench fine them anything?

 

The Bench may choose to 'not believe' the defendant, assume average earnings, standard fine at Barking for bunking a train fare on first offence is £350.00 (+ costs, compensation & victim surcharge).

 

How will you pay? 'I can't.' 'OK, you will pay in 14 days.'

 

The pleasant alternative to paying is 7 days in Pentonville. After which, the compensation is still due.

[Wriggler7]

In short, fill the means form in honestly. Today at Barking, over 50 cases were dealt with in one Court, there are 4 Courts at Barking. I don't suggest that Magistrates and their clerks have heard 'it all', but they have certainly heard most of it before.

 

I knew an old Billericay JP who was a cattle farmer. She knew what bull s*** smelled like.

[Old-CodJA]

A common trait with defendants to the east of London is to state that they do not work and they do not sign on. They have absolutely no income!

 

How on earth can the Bench fine them anything?

 

The Bench may choose to 'not believe' the defendant, assume average earnings, standard fine at Barking for bunking a train fare on first offence is £350.00 (+ costs, compensation & victim surcharge).

 

How will you pay? 'I can't.' 'OK, you will pay in 14 days.'

 

The pleasant alternative to paying is 7 days in Pentonville. After which, the compensation is still due.

 

I assume that's after having the defendant searched by Court security staff or Police course!

 

I've seen that done too.

[luke2208]

Hi all,

 

New to the site so thanks in advance for any advice you can give me on this matter. Like the original author of this thread I have received the same letter from the London Eastern Railway Prosecution Unit. Whilst I'll admit I was stupid enough not to have the right ticket and very much understood this at the time I would like some advice as to how to respond. The letter gives me an opportunity to write a response. Whilst the revenue protection officer clearly told me I was being stopped under caution as he was taking evidence on my particular matter he also asked me twice to give him an answer "off the record." Is this entirely professional or lawful? He had previously told me he had a recording device on him (again seems unprofessional to tell me this), would this be likely given the volume of people that they stop?

 

I am in two minds whether it is worthwhile including this on any defence that I give or whether it is easier to just admit that I was wrong, beg for leniancy and ask for it to be settled through financial means rather than wasting the courts time.

 

Let me reiterate once again that I was stupid enough not to have the right ticket, but I would really appreciate any advice on the best way to respond to this letter.

 

Thank you.

[Wriggler7]

It has been a while since I have seen a real 'Great Eastern' inspector, but then I only use their line between Upminster and Romford.

 

I understand that they also use a contract revenue protection team, is it 'Meteor'?

 

I know that some of them wear head cams, which I guess also record voice.

 

Off the record comments? A bit too Bodie and Doyle for my taste, but most of the evidence relating to 'fare dodging' comes from the 'ticket history' and what the staff saw, rather than what you admit.

 

Respond to their letter, failure to do so will ensure prosecution.

 

Ask if the matter can be dealt with outside of Court, indicate a willingness to meet their costs and compensate them for the avoided fare.

[Wriggler7]

Our local traffic wardens have a recording device, jolly good idea. I marched purposefully up to one a while ago, she was a nervous little thing, first thing she said was 'I am recording this'. I must confess to being taken aback, as I only wanted to ask a silly question, but in hindsight, I am a big chap, and was moving quite quickly. Once I didn't swear at her, she calmed down a lot.

 

Since the more general use of 'technology', I have noticed a remarkable reduction in allegations of assault, both ways. There are 'liberty' questions, but I would rather have my liberty reduced than my nose broken.

[luke2208]

Thanks for swift reply. He had no head cam or anything like that. Didn't think there was much point bringing anything like that up, just want the issue to be done and dusted so will be as apologetic and polite as possible in my response.

[Wriggler7]

As we so often mention, the 'choice' regarding settling a case or taking it to Court is with the 'prosecutor'.

 

They will look at a range of criteria, including how much time they have got at Court, and whether they would like a few more or a few less in the list! If this is a first offence, and there are no suggestions of 'unpleasantness' or clues that might make them think that you are 'well at it', and if you allow them to have an easy settlement rather than turning it into a teeth pulling exercise, I expect that they will be pleased to take the line of least resistance.

 

Most of the criteria relate to the seriousness or otherwise of the offence.

[bdasteve]

Hello, this is my first post and I'd like to thank you in advance for any replies.

 

I have received a letter from London Eastern Railway Prosecutions Unit regarding a journey on 30th November 2010. Although I was questioned by a member of railway staff the incident occurred on 29th November not 30th. Where do I stand from a legal point of view regarding the date discrepancy?

[Wriggler7]

At this stage of the business, things are 'awkward'.

 

The mistake is theirs, and if they 'charge' on the wrong date, they will not be able to 'prove' the offence as charged.

 

But: If you send a 'curt' reply, they are in good time to look again at the evidence, check the inspector's notes, and correct the mistake in good time to serve a 'true' summons.

 

The other question is, although you were spoken to on '30th', is it possible that an offence on 29th was disclosed? (Oyster history perhaps)

 

My 'spiritual advice' is to write to them, politely explain their mistake, admit the 'true' offence and take the consequences. A clear conscience can be worth a lot more than gold.

 

My professional advice is 'reply, tell them that you were not spoken to on 29th'. I honestly cannot predict how this will turn out, London Eastern might be 'harsher' if they have to work it all out again, or they might be 'embarrassed', and walk away from the matter. I honeslty don't know.

[SRPO]

or....ignore them until a summons arrives, if the date is still wrong plead not guilty (without explanation) & let the case fail at court.

If the date is corrected on the summons, then contact them using one of oldcodja's letters asking to settle out of court, unless of course you are not guilty anyway.

[Wriggler7]

or....ignore them until a summons arrives, if the date is still wrong plead not guilty (without explanation) & let the case fail at court.

If the date is corrected on the summons, then contact them using one of oldcodja's letters asking to settle out of court, unless of course you are not guilty anyway.

 

This is the legal equivalent of playing poker. It depends on 'London Eastern' being a bit sloppy with their paperwork. If they leave it two months before applying for a summons, to allow for any reasonable exchange of letters, and then get a court date (effectively) 4 months after the alleged offence, when, at first hearing, you plead 'not guilty', they will still be 'in time' to spot the mistake and issue a correct summons, having looked very closely at 'the evidence', and realised that the report relates to something in the Inspector's notes that happened after he had signed on duty on 30th.

 

At that point, they will not be interested in any settlement, and might cheerfully go ahead with a court hearing two months later still, with rock solid evidence.

 

There would be no possibility of an 'abuse of process' argument, nor one of 'duplicity'.

 

It is possible that they might grow bored with the effort, and they might find 'other flaws' with the Inspectors report, and allow the matter to drop, but these are all 'mights and maybes'. It becomes a question of your 'nerve' and your choice.

 

Frankly, if you are a career criminal, with many other convictions already, and no regard for whether you get another one, then please feel free to ignore all of their letters, plead not guilty at first hearing, take a chance. If, however, this is the first time since infancy that you have transgressed in any way at all, I would recommend a polite letter pointing out their mistake and offering to pay them the equivalent of a penalty fare.

[bdasteve]

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to ring them tomorrow (gently) point out their mistake and hope that a bit of common sense prevails. My crime was (inadvertently) sitting in first class on a packed 10 min journey from Tottenham Hale to Liverpool Street during the last tube strike. It was a genuine mistake on my part - why would I attempt to shirk a £15 pound fare when I quite happily shell out £1500 yearly for an annual 4 Zone Oystercard?

I'll post how I get on but seeing how they've gone this far I'm not too optimistic about a happy ending.

[Wriggler7]

May we assume that you live near Tottenham Hale and work in central London?

 

May we also assume that you have no previous penalty fares or prosecutions for 'fare dodging'?

 

During the tube strike, I assume that the 'passenger loading' was heavier than normal. I don't know the type of trains used on that route, in some of my other posts, I have mentioned that I only use 'NXEA' from Upminster to Romford, and often the difference beween 'first' and 'standard' is hard to spot.

 

Do you know if you were the only 'sinner' on that particular trip?

[SRPO]

..

Edited January 24, 2011 by SRPO

[bdasteve]

Wriggler7, you're assumptions are correct. During the tube strike the masses waiting on the platform were advised to use the whole platform - I did and found myself (when pointed out by the inspector) on a 1st class carriage. Usually when travelling from Tottenham Hale I use the Victoria Line, most of my experience with NXEA has been on the Edmonton Green route (i live midway between Edmonton Green and Tottenham Hale) on which their is no recognisable first class service. There was at least one other sinner and he seemd to be in more of a pickle (false name, address, etc).

[Wriggler7]

I hope that 'common sense' will prevail.

 

I don't have a copy of 'byelaws' to hand, and I wonder if there is a 'good' argument that the 'platform announcements' amount to an instruction by staff to use the 'first class' compartment. It would certainly seem harsh to enforce it under all of the circumstances.

 

The worst case would be a breach of byelaw, and one hopes that the 'company' would not wish to seem too inflexible with this matter. Something in the back of my mind is 'wondering' if the Inspector made a deliberate error. I understand that London Eastern has some form of 'target' system. I don't know how it works, but it may be that he felt under some pressure to submit a certain number of report, but didn't like reporting this situation.

 

Thoughts, anyone?

[bdasteve]

I spoke to someone at the Prosecutions Unit this morning; I pointed out the incorrect date and then asked if we could settle without it going any further. She seemed sympathetic to my plight (first timer and in possession of an annual travel card) but said it wasn't a call she could make and that she would need to consult with her supervisor and ring me back. She never gave me a window in which she would return the call but I'm hoping that the fact that she hasn't rung yet is more of an indication of how busy they are rather than any negative decision coming my way!

[Wriggler7]

From my very limited and second hand knowledge of the London Eastern prosecution team, I suspect that she 'told the truth'. They have (I understand) quite a number of 'prosecutors' and 'managers' and people who simply do the paperwork.

 

I suspect that she will be sliding a note under the nose of a manager.

[bdasteve]

No reply yet. I'm thinking about waiting until the end of the week before ringing them again but would you advise filling in and returning the letter or would that confuse things?

[Wriggler7]

I recommend filling in the letter, it has their reference number on, and will find it's way the 'the file'. I also recommend keeping a copy, I guess you were ahead of me on that point, but I like to think of 'other readers', many of whom may not consider such things.