Summons for using a found freedom pass

[Old-CodJA]

As others have said (in previous threads too) : these are publically funded concessionairy passes intended to benefit some of the more disadvantaged.

 

So, in my opinion, their abuse is disrespectful to their intended recipients while cheating those who fund them (which includes me!).

 

If you are innocent, CAG should help you robustly defend yourself.

If you admit you are guilty, CAG shouldn't be here to scold you, say "hah, you deserve all you get" or such, as if you come to CAG for reasonable help, CAG should help you mitigate the damage, bearing in mind you are accepting your guilt.

 

(Again, in my opinion: ) what I find as much of an abuse of CAG as I abhor intentional abuse of Freedom Passes is where it seems that someone has abused a freedom pass, based on what they have posted, and when caught 'bang to rights' wants to wriggle off the hook rather than accept they've done wrong.

 

"I found a freedom pass" and "I used it" :

If you 'touched in' with it and were stopped inside the ticket gates, how are you hoping to claim you weren't intending to use it for travel?

 

Stating "I'm an immigrant" as some sort of excuse or 'carte blanche' : since you've been in the UK a number of years, isn't this a bit rude to immigrants? You have had time to learn the social norms, and picking up and using something that isn't yours, without the owner's permission : in which cultures is this deemed acceptable, then?

I imagine in most cultures one is supposed to learn (usually at kindergarten stage) that this isn't acceptable behaviour.

 

 

A excellent post in my opinion. I couldn't agree more.

 

The fact is that by her own admission the OP found a Freedom Pass, knew it was not hers, knew she had not touched-in with her own Oyster so as to give up the fare from her own electronic purse and attempted to use the found pass to travel rather than pay from her own resources.

 

All the rhetoric about A.N. Other traveller is wholly irrelevant

 

By offering suggestions as to how to respond we can help her to mitigate the effect of that action, but we cannot right her wrong

[Old-CodJA]

Just something else came to me. I have to plea guilty to get rid of the process but I have to defend my position and say 'I didn't attempt to travel for free' as lookinforinfo has suggested. What will the judge think? this girl has plead guilty and then says, I disagree! Should I plea guilty or not? I think I should because it is always cheaper and quicker but want to know what others think.

 

Thanks again

 

 

Given your description of your intended response, I expect that the Court will not accept your guilty plea and you will be required to explain yourself to the Magistrates

 

You appear to have been charged with an 'intention to avoid a fare'

 

You cannot plead 'guilty' and in the same response say 'but I didn't intend to do it'. That will be considered to be an equivocal plea.

 

You will need to clarify this to the Court by saying either 'I plead guilty to intending to avoid a fare' or 'I am not guilty of the offence I have been charged with'. It cannot be both.

 

If you say to the Magistrates 'I am pleading guilty just because it's cheaper and quicker' they will not accept your plea.

 

If you genuinely believe that you are not guilty of an offence then you should plead 'Not Guilty' and have the allegation go to trial.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes HB, not a good idea

[Old-CodJA]

Section 5 (3) (a) If any person travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

That is what she is being accused of. Anyone who knows about Freedom passes will know that they are issued to Pensioners and people with certain disabilities. The OP did not even know that there was

a photograph of the guy the card belonged to. Had she known that no money had been paid for the card, that it belonged to a man and that she would have been spotted almost immediately [as she was]

since she is obviously not a Pensioner or infirm, I have no doubt that she would have not used the card. She hoped to find that there was sufficient credit on the card to pay for her journey so there was

no intention of attempting to travel without paying.

For if it had been , as she thought, a normal oyster card, had there been insufficient credit she would not have been able to get through the gate and would have used her own card, as she did subsequently

when she found out that she should not have used the Freedom pass.

 

She didn't know what a Freedom pass-why should she? She does not qualify for one. Who among us if they found a £5 note in the street would not have used it perhaps to buy a ticket or add it to our oyster

card? Very few people these days would hand it in to a Police station since who on earth would go to a Police station to ask if a fiver had been handed in especially as they may have a little idea where they lost it.

And what would be the difference between that scenario and using a normal oyster card that they had found.

 

And of course had the OP known that she was travelling on a Freedom pass, when challenged by the ticket collector, she could simply have explained that she had found the card and was intending to hand it in

at her destination and had used it by mistake as her own one was in the same compartment of her purse. They both looked the same and in her haste she used the wrong one. The fact that she didn't say that

would appear to me that she genuinely didn't know what a freedom pass was.

 

 

Taking your logic at face value, and knowing that a Freedom Pass looks nothing like a Pay-as-you-go Oyster card, perhaps you can also explain how the OP knew that it was a travel ticket without reading it?

 

Now, having read it and by doing so, discovered that it was a travel ticket, another question springs to mind.

 

Surely the OP would also have noticed that the printed information on it informs the reader that the found card was only valid for the person to whom it was issued and depicted on the photograph.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

duplicate

[Old-CodJA]

lookingforinfo, I think BazzaS and Mark1987 have summed up the issues with your posts very well here.

 

Firstly, ignorance of legislation is not a defence and secondly, in the Corbyn appeal case (1978), in the words of Lord Widgery & others in relation to Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889] it was ruled that; 'There is no reason for importing into the section the adverb "permanently". It is clear on the facts that he did not intend to pay the proper fare.'

 

This is the case here. The OP found a Freedom Pass and showed intention to use it. Section 5 RRA opens with the phrase 'If any person travels, or attempts to travel....'

 

In the case of Browning & Floyd (1946) it was contended by the defendant that, having used his wife's season ticket, 'the correct fare had been paid'. In that case the Appeal Court ruled that 'Whilst the rail company might not have lost money, his (the defendants') fare had not been paid'

 

It is clear from the OPs own post that she attempted to travel using the found Freedom Pass. The Freedom Pass is not transferable. The fact that she might have been ignorant of that rule is not a defence, her fare had not been paid at the point she attempted to use the pass.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

I'm going to try to stick with what is important now. You can argue ifs, buts & maybes until the cows come home, but what is done is done.

 

You are being charged with attempting to avoid a fare by using a Freedom Pass to which you were not entitled. Having done it and been caught doing so, you cannot undo it.

 

 

I don't really intend to go to the court but I want to make these points. They may not look logical to any of you but that is the reality of my life. In nutshell, I found a card and used it. Wrong action for using somebody else's card. But do I deserve this punishment? Going to the court for making a mistake for the first time? That is my point. I tried to explain this to TFL but they relate it to freedom pass. How can I write the mitigation letter to help me with reducing the fine and the criminal records? Does this end with a bad background (criminal record)? I don't know how that will affect the immigration status. Is it something like speed tickets or something worse? You won't be thrown away out of a country for speeding records, would you? .

 

Everyone has a right to their opinions and from a little bit of experience of dealing with these matters and presenting in Court, I'll share mine for what it's worth.

 

This case is Summonsed to Court and you say that you do not intend to attend. Please do not think that you can write to say 'I plead guilty' and then not expect a criminal conviction. If you plead guilty the Magistrates will record a conviction, that means a criminal record.

 

As I have previously explained, if you write and say 'I'm guilty', but send a letter saying 'I didn't know it was wrong and I didn't intend to do it' The Magistrates will not be able to accept the plea and you will end up either facing another Court hearing in person where your plea will be entered as 'not guilty' and a trial will ensue at a later date, or you will have to repeat your 'Guilty' plea and retract the assertion that you did not intend to avoid the fare.

 

Unless TfL agree to an out of Court disposal, the only chance that you have of avoiding a criminal conviction is to plead 'Not Guilty', attend for trial and convince the Court that you did not intend to avoid the fare by using someone else's Freedom Pass.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks both,

 

"You say you aren't a thief .... But were you not willing to use any stored value if it had been a PAYG Oyster? Whose money do you think you would have been spending?"

 

As I have told you before, I had lost 2 Oyster cards before. When I find one, then I feel that is my money that I have lost.

 

Again, I'll express just my opinion, but that line of thinking is completely wrong.

 

It's a very old saying, but 'Two wrongs do not make a right'

 

To suggest that it is OK to steal by finding just because you have previously lost something is not the sort of attitude that is going to please the Magistrates

 

Whilst there is a criminal record this is not the kind of conviction that need be particularly damaging to a career unless the terms of your employment require an entirely clear enhanced CRB check

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks Old-CodJA,

 

So what shall I write then? That is what I thought at that second. It is true two wrongs don not make a right. But I have done it now. what mitigation shall I write?

 

It really is up to you what you write, we cannot tell you exactly what words to use, what we can help with is thoughts that might help a little and things that you should avoid saying too.

 

In all honesty I cannot suggest that you do anything but apologise, explain that you found an Oyster, picked it up and attempted to use it to travel.

 

You can say that you did hold an Oyster of your own, with stored credit on the account and that you recognise that you should not have used one that was not yours without the express permission of the owner.

 

You can say that you are aware that there are some types of Oyster that can be shared, but that you did not check the Oyster that you had found to ensure it was permissible and that you decided to use it on the spur of the moment.

 

You might say that you have learned a very valuable lesson, that you will never again repeat such a rash action and ask the Magistrates to take this into consideration when coming to their decision.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Hi Old-CodJA, HB,

 

I have another question. In my letter to the court I have written that TFL has refused my Out of Court Settlement request twice. Now I am thinking, is it better not to mention it at all or mention it?

 

We can look at it from two aspects.

 

1. I have tried to solve the problem between me and TFL (my intention is to show this)

2. TFL is too angry with me that they want to prosecute me and they expect the judge be as hard as he can be on me.

 

Thanks

 

 

It is entirely up to you whether or not you believe me, but you really need to get out of your head any idea that TfL are being unfair.

 

There is a defined penalty for the alleged offence and the legislation does specify that the penalty is for conviction of a first offence.

 

It is true that in the case of some relatively minor offences that the rail operators (and TfL) may choose to allow an out of Court disposal, but the misuse of Freedom Passes by people not entitled to use them is considered to be stealing from the 'public purse' and therefore is considered a more serious matter than breach of Byelaw.

 

What we should never have is a system of 'justice' that is wholly based on whether someone can afford to buy themselves out of a prosecution and the transport operator is never obliged to accept such an offer.

 

For those reasons I think it is very important that you do not advise Magistrates that you think TfL are 'picking on you' because, although you admit using the pass, TfL will not let you pay to make the effects of your actions go-away

 

You can of course say that you have asked if the matter could be resolved by you paying any unpaid fare and all the costs incurred by TfL, but this offer was not accepted.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

HB is spot on

 

If you were charged with 'intent to avoid a fare' and sent a plea of 'Guilty' to the Court, but then argued that the staff were rude, abusive or generally unfair, or you said 'I am guilty, but I didn't mean to avoid the fare', then your plea is equivocal and the Court cannot accept your guilty plea.

 

You will be required to attend Court to clarify your plea, or seek legal representation in good time before the next hearing date.#

 

You should not plead guilty if you genuinely do not believe that you are guilty of the offence charged.

 

You can enter a 'not guilty plea' and offer the explanation that you were wholly unaware that the card you were using could not be used by you and that because of this you did not set out intending not to pay. You can say that you now understand that you might have broken a rule unknowingly, but did not set out with any concious intention of avoiding payment of a fare.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

It is perfectly legitimate to use somebody elses pre-pay card. I thought I had found one.

 

It is perfectly legitimate to use an unregistered pre-pay Oyster card that has been given to you for that express purpose. It is not perfectly legitimate to use one that is 'found lost' and it might be considered to be 'stealing by finding', but that is not the issue here.

 

To illustrate the point nonetheless, I doubt that you would consider it legitimate to find my lost wallet and spend the cash it contained. That is exactly what you would be doing with a 'found' pre-pay Oyster. It is someones' electronic purse.

 

Anyway, to the point that is the stumbling block for the Magistrates. I believe that you have been charged with the 'intention to avoid a fare contrary to Section 5.3.a of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889)'.

 

You have pleaded 'Guilty', but have said words to the effect that you 'admit that you used the Freedom pass, but did not know you could not use it and therefore did not set out intending not to pay and have apologised to the company'. It does not matter that those are not the exact words that you used, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the general explanation that you gave.

 

Nystagmite is spot-on. Ignorance of a rule is not a defence, however what you have said to the Court is 'I am guilty of the offence, but I did not intend to do it because I didn't know it was wrong'. That is an equivocal plea. The charge is 'intent', you cannot say you are 'guilty, but did not intend' to do it.

 

Unfortunately I now realise it was a non-transferable type of card. So I had intended to travel with a pre-paid card and didn't realise my mistake until it was too late. What should I do next?

 

Your explanation suggests that you did intend to use the 'found' card that was not yours and the evidence of the attempt to do so is included in the inspectors' statement. The fact that you say you had not checked to see what kind of pass it was and just thought 'It's a pre-pay, I'll use it' is not a defence to that charge.

 

You have two straightforward choices so far as I can see,

 

You can clarify your plea by writing to the Court and saying something like the following: 'I am guilty as charged, I know I should not have used a found pass and I apologise for doing so. I wish the Court to deal with the matter in my absence and I ask that the Magistrates take into consideration my financial circumstances as declared on the enclosed form MC100 and the fact that I have an exemplary record with no previous convictions.'

 

The Magistrates can say 'No, we want you here to explain yourself in person', but in my experience they will usually accept that kind of clarification and avoid much wasted Court time otherwise. This will result in a conviction, but Magistrates will also take into account that acceptance of responsibility and will reduce any penalty accordingly.

 

or

 

You can plead 'Not guilty' to the charge by saying 'I am not guilty of intending to avoid paying'.

 

In this instance the matter will go to trial at a later date when you will have to attend Court and the company will be required to bring their witness and prove to the satisfaction of the Magistrates that 'you did intend to avoid paying your fare'. If you are found to be 'not guilty' by the Court then there will be no conviction and no penalty. If you are found to be 'guilty' then a conviction will be recorded and a financial penalty imposed.

 

Do remember, if you choose to plead 'Not guilty', it is for the company to prove your guilt, not for you to prove your innocence.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

In my personal opinion, going on what we can glean only from a one-sided view of the incident, which is that being given by the person accused of the offence, and long experience of dealing with these cases I find it hard to see how you are likely to avoid conviction unless there is something wrong in the process undertaken by the prosecutor.

 

I strongly suggest that you seek qualified legal advice from a Solicitor that specialises in criminal matters and is known at the Court to which you have been summonsed.

 

It is not for any of us to promote any particular law firm, I suggest that you contact the Court office and ask if they can suggest criminal law specialists in their locality. Most Court admin staff are happy to help. You can contact them by Googling the name of the actual Court to which you are summonsed and using the general office number that will display on the HMCS website.

 

If convicted of the offence as charged, the maximum penalty that can be applied by the Magistrates is a fine of up to £1000 and they may order you to pay compensation of any unpaid fare, the prosecutors costs (all or part) and a victim surcharge imposed on all persons who are fined by the courts in these kind of cases.

 

Generally speaking, the fine for a first time offender will normally be around £400 if found guilty and that is reduced by around a third if an early 'guilty' plea is entered. Costs can vary, but as a rough estimate will usually fall between £100 and £200.

 

In cases where the defendant can show exceptional hardship or other difficult circumstances the Magistrates may take this into account and vary their judgment accordingly.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Now, I know I shouldn't have used somebody else's card no matter what the type was (let's not mention it again) but I didn't really plan to find that card and I didn't really intent to avoid the payment.

 

This goes to mitigation, it is not a defence to the charge.

 

The prosecutor will point out that having found it, you did attempt to use it and if not detected you would have avoided paying the fare.

 

You may say your intention was X, the prosecutor will say your intention was Y

 

What matters is what the Magistrates believe your intention was after appraisal of the evidence.

[Old-CodJA]

if the LU says if we didn't stop you, you would have used it.

 

Can I say: if I would have known the type of card, I wouldn't have used it and when I would have known it is a personal card, I would have handed that in (something like this was in my mitigation letter).

 

 

I'm sorry that I do not believe any of us can help you further here and would stop looking for alternative wordings for mitigation if I were you.

 

The fact is that you appear to admit attempting to use the card whether you were thinking it was something it wasn't, or not is not really relevant.

 

It was not yours and you knew that and we cannot alter the details that have already been reported.

 

 

 

So if I ask for an advisor in court, is there anybody to help me? or are they are against me unless I pay them? Sorry I have never been to court I don't know what to expect! )

 

 

You appear to be misunderstanding what I said. You need to act quickly and as soon as possible before the Court date.

 

You need to ring the enquiries office at the Court at which your case is listed and ask them to give you the names of Solicitors in the locality who specialise in criminal law and who regularly appear at that Court.

 

Once you have the details of one (or maybe more) you need to contact a Law firm quickly and explain that you have been summonsed to answer a charge that you don't accept.

 

It's up to you to engage legal representation if you feel you need help. ( From reading your posts I strongly believe that you do, but that's my personal opinion.)

 

This is not an allegation that will quailfy for Legal Aid so you need to ask the Solicitor how much s/he is going to charge you and discuss with them what your chances are from examination of the papers that have been sent to you.

 

Your qualified legal advisor will be the person best placed to help you from now on.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Right, now that bit is clear and just to add one more spot of clarification, can I ask you to go back to post 25, which I put on page 2 of this thread and re-read it before you attempt to explain your case to a solicitor.

 

I hope that it might save you some time & money to have all of this clear in your head.

 

In that post I did predict the Court would reject your plea given the way that you suggested explaining yourself, but that isn't the point. You need to see how they viewed the issue of intent.

 

Ignore for a moment what type of pass it was and focus on the fact that it was not yours. Once you found the pass you could have done nothing with it, but you chose to attempt to use it to travel.

 

That action showed intent to use it and by so doing you would retain the value held on your own card to use another day, thereby gaining a pecuniary advantage by using someone elses card without their consent.

 

YOU would not have paid YOUR fare in accordance with the legislation. (Legal precedent - Case of Browning & Floyd. 1946)

 

Make sure that you have that clear in mind, explain it to your solicitor and with the advantage of having all of the evidence and statements to hand, s/he may be able to find a way in which you can mitigate the damage when s/he addresses the Court on your behalf. It is unlikely, but not impossible for this to result in acquittal because you have been charged with 'intent' and that has to be proven, but you will not achieve that by continuing as you have thus far. I have given you a prosecutors' view of the case based on your declared 'evidence'. Please get this paperwork looked at by a solicitor and quickly.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Just had a phone call from somebody saying 'I am lucky I wasn't charged with something else. Finding something and keeping it.' and he says he will charge me 600 to just come with me to the court and plead guilty for me! He said there is a duty solicitor in the court for some advice on the hearing day.

 

Yes, there is usually a Duty Solicitor at the Court, but the reason I mentioned the Legal Aid scheme in an earlier post is because this charge does not quailfy (it is not imprisonable) and because of that, Duty Solicitors will rarely represent these cases. To do so will mean they are not getting paid and it is rare to find one who will take on these cases 'pro-bono'.

 

You can read the sticky 'What happens at Court' at the top of this forum, and bear in mind that is a trial scenario. It might help to understand the process.

 

Your insistence on referring to matters that are not relevant must be overcome before things are going to improve for you. I have said all along that good legal advice might be able to spot something in those papers that will help you

Edited November 16, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

I asked him what is the point of having a solicitor if I am going to plead guilty and get conviction anyway and He said, peace of mind! 600 pounds for preparing my papers?! I can read and write myself!

 

I am sorry but this might offend, there is a very old saying in law circles that goes 'the untrained man who defends himself in a court of law has a fool for a client.'

 

That isn't always the case of course, but if you cannot get out of the temptation of bringing up irrelevances in your presentation, I'm afraid it may well haunt you later.

 

I am sorry I cannot offer better hope, but if all is exactly as you have posted, a guilty plea may well be your best option if TfL will not settle out of Court and if you cannot engage good legal representation

Edited November 16, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks OC,

 

What should I insist on then? Nothing else to stick with. What would have you said if you were in my shoes? Please forget about what I could have done on that day as I can't go back. I really need help to prevent getting a conviction. I have had a terrible time during the last 5 months

 

If you were the prosecutor for my case, how could I change your mind? What words? Please

 

 

You cannot insist on anything. It is your actions that got you to this point.

 

I will be perfectly honest and say that; on the evidence, as presented here by you and given that TfL have a policy of robustly prosecuting the misuse of Freedom Passes, which are paid for to be used only by the needy and are financed by public funds, I do not see any way in which the prosecution would not go forward.

 

Your only chance would be to accept your guilt, apologise profusely to TfL and the staff concerned, give an undertaking never to travel without a valid ticket in future and aoofer to pay all of the costs incurred and any outstanding fares in order to deal with the matter without Court action.

 

TfL do not have to agree, but I really do believe that your apparent persistence in looking for excuses for your own actions and your inability to stop introducing irrelevant opinion has prevented any chance of success.

 

You could turn up at Court with a wad of cash in your purse and attempt to persuade the prosecutor in person to accept a settlement and sometimes that succeeds, but please believe me, if you start by trying to excuse your action rather than apologising for it, I doubt anything will change.

[Old-CodJA]

I understand your thinking lookinforinfo, but have to point out two relevant factors.

 

The OP may have used her own Oyster after having been stopped and questioned when attempting to use the freedom pass, but the legislation that you rightly refer to (Section 5.3 Regulation of Railways Act [1889]) says 'Travels or attempts to travel....' and 'having not previously paid....'.

 

Payment of a fare after being detected in the act of the alleged offence does not prevent a correctly brought prosecution.

 

Secondly, the judgment in the Appeal case of Browning & Floyd (1946) to which I also referred earlier is particularly clear. That judgment ruled that in the case of a traveller using a ticket that is issued for the sole use of another named traveller, the rail company might not have lost money, but that user has not paid his/her fare and therefore the intent to avoid his/her fare is proven

 

Please remember that the Freedom pass is expressly issued for the sole use of the named traveller identified on it by photographic image.

 

This is nothing like me going to the station with my daughter and payuing for her ticket to travel to University and there has never been legislation in force to prevent that from happening.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

The OPs own words:

 

A few months ago I found a freedom pass outside of the station and without studying the card, I used it.

 

 

 

 

Opening line, Section 5.3.a Regulation of Railways Act (1889) 'If any person travels, or attempts to travel......'

 

The OPs own words

 

The other thing is, I didn't ever got on the train. They stopped me at the gate and they are claiming for the journey that I didn't make!

 

It is an attempt to travel, if 'they' hadn't been there, you would have travelled using said pass

 

 

I've put as much time and effort into this thread as I am prepared to do now. I cannot help further.

[Old-CodJA]

There is a difference between people who make a mistake and people who really plan to avoid the payment.

 

Right, for the last time. REMOVE THAT LINE FROM YOUR MESSAGE.

 

Please do not tell TfL what to think and they may just consider your request in a different light. No guarantee, but it's worth a try.

 

Put it in writing, hard copy, signed and sent by recorded delivery.

[Old-CodJA]

The OP may have used her own Oyster after having been stopped and questioned when attempting to use the freedom pass, but the legislation that you rightly refer to (Section 5.3 Regulation of Railways Act [1889]) says 'Travels or attempts to travel....' and 'having not previously paid....'. .'.with the intent to avoid payment'. And that part of the charge is the crucial one]

 

That is indeed crucial to the intent element, but your comment was in relation to whether or not the OP actually used the pass. I was drawing attention to the fact that she did not need to travel, merely attempt to do so using that pass for which she had not previously paid for the offence to be complete.

 

Please remember that the Freedom pass is expressly issued for the sole use of the named traveller identified on it by photographic image.

I appreciate that but I don't think the OP knew]

 

I agree that she may not have known, but having discovered that the object she had found was a pass she did try to use it. As we all know, ignorance of a law is not a defence.

[Old-CodJA]

I didn't talk about that day and ticket anymore. I said I am so sorry and apologised about what has happened. Then explained I didn't know what the consequences of the conviction could be before I pleases guilty to the court. Now I know what can happen to me I ask for OOC settlement and then explained how that could that affect my work and life. I explained in details that how could this ruin my life.

 

I didn't tell them I am an exception but I mentioned the consequences for me will be worse than for anybody else's. On that day I told the inspector that I had a card but not sure why he has written I didn't have a card. He watched me go out and reenter with my own card without going to the ticket office to buy a new ticket.

 

 

It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising that TfL have taken this view. I know it may be going over old ground, but I did try to prepare you for this. The misuse of Freedom Passes is a very serious issue and continues to be treated as such because they are funded by public money.

 

Sadly, the use of your own Oyster after being reported has no bearing on the offence I'm afraid. I think that I explained earlier that the section of the relevant Act says '...having not previously paid...and this means that paying a fare afterwards does not alter the fact that the '...attempt to travel..' using the Freedom Pass was detected and reported.

 

Whether or not you had an Oyster of your own with you does not alter the act of attempting to use the Freedom Pass until caught out. You may mention this at the Court hearing of course, but depending on the mood of the Magistrates and the powers of persuasion of the prosecutor, I'm afraid it might actually be counter-productive. It could be argued that by attempting to use the pass that you picked up and knowing that you had a means to pay, you were attempting to avoid giving up the stored value that you held on your own Oyster, clearly therefore intending to avoid paying from your own funds.

 

Again, explaining that you didn't know what the consequences of being caught were has no relevence, because as we have already explained, ignorance is not a defence.

 

I am sorry that you have been unable to persuade TfL to allow this to be disposed of out of Court, but it seems clear that they are set on exercising their right to prosecute the alleged offence. You really need to focus on how you deal with the Court hearing now.

 

If you decide that you are going to plead 'not-guilty' to this charge I strongly suggest that you do consider again the value of engaging properly qualified legal representation.

 

If you decide to plead 'guilty' with mitigation, then I think it essential that you attend this time. The Magistrates have already rejected your written plea of guilty because the considered your comments equivocal unless you simply enter a further written plea of guilty, saying something like 'I apologise unreservedly for my out of character act, I accept the evidence and I wish the Court to deal with the matter in my absence. I am very sorry for this one-off misjudgement and untertake not to travel without a valid rail ticket in future'.

 

I'm sorry, but I cannot offer any further suggestion that might offer you better hope.

[Old-CodJA]

A Pay-As-You-Go Oyster card is not a travel ticket. It is an electronic purse, a means of carrying credit to pay for the fare.

 

It is only considered to be a travel ticket after it has been touched-in at the start of a journey.

 

It appears that what they are saying is that you had not previously touched-in using your own Oyster card and therefore did not hold a valid ticket of your own before attempting to travel