Court case this Thursday

[BazzaS]

I disagree, it should be both. The OP didn't just walk up to the Revenue Protection Officer, there was a reason, he wanted to inform the RPO that he had traveled without a ticket because he was running late.

 

Also where have I said the following?

 

'I think all railway staff (and the public!) should be concerned with the behaviour of the travelling public towards railway staff'.

 

Look again, where I posted

I'd disagree.

I think all railway staff (and the public!) should be concerned with the behaviour of the travelling public towards railway staff, and if it had to be a choice between enforcing that and enforcing Bylaws 17/18 : it should be the former.

 

However:

a) it doesn't have to be a choice

b) I suspect the two areas often go "hand in hand"

 

Incidentally, poor behaviour by railway staff towards the travelling public should be equally unacceptable.

 

1) I never suggested you said "'I think all railway staff (and the public!) should be concerned with the behaviour of the travelling public towards railway staff" : these were my words, not yours, and I still believe them to be true. Each (railway staff and public) deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect by the other.

 

2) You "disagree" with me, and say it should be both (revenue protection AND protection of staff).

Hang on : it was you who suggested it was odd that RPI's were doing both, and I was saying that IF (big if!) it was a choice of one ; staff protection should take precedence, BUT (and I did say it was a 'big if') it doesn't have to be 'either/or' ... it should be both .... and that the two often go 'hand in hand'

 

So, you "disagree" .... but by agreeing with me ; how does that work then?.

[BazzaS]

Duplicate post deleted

[rebel11]

I disagree, because the OP states that he is being prosecuted under one Byelaw, he is not being prosecuted under two Byelaws.. Also 'it was you who suggested it was odd that RPI's were doing both', I suggested that it was strange that they weren't dealing with the 'traveling without a ticket' as well as the OP's behaviour.

 

Look again, (your previous post and my response)

 

1) I never suggested you said "'I think all railway staff (and the public!) should be concerned with the behaviour of the travelling public towards railway staff" : these were my words, not yours, and I still believe them to be true. Each (railway staff and public) deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect by the other.

 

2) You "disagree" with me, and say it should be both (revenue protection AND protection of staff).

Hang on : it was you who suggested it was odd that RPI's were doing both, and I was saying that IF (big if!) it was a choice of one ; staff protection should take precedence, BUT (and I did say it was a 'big if') it doesn't have to be 'either/or' ... it should be both .... and that the two often go 'hand in hand'

 

So, you "disagree" .... but by agreeing with me ; how does that work then?.

[BazzaS]

I disagree, because the OP states that he is being prosecuted under one Byelaw, he is not being prosecuted under two Byelaws.. Also 'it was you who suggested it was odd that RPI's were doing both', I suggested that it was strange that they weren't dealing with the 'traveling without a ticket' as well as the OP's behaviour.

 

The RP staff make the report to the prosecutions office.

I've never suggested it was odd they were doing both : in fact my comment was "go hand in hand"

 

What leads you to conclude they weren't dealing with the ticketless travel?

 

So, the 18(1) prosecution in February 2011 is different to the S5(3)(a) and "contravening Byelaw 6(1)" which I am being prosecuted for this time?

 

There is nothing odd here that they are only being prosecuted under one bylaw ; Just because there isn't a Bylaw 18 prosecution on this occasion doesn't mean the ticketless travel isn't being prosecuted : it is, by the S5(3)a RRA 1889 prosecution.

[rebel11]

Stick to reading what's been written, you keep trying to branch out, looking for a diversion.

 

The RP staff make the report to the prosecutions office.

What leads you to conclude they weren't dealing with the ticketless travel?

 

 

 

Just because there isn't a Bylaw 18 prosecution on this occasion doesn't mean the ticketless travel isn't being prosecuted : it is, by the S5(3)a RRA 1889 prosecution.

[BazzaS]

Stick to reading what's been written.

 

I am reading what had been written : not two Byelaw prosecutions : one bylaw, one 5(3) RRA 1889

 

RP staff making a report noting both ticketless travel and their recording of OP's behaviour.

 

What do you feel I've not read or misinterpreted?.

[rebel11]

My posts are there to be read, read them.

 

I am reading what had been written : not two Byelaw prosecutions : one bylaw, one 5(3) RRA 1889

 

RP staff making a report noting both ticketless travel and their recording of OP's behaviour.

 

What do you feel I've not read or misinterpreted?.

[BazzaS]

My posts are there to be read, read them.

 

I've read them.

Others can read them (and my posts, too)

 

You are the one saying it was strange the TOC / RP staff were concentrating on the OP's alleged behaviour towards staff rather than their ticketless travel.

 

I was saying it didn't have to be one or the other.

 

You were the one saying "but he is only being prosecuted under one Bylaw" as if this meant the ticketless travel was being disregarded.

 

Saying "stick to what has been written" and "read my posts" doesn't cover up your errors : it highlights them.

 

Rather than merely repeating "read my posts" : why not highlight where you think I'm going wrong if you really believe I am?

[firstclassx]

I'm not grumbling about travelling without a ticket as I know I am in the wrong for not purchasing a ticket before my journey. What I could spend hours grumbling about is the attitude of SWT staff.

 

Oh the days I could spend grumbling about passengers who have millions of excuses as to whey they are the exception

[rebel11]

Read my posts is sufficient, I don't need to cover anything up, what errors? Read what has been written.

 

I've read them.

Others can read them (and my posts, too)

 

You are the one saying it was strange the TOC / RP staff were concentrating on the OP's alleged behaviour towards staff rather than their ticketless travel.

 

I was saying it didn't have to be one or the other.

 

You were the one saying "but he is only being prosecuted under one Bylaw" as if this meant the ticketless travel was being disregarded.

 

Saying "stick to what has been written" and "read my posts" doesn't cover up your errors : it highlights them.

 

Rather than merely repeating "read my posts" : why not highlight where you think I'm going wrong if you really believe I am?

[BazzaS]

Read my posts is sufficient, I don't need to cover anything up, what errors? Read what has been written.

 

(Mere) Repetition doesn't mean you are right.

I've highlighted where you've made errors.

If you believe that is factually wrong : why not actually answer : where?.

 

If you think I've said something wrong : why not quote it and highlight it rather than leaving readers guessing?.

 

For example : I've pointed out:

"You are the one saying it was strange the TOC / RP staff were concentrating on the OP's alleged behaviour towards staff rather than their ticketless travel.

 

I was saying it didn't have to be one or the other.

 

You were the one saying "but he is only being prosecuted under one Bylaw" as if this meant the ticketless travel was being disregarded."

 

I suspect you aren't giving examples because you can't, so are going for contradiction and vagueness rather than discussion or examples.

[Stigy]

NJames, you're probably not going to appreciate this post much, but I think it has to be said (I skimmed this thread and don't think anybody else has said it yet).

 

I'm not not entirely sure there's not more to this, as with a lot of threads started here, than meets the eye.

 

a) NJames said in their response to SWT's letter that they were unaware at the time of the incident what a Byelaw was....yet they've been prosecuted for one before from what I've read?

 

b) NJames travels 5-days a week for several years yet doesn't buy a season ticket? Why would they do this if not to chance their arm somewhat?

 

c) By travelling this frequently, one should sury know the rules by now.

 

d) There was ample opportunity to buy a ticket at London Road and on changing train at Guildford. (Said in letter you searched for the guard on Guildford to waterloo train but I'm only assuming you found him? Or did he find you?) this could affect things when proving intent.

 

The letter to SWT was probably a hindrance rather than a help to be honest.

 

The fact that SWT have prosecuted this person before will be reason enough for them not to settle out of court. The OP clearly knows they should buy a ticket before travelling, so why don't they?

 

In my professional view this should be a relatively easy 5(3)a to prove as long as the points to prove have been satisfied. Having said that, if NJanes wasn't under caution and interviewed as such, it will be harder to prove. Having said that, in this case it's more the actions that prove the case from what I see. I am surprised SWT didn't call NJames in for further questioning though, if not just to fit all the I's etc.

[NJames]

The letter was in response to the prosecution department writing to me saying they were considering prosecution. Because of the hours I work, it might not always be beneficial to buy a travelcard. Fur example, if I work a late shift, I would drive into work.

 

Regarding me buying a ticket from the guard, I went to find him. Not the other way round. He was really polite and apologetic and said to get a ticket at Waterloo, saying it will be fine.

 

Not everybody knows the ins and out if bye-laws. Although there is information online, it doesn't really explain much to someone who doesn't know what they are. By all means, call me thick, but other people have more knowledge than others.

 

Doesn't really explain what the likely outcome will be today. As I say, hopefully just a hefty fine.

[honeybee13]

Good luck, NJames, please let us know how you get on.

 

HB

[Old-CodJA]

I expect that your hope will be fulfilled.

 

It is likely that, if you are unable to convince the prosecutor to settle outside the Courtroom door, and if you plead guilty the Magistrates will be asked to consider your previous conviction.

 

That will lead to a reduction in standard tariff for your early acceptance of guilt, but the fine may then be stepped up again for the aggravating feature of the previous matter.

 

A further fine can be expected if the Byelaw 6 matter is also put to the Bench.

 

This would probably result in you being ordered to pay the total of fines, victim surcharge, compensation of fare and the prosecutors' costs.

 

 

Let us know how you get on.

[honeybee13]

Oh dear, I thought we might have heard from NJames by now. I hope you're OK.

 

HB

[NJames]

Sorry, I had a bit of a busy night last night so was unable to check messages on here. All dealt with by a financial penalty of £610.40 (which includes the apparent "abuse" to a member if railway staff). Do you think it will be worth complaining about the said member of staff?

[Old-CodJA]

Sorry, I had a bit of a busy night last night so was unable to check messages on here. All dealt with by a financial penalty of £610.40 (which includes the apparent "abuse" to a member if railway staff). Do you think it will be worth complaining about the said member of staff?

 

You may write to the TOC, but they may well take the view that as the matter was put before a Court and (I assume) you pleaded guilty to the charge having had opportunity to read the evidence beforehand, they will not examine the case further.

 

You had the opportunity to complain before the Summons was issued and also had the opportunity to attend Court and have that member of staff brought before the Magistrates so that you could challenge the evidence.

 

You may still write and complain of course, but expect to be disappointed if you think anything is going to be reversed.

 

The best chance you have of any change is appealing severity of sentence at the Crown Court.

 

However, if you pleaded guilty given the previous conviction which you have declared and on this subsequent occasion recognising that there was a charge of intent to avoid a fare and charge of abusive behaviour ( or language ) I don't think they will consider the total penalty excessive in this case.

 

The problem with this course of action is that Crown Court Appeals can be a very expensive process and representation is probably going to cost you in the order of 2k.