On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:17 +0000 (UTC), evan wrote:

A couple of people have frightened her about this & said she can get a fine
of up to £1000 & a criminal record - it's the criminal record bit she is
worried about. Is this likely? (as far as I can tell it's possible, but
that's not the same thing). Also, anyone any idea what the fine on a first
offence might be?

A magistrate in a previous post puts it at £150 ish.


She admits she's in the wrong & plans to plead guilty, & was also wondering
if going to court herself to explain will have any affect on the penalty.

On the fine maybe, but by pleading guilty you get the criminal conviction.


I can understand that they are trying to cut down fare dodging, but it seems
a bit over the top to me, given that she did have a ticket. However.

You need a solicitor, they may tell you that pleading not-guilty is the
best bet (after all doing this will only increase the fine slightly if it
fails), it really depends on the text of the law if having a ticket but
forgetting to use it is a valid defence, it may well be.

Steve

"Steve Peake" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:17 +0000 (UTC), evan wrote:

A couple of people have frightened her about this & said she can get a
fine
of up to £1000 & a criminal record - it's the criminal record bit she is
worried about. Is this likely? (as far as I can tell it's possible, but
that's not the same thing). Also, anyone any idea what the fine on a
first
offence might be?

A magistrate in a previous post puts it at £150 ish.


She admits she's in the wrong & plans to plead guilty, & was also
wondering
if going to court herself to explain will have any affect on the
penalty.

On the fine maybe, but by pleading guilty you get the criminal conviction.


I can understand that they are trying to cut down fare dodging, but it
seems
a bit over the top to me, given that she did have a ticket. However.

You need a solicitor, they may tell you that pleading not-guilty is the
best bet (after all doing this will only increase the fine slightly if it
fails), it really depends on the text of the law if having a ticket but
forgetting to use it is a valid defence, it may well be.

To get a criminal conviction the prosecution have to show intent.
This is usually impossible unless the person confesses to deliberately
evading the fare, can be shown to have lied to the inspector or they
have been nabbed a few times.

It used to be that in a case like this they wouldn't even bother
with a prosecution (which is why the PF was brought in in the
first place so that they had a sanction when there was no chance
of a prosecution).

So ISTM that either there is something missing from the story
or they have no chance of winning.

See a solicitor prompto.

tim






Steve

"tim" wrote in message ...
"Steve Peake" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:17 +0000 (UTC), evan wrote:

A couple of people have frightened her about this & said she can get a
fine
of up to £1000 & a criminal record - it's the criminal record bit she is


So ISTM that either there is something missing from the story
or they have no chance of winning.

See a solicitor prompto.

tim






Steve

Whilist I think £1000 fine is a bit over the top I think anyone who
evades paying on the bendy buses should be proscuted for the sole
reason of the honest people who pay a pound to travel even though
there is little chance of anyone checking their ticket.
And it does seem strange that someone so innocent should be taken such
a hard line with. Possibly there is something that the poster "forgot"
to mention about the case as in my experince it doesn't matter how
honest the person when faced with being punished for something they
have done they are usually clean as a sheet but "forgot" certian
aspects of the case.

"CJG Now Thankfully Living In The North" wrote in
message om...
"tim" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peake" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:17 +0000 (UTC), evan wrote:

A couple of people have frightened her about this & said she can get
a
fine
of up to £1000 & a criminal record - it's the criminal record bit
she is


So ISTM that either there is something missing from the story
or they have no chance of winning.

See a solicitor prompto.

tim






Steve

Whilist I think £1000 fine is a bit over the top I think anyone who
evades paying on the bendy buses should be proscuted for the sole
reason of the honest people who pay a pound to travel even though
there is little chance of anyone checking their ticket.
And it does seem strange that someone so innocent should be taken such
a hard line with. Possibly there is something that the poster "forgot"
to mention about the case as in my experince it doesn't matter how
honest the person when faced with being punished for something they
have done they are usually clean as a sheet but "forgot" certian
aspects of the case.

I take the point, but I really don't think so. She is absolutely an honest
person all the time - I've seen her give back £10 change when she was given
a £20 note rather than a £10. This was a genuine mistake: she'd just be told
she had to come to a meeting at which she thought she was going to be made
redundant, she was thinking about that & she simply forgot to get her ticket
torn off. We went over it in a lot of detail several times as she was very
upset at the time.

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

She carries a book of tickets because she occasionally uses buses rather
than the tube or train.

--
Evan
remove certain words in address to email

On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement? How exactly did he
describe the incident?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

tim


How exactly did he
describe the incident?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

In message , tim
writes

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

Totally agree - a person that arrives off a trains at a barrier that is
not normally manned, with £10 in their hand & offers to pay the PF
without being asked will get asked a lot more questions.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but if she straight away said
'sorry' and then offered to pay the PF - I can see why you are off to
court now

--
Martin Summerfield

On Sun, 2 May 2004 10:25:01 +0200, "tim"
wrote:


"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

How do you get that? If I was in the position of, say, getting on a
bus with a buggered Oyster reader the day after I'd forgotten my TC
expired, and part-way through the journey a ticket inspector getting
on and checking it with a hand-held, my first reaction would be to put
my hands up, admit an error on my part, and cough up the penalty fare.
An person making an honest mistake is not always going to stand (or
sit) there whinging/arguing, because that rarely achieves anything.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

You seem to have formed an opnion and are trying to fit the known
facts around it. Have you considered that it may just be that the
GF's immediate offer to pay the penalty fare and the inspector's
refusal of that actually counts very much in her favour, and not his,
hence he has "forgotten" that detail?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement? How exactly did he
describe the incident?

The Inspector does not *have* to accept an penalty under *any*
circumstances. If he suspects fare evasion he may report the individual, as
he has done here. To do so, he *must* caution the person and tell them they
are being reported and for what offence. The fact a penalty fare was
offered immediately is not eveidence of regular fare evasion, as suggested
by some of those posting here, and would not be deemed so by the court.

The fact that a summons has been issued just with the six months cut off
period set out in the magistrates court act is typical of these *private*
prosecutions. The departments who put the cases together are generally less
than competent, and rely on individuals pleading guilty.

The offence in question is a criminal one. There are 2 options here.

1. Plead gulity by post, outlining the circumstances you describe as
mitigation. A fine will be the result, plus costs, probably £50. You WILL
NOT recieve a criminal record.

2. Plead not guilty, attend court and cross examine the inspector as to his
procedure at the time of reporting (caution etc as above), and challenge the
fact that you *intended* to avoid your fare. After all you where in
possession of a ticket, just not validated, not allready used or out of
date. The magistrate will take into consideration how you come across when
giving evidence, and also how the inspector does. IME a properly prepared
defence case will wipe the floor with most rail/bus ticket inspectors.

regards

Baloo

"Baloo" wrote in message
...

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

sinp

The Inspector does not *have* to accept an penalty under *any*
circumstances. If he suspects fare evasion he may report the individual,
as
he has done here. To do so, he *must* caution the person and tell them
they
are being reported and for what offence. The fact a penalty fare was
offered immediately is not eveidence of regular fare evasion, as suggested
by some of those posting here, and would not be deemed so by the court.

The fact that a summons has been issued just with the six months cut off
period set out in the magistrates court act is typical of these *private*
prosecutions. The departments who put the cases together are generally
less
than competent, and rely on individuals pleading guilty.

The offence in question is a criminal one. There are 2 options here.

1. Plead gulity by post, outlining the circumstances you describe as
mitigation. A fine will be the result, plus costs, probably £50. You WILL
NOT recieve a criminal record.

2. Plead not guilty, attend court and cross examine the inspector as to
his
procedure at the time of reporting (caution etc as above), and challenge
the
fact that you *intended* to avoid your fare. After all you where in
possession of a ticket, just not validated, not allready used or out of
date. The magistrate will take into consideration how you come across
when
giving evidence, and also how the inspector does. IME a properly prepared
defence case will wipe the floor with most rail/bus ticket inspectors.

regards

Baloo



Thanks. We're going to see a solicitor on Tuesday because we've arrived at
your position 2, having started off at 1. The prosecution is being bought by
TfL/London Bus Services, & *not* the CPS, which may make a difference - it's
a private, not a criminal, prosecution. This apparently may reduce the
burden of proof of intent.

In part, we are wondering if they are likely to withdraw if it looks as if
she is going to fight it.

Thanks to everyone who helped - it's got our minds clearer over the holiday
while we couldn't go straight to a solicitor.
--
Evan

remove certain words in address to email