AlterEgo
Veteran Member
In any case, thank you for updating us on the outcome. The more outcomes we hear the more we can tailor our advice to be realistic to other people who come to this forum.
I would assume hopefully not - however key thing now is to always make sure you have correct ticket (even unintentional errors) as I guess your name would be on their database so if it cropped up again they might be less inclined to settle out of court if requested. I guess that means if in doubt check ticket validity at ticket office or with staff before boarding train. This will be with any operator as they share info on fare evasion issues.Anyway, now its done and I have this on my record, but been thinking if this could have issues for me when travelling
Byelaw offence 18 (1) and 24 Transport Act 2000What offence were you convicted of?
also to add that I have to apply for UK work visa and this could potentially affect the decision from home officeHi all apologies for another post
As I mentioned I had my statutory declaration on tuesday and I was hoping to settle the case
out of court. However, the prosecutor was not present, the initial conviction was made void and the
magistrates went ahead with the hearing and gave me an absolute
discharge.
I am writing because I was told by a friend today that this may still
be recorded in the PNC, which I didn't know. I wanted to settle it out
of court but the hearing happened immediately. I did
not fully understand what was happening and initially thought I was
just supposed to go for a statutory declaration. However, I plead guilty
and explained to magistrates it was an honest mistake and that I had wrongly
bought the ticket under distress. To which they gave me an absolute discharge
Is there something that can be done? I am worried that I need to apply
for jobs. I cannot afford such a record on PNC.
also to add that I have to apply for UK work visa and this could potentially affect the decision from home office
An absolute discharge is spent immediately upon receipt and need not be disclosed to anyone who cannot ask about spent convictions.
It's illegal for us to advise on your visa application, as immigration advice can only be given by certain people such as a solicitor or someone appropriately qualified and registered with the home office.
I haven't encountered any other country where this is the case, but it would be foolhardy for me to make a generalisation from thatOut of curiosity, is the UK the only country in the world that makes it a criminal offence for the general public to give immigration advice?
The answer to which I do not know.Out of curiosity, is the UK the only country in the world that makes it a criminal offence for the general public to give immigration advice?
Hungary for starters - see BBC webpage from a few years back. Note it is an offence there for anyone - including legally trained staff, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44288242I haven't encountered any other country where this is the case, but it would be foolhardy for me to make a generalisation from that
Byelaw offence 18 (1) and 24 Transport Act 2000
Section 20 doesn’t even do that: it related to air transport, not rail.Section 20 of the Transport Act 2000 doesn't describe an offence, it provides for the application of the Byelaws.
Yes, they said that the prosecutors dont have to be here, even though i said that i would like to settle out of court and the train company had said that they can only consider once the stat dec is accepted and conviction is void, but everything happened on the same day.Never mind all this Byelaw discussion.
We seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
In post #33, the OP states he went to the Court under the impression this was to consider his statutory declaration.
But instead he reports he was tried, found guilty and penalised; and all in the absence of the prosecuting TOC.
Can no-one else see that something seems to have gone seriously wrong here?
The OP identifies as not being a UK citizen, and therefore may not have English as their first language.
Thanks very much for this! So it seems section 142 is similar to statutory declaration (which is what I went to do)What exactly did you and the magistrates say? Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act can be used to reopen a case. It is usually thought of as a way to correct mistakes, and some sources say it cannot be used where the person has pleaded guilty (though I can't find anything in the legislation to support that).
If you were successful in getting the case reopened, it might mean you get a fine instead of a chance to settle.
You might be able to get some help from a law clinic or law centre on this; it would seem a good idea to apply to the court quickly if you decide to.
This says,
"If you pleaded guilty, you cannot ask the court to reconsider your conviction."
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-magistrates-court-decision/ask-the-court-to-reconsider-a-decision
However, I can't see anything in the legislation or the Rules which backs that up. Nor is it clear that there must have been an error by the court, rather than it just being in the interests of justice to reconsider the case. And the legislation and Rules don't say there has to be a legal reason as the government page claims.
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions of justices’ clerks, and to matters connected therewith, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.www.legislation.gov.uk
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020:consolidate the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, S.I. 2015/1490, with the amendments made by S.I. 2016/120, 2016/705, 2017/144, 2017/282, 2017/755, 2017/915, 2018/132, 2018/847, 2019/143, 2019/1119 and 2020/32; andinclude the further amendments listed beneath.www.legislation.gov.uk
This statement seems to me more sensible than the government page:
"Acting in the best interest of justice is quite a broad term and implies many variables"
https://www.binarylaw.co.uk/articles/the-situations-when-a-case-can-be-reopened-in-uk/
Like the government page, that page says "There are also situations in which case reopening cannot be requested and these are the cases when an offender was not convicted and when he/she pleaded guilty for the crime committed." But I don't know why. The text below may imply that the CPS thinks a decision can be reopened even if you have pleaded guilty:
"A court has no power to allow a plea of guilty to be withdrawn after sentence (R v McNally [1954] 38 Cr.App.R 90). However, where a magistrates’ court sets aside a conviction under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 it is submitted that they will then be able to allow a change of plea if it is in the interests of justice to do so."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/termination-proceedings-including-discontinuance
It seems anyway not true that you can't ask. If it isn't in the law or the rules, no-one can reasonably object to you asking.
These also discuss the procedure:
https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/your-court-appearance/reopening-a-case/
So your statutory declaration was accepted and they proceeded with the new prosecution? You’ve been convicted of the offence; your problem before was you weren’t aware of the summons, not that the prosecution was wrong or misguided. Section 142 means your case will be heard again, not that it is somehow “batted back” to the train company.Thanks very much for this! So it seems section 142 is similar to statutory declaration (which is what I went to do)
I said my stat dec and then they accepted it. Then they asked if im guilty or non guilty and i asked if i have to say now. to which they said you have to say whether im guilty of the offence or not guilty (and if i choose this, i will be on a trial). I plead guilty but explained to magistrates it was an honest and reasonable mistake and that I had bought the wrong ticket as I was under distress.
I told the magistrates that i talked to rail company and they told me they had initially agreed out of court settlement and even one day before the train company prosecution dept had replied that they can only consider out of court settlement if the stat dec is accepted and that at this moment they cant do anything until conviction is void. I also told that is what i was hoping to do. the magistrates asked if the prosecutor is there but they werent so they went ahead and gave me an absolute discharge.
I went in with the idea that after the court will accept my stat dec, i will be send back and there will be a new hearing date. And in the mean time i can request TOC to settle the matter out of court.
Do you think the case can be re-opened again? It was already re-opened and then heard the same day.
"If you were successful in getting the case reopened, it might mean you get a fine instead of a chance to settle." If you think this is the case, then do you not agree that it is not worth re-opening the case? I would only think of it if i get the chance to talk to the TOC and settle out of court. Also, are there chances that my absolute discharge also gets taken away and they give a higher charge as they already removed my fine and i only had to pay compensation
Yes.So your statutory declaration was accepted and they proceeded with the new prosecution? You’ve been convicted of the offence; your problem before was you weren’t aware of the summons, not that the prosecution was wrong or misguided. Section 142 means your case will be heard again, not that it is somehow “batted back” to the train company.
You pleaded guilty to the offence. If you wish to explore options for appeal you are really best off getting a solicitor.
If a hearing is listed (with the aim of enabling a settlement) and a settlement is reached, it is hard to see why the court would insist on hearing the case.I would only think of it if i get the chance to talk to the TOC and settle out of court.
Section 142 means your case will be heard again, not that it is somehow “batted back” to the train company.
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t see how it’s in your interests, having secured the very minimum punishment for the offence, to have the case heard again.Yes.
Section 142 is not really an appeal, it is more like a request to the court listings department to ask magistrates to re-open the case (from what I understood). My only concern would be that the magistrates impose a higher fine than before etc. My reason to re-open the case would be that i did not get a chance to talk to the prosecutor after my stat dec and it would be to get a chance to speak to the proseuctors. In retrospect, i didnt understand why my stat dec and hearing is on the same time but i am now told this is normal...
Never mind all this Byelaw discussion.
We seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
In post #33, the OP states he went to the Court under the impression this was to consider his statutory declaration.
But instead he reports he was tried, found guilty and penalised; and all in the absence of the prosecuting TOC.
Can no-one else see that something seems to have gone seriously wrong here?
The OP identifies as not being a UK citizen, and therefore may not have English as their first language.
If the application comes with evidence of an agreement in principle for a settlement, then there would seem to be a minimal risk of the listed hearing taking place (unless the company goes back on its agreement in principle or the court somehow insists on not allowing them to withdraw the case, neither of which seems likely).I’m not a lawyer but I don’t see how it’s in your interests, having secured the very minimum punishment for the offence, to have the case heard again.
The suggestion above is to contact a law centre/clinic.I wouldn’t recommend doing this without taking experienced and qualified legal advice.
If @railtravel19 was told by the court that the appointment was for the declaration, then they were justified in telling us that (though we got the impression earlier that this was a substantive hearing).I warned in post 21 that this was likely to happen, but was told I was wrong shrug
so in principle, you're saying i tell the prosecutor (TOC) and settle before asking the case to be listed again but how would i word it. Which law clinic?The way it would work is:
The decision would be that the case is to be heard again, because it's in the interests of justice to give a chance for a settlement (perhaps especially if the person deciding thinks that the magistrates should have given an adjournment). Since that means it won't be heard again, it's a bodge - which the person deciding would be aware of - and may be unlikely. If agreement can be reached with the company in principle for a settlement before the application, then the risk of losing the absolute discharge is hopefully minimal.
yes, i have email which says i have stat dec on the day. it even said on the court listing when i went on the dayIf @railtravel19 was told by the court that the appointment was for the declaration, then they were justified in telling us that (though we got the impression earlier that this was a substantive hearing).
This. If the case were to be reopened there is no way on earth that the train company would settle for only £10 (and however many pence it was).You were given an absolute discharge and only required to pay a minimal amount? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth! Put the episode out of your mind and move on with your life.
Based on the information provided by the OP, this appears to be correct.IANAL but I am with furlong on this:
- you made the SD at the court, which means that the Magistrates immediately reopened the case and you pleaded guilty.
- there was no prosecutor there (an error by GTR?).
- they could not dismiss the case but they gave you an absolute discharge, no award of compensation etc etc.
If one of our members with a legal background can correct that, I would be pleased.
If I were advising a client I would say the same.You were given an absolute discharge and only required to pay a minimal amount? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth! Put the episode out of your mind and move on with your life.
I agree.This. If the case were to be reopened there is no way on earth that the train company would settle for only £10 (and hiwever many pence it was).
I appreciate that you are not my client and I may not have all of the relevant facts (I infer that you have no legal knowledge, training or experience), but I would ask you to consider carefully whether the further use of court time on this case is proportionate especially in light of the fact that:so in principle, you're saying i tell the prosecutor (TOC) and settle before asking the case to be listed again but how would i word it. Which law clinic?
yes, i have email which says i have stat dec on the day. it even said on the court listing when i went on the day
To be fair to the OP, he didn't say island was wrong. He just answered post 21's (reasonable) question, clarifying that he was sure that the attendance was indeed for the Statutory Declaration; at least that was what the paperwork had led him to believe. And the basis on which he went to the Court, ie totally unprepared for a substantive hearing.I warned in post 21 that this was likely to happen, but was told I was wrong shrug