Advice Needed: Unfamiliar with UK Rail System, Received Fine for Boarding Early Train - Statutory Declaration Filed, Court Hearing Pending

[coscojica]

Background​

I’m a UK national who was born and raised in Spain, but I moved to the UK in 2021 to study at Manchester University. On 27/04/2023, I took a train from Oxford Road Station to Stockport, with a transfer at Piccadilly Station. I bought a ticket for £1.30, scheduled to depart at 13:56. Arriving at Oxford Road Station 20 minutes early, I mistakenly boarded an earlier train to Piccadilly, not realising that I needed to wait for the exact train on my ticket.

When I arrived at Piccadilly Station to transfer to the Stockport train, a ticket inspector scanned my ticket and informed me it was invalid because I took an earlier train. Despite explaining that I was an international student unfamiliar with the system, he proceeded with issuing a fine. I wasn’t given an option to pay the fine on the spot; instead, I provided my ID and address as requested and was told I would receive a fine notice by mail.

By June 10th, I hadn’t received anything and assumed the matter might have been dropped. I then returned to Spain for the summer holidays from June 10th to September 6th. Upon returning, I moved to a new address and forgot about the incident. On December 13th, 2023, my grandmother in London received a letter from the Greater Manchester Accounts and Enforcement Unit, stating that I owed £460.80. After several calls, I learned the specific offence was:

"Fail to produce/deliver rail ticket on request/give name and address on 27/04/2023 at Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly, contrary to section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889."

I promptly filed a statutory declaration and now have a hearing at the magistrate's court on 09/07/2024. I need advice on how to proceed.

Relevant Details​

• Journey Details:
  • From: Oxford Road Station
  • To: Stockport
  • Transfer: Piccadilly Station
  • Ticket Type: Advanced Single
• Encounter with Railway Staff:
  • Boarded an earlier train at Oxford Road Station
  • Ticket invalidated at Piccadilly Station
  • Provided ID and address when requested

Questions​

1. Should I plead guilty or not guilty? What are the potential implications of each plea?
2. If I plead guilty, will this offence be recorded on my permanent record?
3. What are the potential outcomes if I plead not guilty and present my case?
4. How can I best present my situation as an international student unfamiliar with the UK rail system?
5. Should I seek legal representation for the hearing?
6. Would it help to show that I attempted to provide my details and was not given the option to pay on the spot?
7. Besides my account and the ticket, what other evidence could be useful in my defence?
8. What should I expect during the magistrate's court hearing?

Would appreciate any input. Thanks

Edit: Ive just managed to get my case file and have attached it to the thread. Not sure if it helps.

 

[Elecman]

You should contact the train company predumably Northern Trains asap pointing out you never received Snge correspondence on the matter hence why you didn’t redpind to thier previous correspondence hence your SD. You will have to ask them very nicely if they are prepared to let you can settle the matter out of court but it will probably cost you a couple hundred pounds but at least you won’t have a criminal conviction.

 

[KirkstallOne]

It seems very likely you were found guilty under the Single Justice Procedure. It may interest you that there is currently a court case considering whether all convictions obtained via this route for Regulation of Railway Act 1889 offences should be quashed, some 75,000 cases in total, as it has been found that they are ‘probably unlawful’. You will find a thread about this on the first page of this section. Yours may very well have been quashed in this manner if you had done nothing!

Can you confirm whether the case was heard under Single Justice Procedure? And also which train company prosecuted you? It would be helpful if you could obtain a copy of all the information the court has (charge sheet, witness statement etc) as that should make the details clear.

If this is an SJP case, given the massive legal headache this is currently causing the train companies, I imagine if you contact them and point this out they will withdraw the case, possibly requesting some settlement amount.

Failing that, you do have a defence to the charge. Section 5(1) offences are ones of non-cooperation and giving your name and address upon request is a defence.

 

[Hadders]

I agree with @Elecman

The Statutory Declaration has the effect of 'resetting the clock'. The case will be reheard by the Magistrates but as things currently stand the court would find you guilty.

What you need to do is contact Northern Trains Prosecutions Department as a matter of urgency and tell them what has happened, that you have made a Statutory Declaration and have a new court date. Ask them if they would be prepared to offer you an out of court settlement in return for withdrawingthe case from court.

It is not easy to get hold of Prosecutions Departments so you will need to stop what you're doing and get on the case quickly.

It seems very likely you were found guilty under the Single Justice Procedure. It may interest you that there is currently a court case considering whether all convictions obtained via this route for Regulation of Railway Act 1889 offences should be quashed, some 75,000 cases in total, as it has been found that they are ‘probably unlawful’. You will find a thread about this on the first page of this section. Yours may very well have been quashed in this manner if you had done nothing!

Can you confirm whether the case was heard under Single Justice Procedure? And also which train company prosecuted you? It would be helpful if you could obtain a copy of all the information the court has (charge sheet, witness statement etc) as that should make the details clear.

If this is an SJP case, given the massive legal headache this is currently causing the train companies, I imagine if you contact them and point this out they will withdraw the case, possibly requesting some settlement amount.

Failing that, you do have a defence to the charge. Section 5(1) offences are ones of non-cooperation and giving your name and address upon request is a defence.

This is an extremely good point.

 

[gray1404]

Was the correct procedure to report the passenger? A would have thought it would have been to sell a walk up ticket?

We also need to somehow check if the first train they boarded had counted place reservations or not.

 

[najaB]

I am also concerned when the passenger says they were given an option to pay a plenty on the spot but chose not to pay there and then so they were reported.

I read the thread-starter twice and can't see where they said that.

 

[Hadders]

Was the correct procedure to report the passenger? A would have thought it would have been to sell a walk up ticket?

We also need to somehow check if the first train they boarded had counted place reservations or not.

I am also concerned when the passenger says they were given an option to pay a plenty on the spot but chose not to pay there and then so they were reported. That's not how penalty fares work. There is no requirement to pay them on the spot. It sounds like the inspector was implying pay now or else I'll report you which is wrong.

Given that this happened in 2021 I don't think this is going to help get this resolved.

If the OP was on the wrong train then they are treated as having no ticket and having details taken and being reported for prosecution is one of the ways of dealing with this.

 

[gray1404]

I read the thread-starter twice and can't see where they said that.

Apologies I misread wasn't as was. I have updated my post accordingly.

Given that this happened in 2021 I don't think this is going to help get this resolved.

If the OP was on the wrong train then they are treated as having no ticket and having details taken and being reported for prosecution is one of the ways of dealing with this.

If they are on an earlier suggested service though rather then one with accounted place reservation then they would not actually have done anything wrong.

Weather rules in 2021 not different though that if a customer was traveling early with an Advance ticket then what they are now.

 

[island]

I would in this case be making a section 142 application rather than a statutory declaration, to reopen the case in the interests of justice, although both paths end in roughly the same place. A section 5 (1) prosecution was clearly improper as name and address were given.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The case will be reheard by the Magistrates but as things currently stand the court would find you guilty.

Not under s.5(1) they shouldn’t- the OP has a defence to that offence because they provided their name and address.

As @KirkstallOne points out, this appears to be another case of Northern misusing SJPN and also misusing the legislation at s.5(1). I think contacting Northern is likely to be productive in ensuring the matter doesn’t go to court. I’d also point out in any letter that providing one’s name and address is a defence to the offence as prosecuted.

It’ll be interesting if any settlement offer reflects the political noise…

 

[skyhigh]

If they are on an earlier suggested service though rather then one with accounted place reservation then they would not actually have done anything wrong.

Weather rules in 2021 not different though that if a customer was traveling early with an Advance ticket then what they are now.

This is all irrelevant as the prosecution was under improper legislation and is therefore void anyway. It's pointless muddying the waters by talking about "rules in 2021", whatever they are.

 

[coscojica]

Hey everyone who has helped,

Thanks so much for all your advice and insights. I’ve confirmed that my case was processed under the SJP.

I’m going to reach out to Northern Trains' Prosecutions Department to explain the situation and the potential issues with SJP. I’ll ask if they’d be open to an out-of-court settlement. I’ll also point out that I did provide my name and address, which should be a defence under Section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Is there anything else I should mention? Has anyone else dealt with an SJP case or managed to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with Northern Trains? Any tips or experiences would be really helpful!

Thanks again for all your support!

It seems very likely you were found guilty under the Single Justice Procedure. It may interest you that there is currently a court case considering whether all convictions obtained via this route for Regulation of Railway Act 1889 offences should be quashed, some 75,000 cases in total, as it has been found that they are ‘probably unlawful’. You will find a thread about this on the first page of this section. Yours may very well have been quashed in this manner if you had done nothing!

Can you confirm whether the case was heard under Single Justice Procedure? And also which train company prosecuted you? It would be helpful if you could obtain a copy of all the information the court has (charge sheet, witness statement etc) as that should make the details clear.

If this is an SJP case, given the massive legal headache this is currently causing the train companies, I imagine if you contact them and point this out they will withdraw the case, possibly requesting some settlement amount.

Failing that, you do have a defence to the charge. Section 5(1) offences are ones of non-cooperation and giving your name and address upon request is a defence.

I enquired about the SJP today, and it was indeed processed via SJP. I've email Northern Rail, whom have said they are reviewing my case. Are they likely to settle before the hearing because it was processed via SJP?
As you have pointed out, I don't think I am guilty under section 5(1) as I provide my ID and address. If they don't agree to settle and I were to plea not guilty, what happens next?

 

[coscojica]

I would in this case be making a section 142 application rather than a statutory declaration, to reopen the case in the interests of justice, although both paths end in roughly the same place. A section 5 (1) prosecution was clearly improper as name and address were given.

Given that my hearing is on 09/07/2024, would I be able to make a section 142 application? How would this help my case?

 

[Hadders]

Not under s.5(1) they shouldn’t- the OP has a defence to that offence because they provided their name and address.

As @KirkstallOne points out, this appears to be another case of Northern misusing SJPN and also misusing the legislation at s.5(1). I think contacting Northern is likely to be productive in ensuring the matter doesn’t go to court. I’d also point out in any letter that providing one’s name and address is a defence to the offence as prosecuted.

It’ll be interesting if any settlement offer reflects the political noise…

I agree but the courts have already convicted thousands of people who could never have been guilty of the offence. If the case does end up being reheard in court I'd like to think they wouldn't add to the number but I'm not sure I'd trust Northern or the Courts given their record thus far.

Hopefully Northern will see sens andwithdraw the case altogether.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I enquired about the SJP today, and it was indeed processed via SJP. I've email Northern Rail, whom have said they are reviewing my case. Are they likely to settle before the hearing because it was processed via SJP?
As you have pointed out, I don't think I am guilty under section 5(1) as I provide my ID and address. If they don't agree to settle and I were to plea not guilty, what happens next?

I think they will settle or withdraw the case. If not you will have to attend court on the date in question and make your case there but for now wait for Northern’s reply.

 

[randyrippley]

Is there any way of reopening the case at the magistrates court and getting them to throw the case out as procedurally incorrect?

 

[Hadders]

Is there any way of reopening the case at the magistrates court and getting them to throw the case out as procedurally incorrect?

Yes, because the OP cannot be guilty os a s5(1) offence as they gave their address. I think the problem in reality is this will need to be argued in court quite robustly.

 

[randyrippley]

Yes, because the OP cannot be guilty os a s5(1) offence as they gave their address. I think the problem in reality is this will need to be argued in court quite robustly.

But could it also not be claimed that the SJPN prosecution was invalid anyway?
A two-stage claim to invalidate the trial?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Surely the best course, having made the statutory declaration and having got the earlier hearing voided, is to now negotiate with the rail company, not go through the difficult route of defending yourself in court (even though such a defence should, on the face of it in this case, be successful); it's not easy to marshal your arguments successfully in that context if you've not had previous experience of courts, so it's much safer to avoid court at all.

You can do as is normal in this situation, before the case comes round again in the court system, and ask the rail company for an out-of-court settlement; but given the prosecution was misguided in terms of "the wrong charge" (since name and address was provided), and was also procedurally invalid (because of using a court procedure which is not allowed for that charge), then it ought to be possible to persuade them to drop the case without you having to pay a settlement fee. (Though you might be happy to pay something to be sure of avoiding court?) Technically, they could (through stupidity or stubbornness) pursue the same charge again, but not use the invalid SJN procedure; in that case you would need to go to court to (try to) have the case thrown out (on the grounds that you gave yuor name and address and hence didn't commit the offence charged).

 

[AlterEgo]

I wouldn’t be asking for an out of court settlement at all. This isn’t a difficult charge to defend; the train company has the OP’s name and address because they gave them to the inspector.

There aren’t any arguments to muster. You only need to say one sentence. “The train company has my name and address because I gave them to the inspector, so I cannot be guilty of this charge.” That fact isn’t in dispute.

 

[randyrippley]

Surely the best course, having made the statutory declaration and having got the earlier hearing voided, is to now negotiate with the rail company, not go through the difficult route of defending yourself in court (even though such a defence should, on the face of it in this case, be successful); it's not easy to marshal your arguments successfully in that context if you've not had previous experience of courts, so it's much safer to avoid court at all.

You can do as is normal in this situation, before the case comes round again in the court system, and ask the rail company for an out-of-court settlement; but given the prosecution was misguided in terms of "the wrong charge" (since name and address was provided), and was also procedurally invalid (because of using a court procedure which is not allowed for that charge), then it ought to be possible to persuade them to drop the case without you having to pay a settlement fee. (Though you might be happy to pay something to be sure of avoiding court?) Technically, they could (through stupidity or stubbornness) pursue the same charge again, but not use the invalid SJN procedure; in that case you would need to go to court to (try to) have the case thrown out (on the grounds that you gave yuor name and address and hence didn't commit the offence charged).

An out of court settlement would mean payment.
Surely the point is to avoid payment in this case?

 

[KirkstallOne]

Surely the point is to avoid payment in this case?

I imagine the OPs primary concern is to avoid being reconvicted with the minimum cost and effort. Once Northern reply they can consider their options.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You can do as is normal in this situation, before the case comes round again in the court system, and ask the rail company for an out-of-court settlement

“I gave my name therefore I am not guilty of this offence. I trust this resolves the matter.”

Then it’s up to Northern how they want to play it. If Northern come back with a revised allegation, or an offer to settle the matter, then the OP would do well to give the response their due consideration.

 

[AlbertBeale]

“I gave my name therefore I am not guilty of this offence. I trust this resolves the matter.”

Then it’s up to Northern how they want to play it. If Northern come back with a revised allegation, or an offer to settle the matter, then the OP would do well to give the response their due consideration.

Yes - I said you can do as normal, but went on to say that given the situation here, it should be possible to get the case dropped. I wasn't recommending an out of court settlment, but encouraging it to be dealt with pre-court (without court), by getting it dropped in the first place (likely easier than arguing the case in court, however seemingly straightforward the case is) - that way it avoids any risk of a dozy magistrate convicting and having to then appeal, etc etc...

 

[island]

Is there any way of reopening the case at the magistrates court and getting them to throw the case out as procedurally incorrect?

Yes, the section 142 application I mentioned above. There’s no specific form for this, it is commenced by writing a letter to the court.

 

[randyrippley]

taking this a step further, is there any way of turning this on its head and prosecuting the company for raising a procedurally incorrect / ultra vires / illegal prosecution? Complain to BTP or CPS?

 

[Snow1964]

taking this a step further, is there any way of turning this on its head and prosecuting the company for raising a procedurally incorrect / ultra vires / illegal prosecution? Complain to BTP or CPS?

In theory the BTP should get involved with railway crimes, and clearly doing a SJP where not allowed is wrong, but get into bit of a minefield over if crime was committed or administrative mistake.

Probably best not to go there as a corporate crime investigation will take much longer than when court case is rescheduled

I imagine the OPs primary concern is to avoid being reconvicted with the minimum cost and effort. Once Northern reply they can consider their options.

Yes, any compensation for the time and cost of getting Statutory Declaration and dealing with incorrect SJP prosecution should be stage 2, after stopping them repeating the charge which Op is clearly not guilty of

 

[najaB]

taking this a step further, is there any way of turning this on its head and prosecuting the company for raising a procedurally incorrect / ultra vires / illegal prosecution? Complain to BTP or CPS?

Going down the prosecution route would likely cost the OP more in time and solicitor's fees than it would be worth. I think that they might be able to go down the civil route however with a small claims court action to recover their costs though.

 

[AlbertBeale]

taking this a step further, is there any way of turning this on its head and prosecuting the company for raising a procedurally incorrect / ultra vires / illegal prosecution? Complain to BTP or CPS?

There's a problem with trying to get the BTP to deal with a rule or law breach by the railways. Many years ago, the BTP told me they wouldn't take action over a breach by the Underground that I reported (after I'd gone through all the witness paperwork etc). I thought I'd see who the BTP's governing authority was (knowing that in the case of regular local police forces they were responsible to a local police committee - made up of magistrates and elected councillors); it turned out that the police authority for the BTP consisted of representatives of BR and LT... so it all made sense...