Amended Title - SJP After Penalty Notice Cancelled

[Manda78]

While I am ok with fighting this, I don't think I have enough time to learn all the bylaws etc. Even writing a letter may be challenging. I do know a few people who are great at drafting letters but I would need to know exactly what to put in (ie what bylaws, or reasonings.) I honestly can't thank everyone enough for their input.

 

[MotCO]

Not sure I agree even the penalty fare is due - they cancelled it!

Couldn't make it up

I did pay my original fare on the day of. In order to get out of Crewe station, where there are barriers, I needed the ticket, plus I needed one to get home. Not that I am going to argue if they just want that paid.

Do you have a receipt or other evidence of buying that ticket? If so, is anything owed?

 

[Manda78]

Do you have a receipt or other evidence of buying that ticket? If so, is anything owed?

All I would have is my bank statement. I would have bought it from the person who mans the gate at Crewe as you there is no ticket machine inside after the barrier.

** I just checked and it is on my bank statement. It shows as the next day, but if you click into it, it shows the actual transaction was on the 15th. It also says it was for £3.90, so for whatever reason I only bought one way. I think in October a return was for £4.80

 

[KirkstallOne]

I will try to draft something up later today if noone else has, no particular urgency you have a few weeks to respond. Just be conscious of the deadlines.

Just looking at the dates again:

PF issued 15/10/2024
First Appeal 15/10/2024
First decision 28/10/2024
Second appeal 29th?
Second decision 12/11/2024
Third appeal 13th?
Third decision 25/11/2024

So by my calcs something like 14 or 15 days had elapsed of the 21 day discount period at the point the appeals service said you have 14 days to pay or we will prosecute.

So 21 days to pay at a discount, a further 7 days to pay the full amount, then prosecution potentially. That seems an absurd position for the appeals service to take.

 

[furlong]

That is a helpful letter as it leaves no wriggle room on the fact the PF was cancelled. Pretty difficult to reinstate it after that letter. (A bizarre letter to send, surely: Why mention they may use civil recovery while simultaneously cancelling the debt they'd be recovering?)

Also, as you still have concrete evidence that you paid the fare to get out of the station, you may then expect to be able to offset the amount you paid against anything they may claim is still due - which essentially leaves nothing. They should be able to trace the bank payment to the specific ticket (date, time, person who sold it) if they really wish to check.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I would send something like this to the Prosecutor (Northern) AFTER submitting a not guilty plea (should be reachable at [email protected], you may wish to send a copy by registered post as well). Include the reference numbers in the subject line and also mark the email URGENT.

I am certainly no lawyer so other members may have their own suggestions. This is the hardball approach, I don't see much value in trying to grovel at this point but the alternative is to apologise and to kindly ask whether Northern would be willing to settle out of court. In our experience they almost always are unless the offence involves abuse of staff or similar, but they will probably want £150 or so if you go down that route. Please ensure anything you write reflects the facts of the matter and that anything you include from the text below is accurate - I have based this response on your statements in this thread.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

To the Prosecutor in case [SJP case number] / [Penalty Fare notice Number]:

I write in regard of the above case number for which I have received a Single Justice Procedure Notice.

From the statement of facts included therein, this is a byelaw 18 prosecution stemming from the non-payment of a Penalty Fare issued on 15/10/2024.

I draw your attention to Regulation 11 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 (as amended by The Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022).

This regulation states that for Penalty Fares where an appeal has been submitted, prosecution is barred for any byelaws made under the Transport Act 2000 and the Railways Act 2005 (see regulation 11.4). The only restrictions on this bar are detailed in regulation 11.3(a) and 11.3(b) which I reproduce in full:

11 (3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a) the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b) the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.

The Penalty Fare in question was appealed and this is confirmed by your statement of facts. For the avoidance of doubt on this issue I attach my correspondence with the appeals service.

Your statement of facts states that this penalty fare was not cancelled until well after the third appeal has concluded, and so the time restrictions above have not been met. Again, for the avoidance of doubt I attach your letter informing me of the cancellation, dated 26th February 2025. The third stage appeal was concluded on 25/11/2024. Thus, according to paragraph a) above, a prosecution may not be brought for same failure to produce a valid travel ticket which gave rise to the penalty fare. Your statement of facts makes clear that this prosecution is related to the same alleged failure to produce a valid ticket.

Consequently, you are barred from prosecuting for the alleged byelaw 18 offence. I have submitted a Not Guilty plea and the above argument will form the basis of my defence.

Please confirm to me your intended argument as to why the regulation 11 bar does not apply in this case so I can properly prepare my submissions for the pre-trial hearing. I also draw your attention to the submissions made on your behalf by Brian O'Neill KC to the Chief Magistrate's court in August last year. These submissions accept that this bar exists, and applies to all appealed penalty fares which were not cancelled within the time periods specified in regulation 11(3). These submissions are summarised in the final ruling of Ballington v Northern Trains Ltd [2024] 8 WLUK 114. In particular paragraph 69 of this ruling makes clear the position accepted by your legal team at that time - that this prosecution is invalid.

Should this matter proceed to court, I intend to apply for costs.

Should you wish to settle this matter out of court then, without prejudice, I offer payment of the original fare, £4.10, as a full and final resolution. In considering this offer I encourage you to review the original Penalty Fare issued and the appeals submitted. This Penalty Fare was issued after momentarily stepping foot on the train to ask the Northern representative whether I should complete my pending phone purchase, or whether I should buy a ticket from him. To be issued with a penalty in such circumstances appears excessively harsh. There was no intent to evade payment of any fare and I have been willing to pay for the ticket I was originally seeking to purchase. I continue to seek that resolution, notwithstanding that the outstanding fare has now been cancelled, closing the door to any future civil action for recovery of the alleged debt.

NAME AND ADDRESS


[INCLUDE AS ATTACHMENTS
- 1st, 2nd and 3rd appeals
- 1st, 2nd and 3rd appeal responses
- letter from northern cancelling the PF]

 

[Egg Centric]

I did pay my original fare on the day of. In order to get out of Crewe station, where there are barriers, I needed the ticket, plus I needed one to get home. Not that I am going to argue if they just want that paid.

Tbh given the above

I am certainly no lawyer so other members may have their own suggestions.

I wouldn't even be offering Northern the £4.10 personally as it has already been paid. Why should Northern gain anything at all from such flagrant disregard for the rules?

I suspect Manda78's risk appetite doesn't go that far though.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Tbh given the above



I wouldn't even be offering Northern the £4.10 personally as it has already been paid. Why should Northern gain anything at all from such flagrant disregard for the rules?

I suspect Manda78's risk appetite doesn't go that far though.

I think it just makes Northern’s climbdown easier!

 

[MotCO]

Tbh given the above



I wouldn't even be offering Northern the £4.10 personally as it has already been paid. Why should Northern gain anything at all from such flagrant disregard for the rules?

I suspect Manda78's risk appetite doesn't go that far though.

There is a slight issue with regards to the unpaid / paid fare since the OP says they only paid £3.90.

I just checked and it is on my bank statement. It shows as the next day, but if you click into it, it shows the actual transaction was on the 15th. It also says it was for £3.90, so for whatever reason I only bought one way. I think in October a return was for £4.80

 

[KirkstallOne]

There is a slight issue with regards to the unpaid / paid fare since the OP says they only paid £3.90.

I took it from the Penalty Fare, probably makes things easier to parse for Northern but yeah there seems to be some discrepancy there.

 

[furlong]

Offsetting the off-peak single paid (must have been delayed a bit too if it opened the barriers?) against the peak single due, leaves 20 pence still to pay then.

Unless the 3.90 identified was the single fare to get home later in the day?

 

[Manda78]

Hmm I do wonder why it was 3.90. I did get it from the agent, not the machine. There is a chance though that perhaps they opened the barrier because of the ticket, and then I did just buy a single to come home. I truly don't remember. I was so upset, so I know I wasn't thinking clearly. It was also 6 months ago. I can potentially see if my bank can identify the time of the purchase, but not sure if that's possible

 

[WesternLancer]

I would send something like this to the Prosecutor (Northern) AFTER submitting a not guilty plea (should be reachable at [email protected], you may wish to send a copy by registered post as well). Include the reference numbers in the subject line and also mark the email URGENT.

I am certainly no lawyer so other members may have their own suggestions. This is the hardball approach, I don't see much value in trying to grovel at this point but the alternative is to apologise and to kindly ask whether Northern would be willing to settle out of court. In our experience they almost always are unless the offence involves abuse of staff or similar, but they will probably want £150 or so if you go down that route. Please ensure anything you write reflects the facts of the matter and that anything you include from the text below is accurate - I have based this response on your statements in this thread.

I think this post, with the suggested course of action and the draft written response is a good way to proceed.

I’d advocate sending things to both Northern and the court with tracked postage from a post office as well as by email where possible.

Copies of everything should be retained by @Manda78 for future reference as things progress.

 

[Manda78]

I will prepare all my documents this weekend and mail them on Monday. I was able to get into my actual appeal case so I am able to submit my appeals to them as well. I am struggling to find out where I would physically mail correspondence to drpu. Is it simply Freepost NORTHERN RAILWAY FAO: DRPU?

 

[district]

I will prepare all my documents this weekend and mail them on Monday. I was able to get into my actual appeal case so I am able to submit my appeals to them as well. I am struggling to find out where I would physically mail correspondence to drpu. Is it simply Freepost NORTHERN RAILWAY FAO: DRPU?

Northern Trains Limited
Debt Recovery & Prosecutions Unit
FREEPOST NEA 3188
Bradford, BD1 1BR

 

[Manda78]

I am in the process of gathering all my papers. I am including:
The letter drafted by KirkstallOne
A copy of the original fine
Copies of my three appeals (x3)
Copies of Northerns appeals decisions (x3)
A copy of the SJP
A copy of the letter where they state they are cancelling the Penalty Fare Notice

Is this all that I need to include?

_______________________________________________________________________

Now to ensure I know what i am doing

1) I send in my Not Guilty plea - Do I only need to send in the papers that are titled "To be return to the court"? I am unsure if I need to include Exhibit DM1? It looks like its somewhat of a copy of my actual Penalty Fare. I will send this registered
2) Email the all the above correspondence to drpu email address, and then also send the documents via registered mail. Do I do this right away? As in send this registered letter, along with the not guilt plea to the court at the same time?

Am I missing anything, or misunderstanding anything?

 

[Manda78]

I am also filling out my not guilty plea. What should I put in the reason I'm pleading not guilty? Should I refer to the letter? Do I leave the rest blank?

 

[WesternLancer]

I am also filling out my not guilty plea. What should I put in the reason I'm pleading not guilty? Should I refer to the letter? Do I leave the rest blank?

Obviously you are still a way off the deadline to send this back to the court so take your time getting that correct - hopefully @KirkstallOne , or other experts on court stuff, can advise on exactly what to put on the relevant pages of that court document in respect of all the areas you have to complete.

 

[Manda78]

Obviously you are still a way off the deadline to send this back to the court so take your time getting that correct - hopefully @KirkstallOne , or other experts on court stuff, can advise on exactly what to put on the relevant pages of that court document in respect of all the areas you have to complete.

Yes I have written a response of everything I have included and to who it needs to go but for some reason that post needs to be approved

I cant tell everyone how much I appreciate all of this.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I would just summarise your defence as best you can, you can be brief. The prosecution is barred because you appealed the penalty fare and it wasn't cancelled in the time period required by 11(3) of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

Then I would include these as separate labelled documents:

- Copy of regulation 11 from The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/366
- The final appeal and response
- Penalty fare cancellation letter

 

[WesternLancer]

@Manda78 can of course post their draft of their defence to include on the court papers here for checking and comment, before committing pen to paper on the court documents.

If planning to send it off on Monday then there is the weekend to get the wording as good as it can be with help from the forum.

 

[Manda78]

Ok I will think of something to write. It's not a large area so it will be brief for sure. All I need to fill that out and then add the 3 more documents KirkstallOne listed. I have already copied and gathered everything else. I will mail/email early next week.

 

[WesternLancer]

Ok I will think of something to write. It's not a large area so it will be brief for sure. All I need to fill that out and then add the 3 more documents KirkstallOne listed. I have already copied and gathered everything else. I will mail/email early next week.

I suspect you can attach more pages if you need a larger space to set out more. Others here will know.

 

[furlong]

I'd suggest waiting a bit longer to see if other people chip in.
It strikes me that a procedural challenge ought to come first: there shouldn't need to be a plea or a defence unless the courts disagree that the proceedings are barred (so that legal point needs to be decided first unless Northern concedes it). E.g. simply no case to answer, or failing that an abuse of process to carry on when regulations say it can't be done.
And some tweaks to the draft KirkstallOne proposes - adjustments to some of the language used; stay strictly within remit - so cut/reword some parts etc.

 

[John Palmer]

The OP states that Penalty Services decided her first stage appeal on 28 October 2024. It is inconceivable that Penalty Services would have entertained, as it did, second and final stage appeals if the challenged penalty fare had been cancelled at any time up to the issue of its decision on the first stage appeal. I mention this because Northern Trains may have given Penalty Services notice of the penalty fare's cancellation at some date earlier than the 26 February 2025 date of its notification of such cancellation to the OP. The inescapable inference of the appeal process having run its full course is that the penalty fare was not cancelled before Penalty Services decided the initial Regulation 16 appeal. The failure to cancel before that decision was reached is vital because it triggered Regulation 11(3) of the penalty fares regulations. Proceedings against the OP for the offences with which she is charged were thereupon prohibited, and Northern Trains should immediately withdraw them.

It was open to Northern Trains to proceed against the OP in the civil courts for recovery of the penalty fare as a civil debt. As a result of its decision to cancel the penalty fare, as communicated to the OP on 26 February 2025, liability for that civil debt has fallen away and I see no way in which it can be revived. The result is that the OP's only remaining concern is the prohibited criminal proceedings she now faces.

I see little merit in laying out in detail for Northern Trains the reasons why the present proceedings are barred. Doing so runs the risk of giving the company room for manoeuvre, however difficult it may be to see what form that might take. I therefore recommend the OP to write to Northern Trains as follows:

“Dear Sir,

Case NTLPFN006520009

I write regarding the above proceedings, in which I am alleged to have committed offences contrary to Byelaws 18(1) and 24 of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000.

In connection with the alleged failure on 15 October 2024 to produce a valid ticket entitling travel that is said to give rise to these offences I was issued with a penalty fare bearing the reference NTLPFN006520009. As acknowledged in the Statement of Facts, I appealed that penalty fare in accordance with the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018. The outcome of my appeal under Regulation 16 of those Regulations was decided by the relevant Appeal Panel on 28 October 2024, at which time the penalty fare under appeal remained uncancelled.

In these circumstances proceedings against me for the offences with which I am charged are barred by Regulation 11(3) of the aforementioned Regulations. I therefore require you forthwith to confirm in writing that you have informed the Court that you withdraw these charges. Should you not provide me with such confirmation I shall enter a not guilty plea and defend these proceedings.

In the event that you do not withdraw these proceedings and I am subsequently acquitted of the offences alleged I shall refer to this letter in connection with the application for a Defendant's Costs Order I propose to make.

Yours faithfully,

(signed)”

This form of words concentrates on the bare essentials required to demonstrate that the proceedings are subject to the Regulation 11(3) bar, and puts the prosecution on notice that if, notwithstanding that bar, it proceeds with the case and fails it will face an application for defence costs.

The letter need not be marked 'without prejudice' as I see little merit in offering terms for settlement of the case. The proceedings Northern Trains have brought against the OP are not lawful and should be withdrawn – that is all that need be said.

In the sheet headed 'Not Guilty Plea' to be returned to the court it suffices to say “I am pleading Not Guilty because proceedings against me for the offences with which I am charged are barred by Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018”.

 

[KirkstallOne]

The OP states that Penalty Services decided her first stage appeal on 28 October 2024. It is inconceivable that Penalty Services would have entertained, as it did, second and final stage appeals if the challenged penalty fare had been cancelled at any time up to the issue of its decision on the first stage appeal. I mention this because Northern Trains may have given Penalty Services notice of the penalty fare's cancellation at some date earlier than the 26 February 2025 date of its notification of such cancellation to the OP. The inescapable inference of the appeal process having run its full course is that the penalty fare was not cancelled before Penalty Services decided the initial Regulation 16 appeal. The failure to cancel before that decision was reached is vital because it triggered Regulation 11(3) of the penalty fares regulations. Proceedings against the OP for the offences with which she is charged were thereupon prohibited, and Northern Trains should immediately withdraw them.

It was open to Northern Trains to proceed against the OP in the civil courts for recovery of the penalty fare as a civil debt. As a result of its decision to cancel the penalty fare, as communicated to the OP on 26 February 2025, liability for that civil debt has fallen away and I see no way in which it can be revived. The result is that the OP's only remaining concern is the prohibited criminal proceedings she now faces.

I see little merit in laying out in detail for Northern Trains the reasons why the present proceedings are barred. Doing so runs the risk of giving the company room for manoeuvre, however difficult it may be to see what form that might take. I therefore recommend the OP to write to Northern Trains as follows:

“Dear Sir,

Case NTLPFN006520009

I write regarding the above proceedings, in which I am alleged to have committed offences contrary to Byelaws 18(1) and 24 of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000.

In connection with the alleged failure on 15 October 2024 to produce a valid ticket entitling travel that is said to give rise to these offences I was issued with a penalty fare bearing the reference NTLPFN006520009. As acknowledged in the Statement of Facts, I appealed that penalty fare in accordance with the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018. The outcome of my appeal under Regulation 16 of those Regulations was decided by the relevant Appeal Panel on 28 October 2024, at which time the penalty fare under appeal remained uncancelled.

In these circumstances proceedings against me for the offences with which I am charged are barred by Regulation 11(3) of the aforementioned Regulations. I therefore require you forthwith to confirm in writing that you have informed the Court that you withdraw these charges. Should you not provide me with such confirmation I shall enter a not guilty plea and defend these proceedings.

In the event that you do not withdraw these proceedings and I am subsequently acquitted of the offences alleged I shall refer to this letter in connection with the application for a Defendant's Costs Order I propose to make.

Yours faithfully,

(signed)”

This form of words concentrates on the bare essentials required to demonstrate that the proceedings are subject to the Regulation 11(3) bar, and puts the prosecution on notice that if, notwithstanding that bar, it proceeds with the case and fails it will face an application for defence costs.

The letter need not be marked 'without prejudice' as I see little merit in offering terms for settlement of the case. The proceedings Northern Trains have brought against the OP are not lawful and should be withdrawn – that is all that need be said.

In the sheet headed 'Not Guilty Plea' to be returned to the court it suffices to say “I am pleading Not Guilty because proceedings against me for the offences with which I am charged are barred by Regulation 11 of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018”.

No real objections to this approach and it is probably more proper legally speaking, I just think we need to bear in mind that OP really doesn’t want to be having to argue their case in court. They don’t have representation to put this forward in person if it should get this far which is why I would lean towards spelling out the position in their written replies and giving Northern an easy route out lest they be tempted to try and steamroller the OP in a contested trial based on their late cancellation. I also know they offer quite a lot of settlements for just the original fare owing (based on observing a prosecution session), withdrawing them completely is pretty alien to them.

Of course nothing in your response precludes further written negotiations. Interested in others opinions.

 

[John Palmer]

No real objections to this approach and it is probably more proper legally speaking, I just think we need to bear in mind that OP really doesn’t want to be having to argue their case in court. They don’t have representation to put this forward in person if it should get this far which is why I would lean towards spelling out the position in their written replies and giving Northern an easy route out lest they be tempted to try and steamroller the OP in a contested trial based on their late cancellation. I also know they offer quite a lot of settlements for just the original fare owing (based on observing a prosecution session), withdrawing them completely is pretty alien to them.

Of course nothing in your response precludes further written negotiations. Interested in others opinions.

In an appropriate case I'm certainly not averse to offering terms of settlement that will provide an opponent with a 'golden bridge' to an off-ramp (suitable mix of metaphors?), and I'm aware that 'outstanding fare only' formed the basis on which your own case was settled. And yes, such terms of settlement might yet be agreed, even at the doors of court.

I haven't found it entirely clear, but understand that in this case the OP ended up paying the due fare for her Sandbach-Crewe journey, so an 'outstanding fare only' settlement doesn't make much sense.

Meanwhile Northern Trains has cancelled the outstanding penalty fare of £104.10 and thus foregone its opportunity to sue for it as a civil debt, choosing instead to seek recovery of the same amount as costs plus fare allegedly avoided. In addition it seeks to visit retribution on the OP by inflicting a criminal conviction upon her. If the matter is to be disposed of by terms of settlement that preclude the OP having to argue her case, she must decide the size of the bung she is prepared to give Northern Trains to buy the company off.

Any settlement payment now made to Northern Trains rewards it for its disregard of the penalty fare rules in order to secure retribution in the shape of a criminal conviction, and encourages it to repeat such behaviour. Making such a payment would leave me with a very sour taste, but I fully understand that, notwithstanding her readiness to fight this, the OP may prefer to seek the certainty of compromise with her prosecutor.

 

[furlong]

No real objections to this approach and it is probably more proper legally speaking, I just think we need to bear in mind that OP really doesn’t want to be having to argue their case in court.

If I were in this situation myself, I'd probably go with John's letter. But I might add a footnote or supplementary page without any comment but just the text of regulation 11(3) and the last sentence of paragraph 69 of the judgement (with the references of course so they can read them in context should they not already be aware).

 

[island]

It strikes me that a procedural challenge ought to come first: there shouldn't need to be a plea or a defence unless the courts disagree that the proceedings are barred (so that legal point needs to be decided first unless Northern concedes it).

Yes, this is correct. What is desired is a pre-trial hearing under section 8A of the Magistrates' Courts Act, asking the judge/magistrates to rule upon a matter of law, namely that the proceedings are barred by regulation 11 (3) of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018.

In order to get to that, the defendant can serve notice under section 16B (2) of the MCA that they do not wish to be tried under the Single Justice Procedure. This will result in a summons being issued, but more importantly, it will prevent the case from landing on a magistrate's desk to handle via SJP.

Alongside that, the defendant can enclose a notice to the Clerk of the Court, copied to the prosecutor, concisely explaining why the proceedings are barred. Hopefully either the Court or the prosecutor will engage the brain and kill the case.

E.g. simply no case to answer

It is not a "no case to answer". "No case to answer" is a submission made after the prosecution closes their case, stating that the prosecution has failed to prove one or more essential ingredients of the offence charged and therefore the defence should not be put to the trouble of calling witnesses or the like. If the judge/magistrates agree there is no case to answer, the defendant is found not guilty. If not, the defence may proceed with their case.

, or failing that an abuse of process

As usual, it is not one of these either.

 

[Manda78]

Ok so am I now substituting the letter written by KirkstallOne for the letter written by John Palmer?

and if I include a separate page (as per furlongs suggestion):

This regulation states that for Penalty Fares where an appeal has been submitted, prosecution is barred for any byelaws made under the Transport Act 2000 and the Railways Act 2005 (see regulation 11.4). The only restrictions on this bar are detailed in regulation 11.3(a) and 11.3(b) which I reproduce in full:

11 (3) Where a person falling within paragraph (1)(a) has appealed against the penalty fare under regulation 16, proceedings for any of the offences specified in paragraph (4) may only be brought against that person for the same failure to produce a platform ticket or a valid travel ticket if the operator, on whose behalf the penalty fare was charged, notifies the relevant Appeal Panel that the penalty fare is cancelled before—

(a) the relevant Appeal Panel has decided the outcome of the appeal under regulation 16; or

(b) the time period mentioned in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 expires,

whichever is sooner.


However I am unsure what you mean here: and the last sentence of paragraph 69 of the judgement (with the references of course so they can read them in context should they not already be aware)?