Court Hearing

[WesternLancer]

Feels good I can finally sleep peacefully and don’t need to look over my shoulder anymore. Thank you

Thanks for the update.
I think you did the right thing here - and it will stand you in good stead in the future too. The sense of relief in your post is justified. I hope you did not have to pay too highly to get it sorted out, but it seems like you have learned from the whole thing and that is important. Good luck with things in future.

 

[some bloke]

Well done. So what happened about the original charge? Did the company tell the court it was withdrawing the charge against the false name, without mentioning that it was false, or did the court change the name, or something else?

 

[Llanigraham]

Well done. So what happened about the original charge? Did the company tell the court it was withdrawing the charge against the false name, without mentioning that it was false, or did the court change the name, or something else?

The company do not need to tell the Court the reason for withdrawing the prosecution, although they will often say just that it has been "settled out of Court".

 

[some bloke]

The company do not need to tell the Court the reason for withdrawing the prosecution

Yes, the questions are with that in mind.

they will often say just that it has been "settled out of Court".

If they told the court the matter was settled (ie the matter which the court had intended to deal with), that would be different from what @HelpMe406 is referring to - a settlement for the false details.

 

[Haywain]

Well done. So what happened about the original charge? Did the company tell the court it was withdrawing the charge against the false name, without mentioning that it was false, or did the court change the name, or something else?

The company do not need to withdraw the charge, they can simply offer no evidence which guarantees a not guilty verdict.

 

[some bloke]

The company do not need to withdraw the charge, they can simply offer no evidence which guarantees a not guilty verdict.

I know.

 

[Ctyr]

I just wanted to say I managed to get a lawyer and managed to get an out of court settlement for using a false name and address . I just wanted to say thank you everyone who offered advice and I will never make this mistake again. I’m really happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What solicitor did you use?

 

[malc-c]

I just wanted to say I managed to get a lawyer and managed to get an out of court settlement for using a false name and address . I just wanted to say thank you everyone who offered advice and I will never make this mistake again. I’m really happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Congratulations on having the matter resolved to your satisfaction.

I don't know how to word this without it seeming inappropriate as its rather personal. But maybe if you stated roughly what that settlement involved it might help others coming to this forum who have done a similar thing. You don't have to be exact, but give some indication of how much you were out of pocket for settlement and what you legal costs were, give or take.

I can understand if you don't want to post the details on a public forum, but my thinking is that it might assist anyone else in a similar situation to realise the full impact of their actions

 

[Efini92]

Well done for getting it sorted, not that it matters now but i’m fairly certain you could only be charged with perverting the course of justice if you had lied to the court.

 

[some bloke]

The company do not need to tell the Court the reason for withdrawing the prosecution

The company...can simply offer no evidence which guarantees a not guilty verdict.

How would the company tell the court which case it is, without misleading the court by either using the fake name or implying it was the name of someone who exists?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

How would the company tell the court which case it is, without misleading the court by either using the fake name or implying it was the name of someone who exists?

By using the case number?

I know nothing about how courts identify cases, but given that the combination of prosecutor and defendant isn't guaranteed to be unique (I can imagine defendant John Smith being picked up twice for fare-dodging on Local Trains Ltd), I'm guessing that there's going to be some sort of case number system.

 

[some bloke]

I find it hard to believe a court would let a prosecutor abandon a case using a number that might have been copied wrongly or mistaken for another number in a list, without the name.

The company do not need to withdraw the charge, they can simply offer no evidence which guarantees a not guilty verdict.

If the court didn't know the name was incorrect, that choice might be to knowingly let the court continue to be misled by the existing documents, resulting in waste of the court's time and perhaps other public resources on a defendant who doesn't exist.

 

[Llanigraham]

How would the company tell the court which case it is, without misleading the court by either using the fake name or implying it was the name of someone who exists?

All the prosecution has to do is go to the Court and say that in respect of the case against "X" we are no longer continuing with the prosecution. Nothing more than that; no reason is needed. I did it several times, invariably where the accused paid up before the Court case.

 

[Llanigraham]

I find it hard to believe a court would let a prosecutor abandon a case using a number that might have been copied wrongly or mistaken for another number in a list, without the name.


If the court didn't know the name was incorrect, that choice might be to knowingly let the court continue to be misled by the existing documents, resulting in waste of the court's time and perhaps other public resources on a defendant who doesn't exist.

Then I am sorry but you do not understand the British legal system.
There is no misleading, all the Court needs to know is that the prosecution is not being continued.
I can assure you that things like this every day, and the Courts are happy as their "List" for the day is reduced. There is no "waste of time".

 

[some bloke]

All the prosecution has to do is go to the Court and say that in respect of the case against "X" we are no longer continuing with the prosecution.

We wouldn't expect it to be questioned, because the court will not normally find out from another source that there is no such defendant. But that's a different issue from whether it misleads.

There is no misleading

"In respect of the case against John Smith" seems to me to mean the case is against a real person called John Smith.

There is no "waste of time".

That refers to the other suggestion, about letting the case get as far as a verdict.

 

[Llanigraham]

We wouldn't expect it to be questioned, because the court will not normally find out from another source that there is no such defendant. But that's a different issue from whether it misleads.

If the Court has heard no evidence, they are not going to know,. As I said this sort of thing happens often and NO Court is being misled.

"In respect of the case against John Smith" seems to me to mean the case is against a real person called John Smith.

If the Prosecution say to the Clerk they are not preceding with the case it doesn't matter what name is on the paperwork. It will not get heard by the Magistrates, all they will be told and all they need to know is that case has been withdrawn.

That refers to the other suggestion, about letting the case get as far as a verdict.

If a case is withdrawn there is no verdict!

Sorry, but as I said I withdrew cases even up to the morning of a hearing just by telling the Clerk that we would not be offering any evidence and had withdrawn our case. More often than not we were able to tell the Court a week before hand. If on the day the Clerk would just tell the Bench "This case has been withdrawn"; if before it would not be added to that day's List.

As a member of the public you are entitled to attend Court and see what goes on. I have a feeling this is not something you have done and I suggest it might be quite interesting for you to do so.

 

[some bloke]

All the prosecution has to do is go to the Court and say that in respect of the case against "X" we are no longer continuing with the prosecution.

As I said, the words "the case against John Smith" seem to me to mean - regardless of whether they are used to the clerk or the magistrates - that there is a real defendant in this case called John Smith when there isn't.

The company cannot control what the clerk says to the magistrates and so cannot control whether the clerk misleads them.

But even if a form of words is used which does not imply there is a real defendant, there is still some difference between situations where:

a) the company is offering a settlement for having its *own employees* misled (ie avoiding conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act),

and

b) the company may get more money from the passenger after the *court* is given the false name and the passenger wants to avoid a conviction under a different law.

The first one involves a settlement for an offence that in a meaningful sense is more concerned with private loss to the company.

The second is more concerned with the passenger's effect on the legal process, and is in a meaningful sense more of a public matter. So we might ask whether it is appropriate for a company to be holding that over the passenger when proposing a level of financial settlement.

If a case is withdrawn there is no verdict!

As I said, I was referring to the other suggestion - that the company could knowingly let the case with the false identity go to a verdict. It is nothing to do with the case being withdrawn.

 

[Llanigraham]

As I said, the words "the case against John Smith" seem to me to mean - regardless of whether they are used to the clerk or the magistrates - that there is a real defendant in this case called John Smith when there isn't.

The company cannot control what the clerk says to the magistrates and so cannot control whether the clerk misleads them.

I'm sorry "Some Bloke" but you really do not understand Court Procedures.

I can assure you that if the Prosecution tells the Clerk that the case against "X" is not proceeding then that is the end of the matter, whether that is X's real name or not.
All the Clerk does is tells the Bench that the case is not proceeding; they are not interested in the who, what's or why's.

I suggest that you spend a few days in the Public Gallery of a few Magistrates Courts. You might find it interesting.

 

[some bloke]

if the Prosecution tells the Clerk that the case against "X" is not proceeding then that is the end of the matter, whether that is X's real name or not.

Yes, of course that would normally be the end of the matter - as above:

We wouldn't expect it to be questioned, because the court will not normally find out from another source that there is no such defendant. But that's a different issue from whether it misleads.

No-one has yet denied the point about what the *company* would be doing - that with those words, the company would mislead.

Court procedures and whether the clerk cares are not relevant to that point. Nor has anyone yet said why the company's position would be entirely unproblematic:

the company may get more money from the passenger after the *court* is given the false name and the passenger wants to avoid a conviction under a different law. ... more concerned with the passenger's effect on the legal process, and is in a meaningful sense more of a public matter. So we might ask whether it is appropriate for a company to be holding that over the passenger when proposing a level of financial settlement.