Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,943
Starting a new thread so that discussion doesn't get mixed up with the advice at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/fare-evasion-my-silly-mistake.169470/:
I think we're agreed that in practice an out of court settlement will be the better option at least most of the time - if nothing else for avoiding any criminal record. But as far as I can see the out of court settlement will invariably be the better deal. A conviction will include the fare: so will an out of court settlement. A conviction will include costs: so will an out of court settlement. A conviction will also include court fees and a fine: an out of court settlement won't.
If there's a way for the conviction to be better financial value, please can someone explain it to me, because I'm failing to see it.
3) Going to court and pleading guilty, however, will be even more expensive. You have admitted the facts so I assume you will plead guilty. That means (as with agreeing an out of court settlement) paying the fare and the other side's costs. It also means paying a fine and court costs.
Not necessarily - all fines are income related and with an early guilty plea it's likely to be 33% of weekly salary + costs + victim surcharge.
NB - costs aside, an out of court settlement is normally a better option, as it leaves your formal record squeaky clean.
I think we're agreed that in practice an out of court settlement will be the better option at least most of the time - if nothing else for avoiding any criminal record. But as far as I can see the out of court settlement will invariably be the better deal. A conviction will include the fare: so will an out of court settlement. A conviction will include costs: so will an out of court settlement. A conviction will also include court fees and a fine: an out of court settlement won't.
If there's a way for the conviction to be better financial value, please can someone explain it to me, because I'm failing to see it.