Help. TIL is charging me to court!!

[island]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

I echo Hadders' point that this is not a line of argument I would like to recommend an unrepresented defendant run unless they are very confident indeed.

 

[kefty]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

I echo Hadders' point that this is not a line of argument I would like to recommend an unrepresented defendant run unless they are very confident indeed.

Thank you once again. I should just plead guilty and pay the fines.
I'm scared I might complicate this further as I'm not very confident.
And i can't afford to pay a representative.
The only worry about a guilty plea is the criminal record.

Also, my wife is not working. She hasn't worked since March 2024. How would her fines be calculated?

Thank you.

 

[Hadders]

Pleading guilty is most straightforward way of dealing with this. Read what I put in post #45, option 1. The fine will be based on your weekly income, I think they will assume £220 for your wife if she's not working (others forum members will know and correct e if I'm wrong).

The court will allow what you owe to be paid in installments if you engage with them.

You could consider option 3 but this is higher-risk and would potentially mean a larger fine if this was unsuccessful.

 

[island]

I think they will assume £220 for your wife if she's not working (others forum members will know and correct e if I'm wrong).

It's £120 weekly income, which will be reduced by a third for a guilty plea, then take a half of it for this offence's guideline, and add back 40% surcharge, which I think gets you to £56.

For the OP who is working, in round sum terms it's about half your weekly income.

Costs and compensation, which will be detailed in the court paperwork, to be added to both.

 

[Haywain]

I do not share the view of @Hadders and @island and I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence. The intial act of pleading not guilty and explaining on the form that you did not commit the offence does not require legal advice and I am sure that the courts will receive such depositions on a daily basis. The argument that once your case reaches the court you may require some legal assistance to present your case does have some merit, but I would expect that if it reaches this stage you will not need a solicitor who specialises in fare evasion matters, just a general criminal lawyer who understands court procedures and can put the simple case concerned. If you are unsure about how to proceed, I would recommend that you look to arrange a consultation with a local criminal lawyer prior to submitting your plea - I believe you can often get a free initial consultation and sometimes this will may all the advice you need. If you then need to engage them for representation they are likely to be considerably cheaper than a specialist.

 

[furlong]

I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence.

I agree. Take it one step at a time. (I reckon it's more likely they'd offer to settle out of court than mess the court around trying to bring a new charge.)

 

[AlterEgo]

I do not share the view of @Hadders and @island and I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence. The intial act of pleading not guilty and explaining on the form that you did not commit the offence does not require legal advice and I am sure that the courts will receive such depositions on a daily basis. The argument that once your case reaches the court you may require some legal assistance to present your case does have some merit, but I would expect that if it reaches this stage you will not need a solicitor who specialises in fare evasion matters, just a general criminal lawyer who understands court procedures and can put the simple case concerned. If you are unsure about how to proceed, I would recommend that you look to arrange a consultation with a local criminal lawyer prior to submitting your plea - I believe you can often get a free initial consultation and sometimes this will may all the advice you need. If you then need to engage them for representation they are likely to be considerably cheaper than a specialist.

I also agree with this.

The OP is not farting about here - they are entitled to, and indeed should plead not guilty to the offence. They are demonstrably not guilty of it. If they end up being convicted of the “correct” offence (for which they would also be allowed to plead guilty if it got that far) they would still receive the same discount on the fine. The court could not take the view that their time has been wasted, because the OP is doing this in good faith and is making a plea consummate with the actual facts of the matter. They won’t penalise you for “messing them about”. This sort of thing is important.

 

[island]

I do not share the view of @Hadders and @island and I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence.

I have not at any time recommended doing such a thing.

 

[kefty]

Ok t

I also agree with this.

The OP is not farting about here - they are entitled to, and indeed should plead not guilty to the offence. They are demonstrably not guilty of it. If they end up being convicted of the “correct” offence (for which they would also be allowed to plead guilty if it got that far) they would still receive the same discount on the fine. The court could not take the view that their time has been wasted, because the OP is doing this in good faith and is making a plea consummate with the actual facts of the matter. They won’t penalise you for “messing them about”. This sort of thing is important.

Thank you again.

I've now made a little mess on the plea form but that's ok.
Now back to the question i asked before. I understand all that has been said and know i have to put it in my own words but i still have to be able to clearly explain it in the limited box space. That's why I would need some help with what to write in the box explaining why I'm pleading not guilty. (That the bye law 18.2 was wrongly quoted by the prosecutor)

 

[island]

Ok t


Thank you again.

I've now made a little mess on the plea form but that's ok.
Now back to the question i asked before. I understand all that has been said and know i have to put it in my own words but i still have to be able to clearly explain it in the limited box space. That's why I would need some help with what to write in the box explaining why I'm pleading not guilty. (That the bye law 18.2 was wrongly quoted by the prosecutor)

I already explained in post 61 what to write there.

 

[kefty]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

I echo Hadders' point that this is not a line of argument I would like to recommend an unrepresented defendant run unless they are very confident indeed.

Got it. Thanks

 

[Haywain]

I already explained in post 61 what to write there.

I would also go with that, although I am not sure that this bit is necessary:

 

[island]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

It may also assist to quote the case law Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) in which it was found that a passenger who handed over an Oyster card with insufficient funds could not be convicted of a Byelaw 18 (2) offence as he did indeed hand over a ticket, despite that the ticket handed over was not a valid one.

 

[kefty]

It may also assist to quote the case law Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) in which it was found that a passenger who handed over an Oyster card with insufficient funds could not be convicted of a Byelaw 18 (2) offence as he did indeed hand over a ticket, despite that the ticket handed over was not a valid one.

Wow. Good to see this.

 

[WesternLancer]

Wow. Good to see this.

I think as it gets to the court date people here will be able to give you very good information on what to expect and how to make your point in clear and straightforward terms.

 

[kefty]

Anything else to add here?
And do i need to write 'bye law 18(2)' in brackets? Or there's no need for that?

I think as it gets to the court date people here will be able to give you very good information on what to expect and how to make your point in clear and straightforward ter

It may also assist to quote the case law Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) in which it was found that a passenger who handed over an Oyster card with insufficient funds could not be convicted of a Byelaw 18 (2) offence as he did indeed hand over a ticket, despite that the ticket handed over was not a valid one.

Is this good to go? Or anything else worth adding?

Many thanks,

 

[furlong]

This law is basically there to give a ticket inspection the force of law, so people cannot claim to have a ticket but then refuse to show it or allow it to be marked.
A ticket inspection wouldn't work if there was no legal obligation to show your ticket or to allow it to be stamped.

Different laws deal with ticket validity. (The law would be too complicated if every separate requirement was combined into a single clause.)

Anything else to add here?
And do i need to write 'bye law 18(2)' in brackets? Or there's no need for that?

No need to write 18(2).