Fare Evasion

British Transport Plate .v. K.

A most interesting instruction, where a female professional, who it was alleged falsified carnet tickets, be it they were not validated with the day of travel, but only the month and year, was alleged as being in possession of articles for use in Fraud.

This Inspector, without the knowledge of the prosecution department reported the allegation directly to British Transport Police. The police informed that should the client not attend an invitation to attend a police interview an arrest may follow, this matter being dealt with by the Fraud Squad.

Our solicitor attended the date set by Police for interview, but insisted on full disclosure before hand, and provided detailed legal argument as to the series of breaches of PACE by this inspector, the behaviour exhibited, and acting beyond his authority at best. The client suffice it to say was not interviewed.

Result

First Capital Connect were apologetic and after enquiries withdrew the matter, and British Transport Police dismissed the allegation, and realised the predicament that they were unwittingly placed in by this Revenue Inspector.

As a direct result of this case, Revenue Inspectors no longer have the authority to instruct British Transport Police, and measures have been put in place to ensure such actions do not occur again.

A delighted client.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. P
Lavender Hill Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a professional, was charged in that he travelled on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment.

At Court on Plea, the Defence requested the matter be vacated to a further date, and Penman Sedgwick made lengthy legal Representations, which eventually were accepted, and an Out of Court Settlement reached, and the matter withdrawn from the Court.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. W
Lavender Hill Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a Chinese Citizen, partner to a UK Citizen, and resident in the UK, appeared before the Magistrates Court in that she travelled on the railway without previously having paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment over a period of time.

We made legal representations, and after much discussion, the matter was agreed to be resolved by an out of Court Settlement.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. I
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a University Student, was summonsed in that he travelled on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof. He used and produced a child 11-15 oyster card showing the photograph of a child. Such photograph bore no likeness whatsoever to the Defendant and admitted the pass belonged to his brother. Incorrect facts were provided to the revenue Control Inspector on questioning.

Instructions were to plead Guilty as to dishonesty which aggravated the offence.

Mitigation was provided, and the sentence being –

Fine: £65.00
Victim Surcharge: £20.00
Compensation: £4.70
Prosecution costs: £135.00

---

---

South West Trains .v. F
Salisbury Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged that in having paid a fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeded by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid the payment thereof.

This prosecution was resolved by an out of court settlement.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. E
Lavender Hill Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a trainee nurse for children, was in receipt of a summons to appear on one singular charge:

• That on the 28th August 2013 at Stratford station attempted to travel on a railway, namely London Underground, without having previously paid the fare at King`s Cross, being £4.50, and with intent to avoid payment thereof, contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

London Underground insisted on proceeding with the matter to trial.

In trial, at cross examination, the Revenue Control Inspector, could not explain how she expected the Defendant to accept the accuracy of her notes, having not read them. Put to the Inspector was the correct procedure, using the relevant PACE provisions. The Inspector accepted that her records were not verbatim, and that she could have missed out some words.

Later, the prosecutor, in making closing submissions, asked the Magistrates to accept the Defendants evidence as credible.

The Defendant was found Not Guilty, an Application made by the Defence for costs and was granted.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. J
Cambridge Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a professional person, was charged with entering a train for the purpose of travelling, and did not have a ticket entitling travel.

We made legal representations to the Prosecution Department, which were accepted, and the matter dealt with by an out of court settlement.

The Defendant was most grateful, and able to continue in professional work.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. B
Lavender Hill Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed on 24 separate matters over a period of time, contrary to:

• Travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with the intention to avoid payment, contrary to Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
• Having paid the fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeded by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment, contrary to Section 5(3)(b) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 
The Prosecutor, despite representations, was entirely immoveable as to the prosecution, and stated in open court that for these offences a custodial sentence would be requested, the prosecution took such offences very seriously, and rightly so.

The prosecutor was persuaded to make a joint application to the Court for an adjournment, for written representations.

Thereafter, on representations being made in writing, by Penman Sedgwick, the Prosecution lawyers agreed to an Out of Court settlement, and the matter was formally withdrawn by the Prosecution.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. C
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed in that he was travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment, in so much as having copied the ticket by photocopy imitating the appearance of a genuine ticket, and showed it to a guard to obtain entry for the journey, and altered another ticket by way of changing the date.

The Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Mitigation was provided in view of the seriousness of the matter, and the sentence was –

Fine: £120.00
Costs: £260.00
Compensation: £34.50
Victim surcharge: £20.00

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. B
Lavender Hill Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a Professional Lady, was summonsed for travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment.

A Not Guilty plea was entered on the first occasion and the matter set down for trial.

In the interim, Penman Sedgwick made substantial written representations to the prosecutor, who then agreed to a settlement out of Court, and the matter was withdrawn from Trial.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. C
Hammsrsmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a student of a professional body was summonsed to appear to answer information as to travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare with intent to avoid payment, by way of use of father`s 60+ London Oyster Freedom Pass, on various occasions.

A plea of Guilty was entered.
Mitigation provided on behalf of client.

Sentence

Fine: £100.00
Compensation: £184.50
Prosecution costs: £130.00
Victim surcharge: £20.00

---

---

Southern Rail .v. B
Prosecution Department

The Defendant made various claims in respect of a Railway Compensation as to the lateness of trains for the service required at particular times. Travel vouchers were provided by the Railway in good faith.

We provided legal representations to the prosecution, and the matter was resolved without a prosecution in the Magistrates Court, by way of an out of court settlement with admission.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. A
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed in respect of:

• 13, by way of entering a train for the purpose of travelling and did not have a ticket for entitlement to travel, contrary to byelaw 18(1) of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the transport act 2000 by the Strategic Rail authority and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for transport on 22 June 2005.
• Providing a false address contrary to Section 5(3)(c) of the Regulation of railways Act 1889 as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport act 1962, Section 18 of the British Railways Act 1970 and section 13 of the British Railways Act 1977.

The Defendant pleaded Guilty to all offences.

Full mitigation in argument was provided to the Court.

Sentence

• £135.00 for each fare evasion (13 in total)
• £265.00 for providing a false address
• £84.00 compensation (total fare evaded)
• £380.00 Prosecution costs
• £20.00 victim surcharge

---

---

Abellio Greater Anglia Limited .v. J
Westminster Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged that he contravened Byelaw 19(1) of the railway Byelaws made under Section 219 and schedule 20 of the Transport act 2000, in accordance with the Railways Act 2005, in that he entered a train in a non-compulsory ticket area for the purpose of travelling on the railway without having a valid ticket entitling travel.

Facts

The defendant, a highly qualified Medical Paramedic, was in course of travel from Braintree station to Liverpool Street Station. At Braintree station, the self service ticket machine was out of order, the ticket office closed, and he was unable to purchase even a platform ticket from the machine. He boarded the train, and for professional reasons could not miss that train.

During the course of travel, an inspector was sought so to purchase a ticket for travel, albeit, there was not one who came to his carriage. At Liverpool Street, he immediately headed for the ticket office to purchase a ticket, and was confronted by an inspector, who called the British Transport Police. Fortunately, the defendant recorded the confrontation.

Plea

Not Guilty was entered.

Hearing

Penman Sedgwick was instructed, and after submissions in Court before The District Judge, the prosecution withdrew the prosecution, and we made an Application for Costs, which was awarded.

The Defendant retained his good character, and is now able to continue in his professional capacity serving London.

---

---

Abellio Greater Anglia Limited .v. F
Westminster Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a University Student was summonsed in contravention of Byelaw 18(1) of the Railway Bye-laws made under Section 219 and Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000, in accordance with the Railways Act 2005, in that he entered a train in a non – compulsory ticket area for the purpose of travelling on the Railway without having a valid ticket entitling travel.

We made representations before the District Judge, and thereupon the Prosecution withdrew the matter and agreed to an out of court settlement. The Defendant therefore remains a person of good character.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. M
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant, was summonsed for entering a train without a ticket for the purposes of travelling.

This was a serious offence concerning a young student that would have caused serious consequences to a future course of study and career.

We made representations to the prosecutor, which was accepted, and the prosecution was withdrawn in Court on our application.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. H
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed for travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment. A freedom pass was used to which there was no entitlement, for some 64 journeys across the network. The holder of the freedom pass did not give permission for such use.

The Defendant, a graduate from Oxbridge, with a brilliant academic record of achievement, and a member of a professional body, relied on an out of court settlement being agreed.

We made representations as to exceptional circumstances, and to which the Prosecutor was most generous in accepting, and a settlement out of court was reached, and the matter withdrawn by the prosecution from the Court. The Defendant acknowledged the wrongdoing, and was most remorseful.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. O
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed for travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment.
Detailed representations were made to London Underground Ltd, and as a result, an out of court settlement was achieved.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. C
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with four separate offences of entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket, by way of producing an out of date young person’s railcard and a young person’s discounted tickets. The Defendant being a mature student at the time, and the entitlement card had expired.

We made representations that the matter not proceed in Court after a Summons had been served.

Representations were accepted, and an out of Court settlement agreed, and the summons withdrawn.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. K
Notice of intention to prosecute issued

The client, not charged, but issued with a Notice, was alleged to have entered a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel.

We made representations that the matter not proceed further, and be dealt with by way of a penalty charge, that was accepted.

No Court proceedings issued.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. P
Luton Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged by way of summons for entering a train for the purpose of travelling, and did not have a ticket for travel, and altering a rail ticket with intent.

The offences were serious, and could have led to a short custodial sentence being passed.

On instructions we made written representations to the prosecutor, which was accepted, and accordingly an out of Court settlement reached, and the matter withdrawn from prosecution.

---

---

Dockland Light Railway .v. A
Westminster Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with two offences of travelling or attempting to travel on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof.

We were instructed on a Not Guilty plea to both charges.

At Court, we made legal submissions before the Magistrates, and the Prosecutor withdrew the charges with no evidence to offer, the Magistrates dismissed the matters.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. M

Notice of Intention to Prosecute Issued

The client, not charged, but issued with a Notice, was alleged to:

• Have transferred a ticket with intent.
• Entered a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel.

 
We made representations that the matter not proceed further, and be dealt with by way of a penalty charge, that was accepted.

No Court proceedings issued.

---

---

Abellio Greater Anglia Limited .v. B
Westminster Magistrates Court

The Defendant received a summons alleging entering a train in a non-compulsory ticket area for the purpose of travelling on the Railway.

We made submissions before the Court, the prosecution then decided to withdraw the matter. We made an application for defence costs, which were ordered by the Court.

---

---

London Underground .v. P
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged contrary to S.5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as amended by Section84(2) of the Transport act 1962 and Section 18 of the British Railways Act 1970 with:

• Travelling on the Railway without having paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment.
• 64 Offences between the period of 4 March 2013 and 23 April 2013.
• A Guilty Plea was entered.

Mitigation provided.

Sentence

A conditional discharge for 2 years
Prosecution Costs: £130.00
Compensation: £344.50
Victim Surcharge: £15
Conditional Discharge

An offender does not suffer a penalty for the offence providing that no further offence is committed during the specified period, but, in the event of further offence(s) , then the Court would also sentence for the offence subject to conditional discharge.

Note:
For the serious multiple offences convicted of, there could have been a fine of up to £3,000.00 and or 3 months custody.

---

---

London Underground Limited .v. W
Richmond Magistrates Court

Facts

The Defendant utilised a Freedom Pass belonging to a friend, for the purposes of travelling on the underground on 67 separate occasions, between an operative period of three months, knowingly.

Charge

Travelling with the intention to avoid payment, contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and Section 18 of the British Railways Act 1970.

Penalty

• A fine of up to £3,000.00 and/or 3 months custody
• Mitigation to the court and legal submissions

As a result thereto, the Magistrates retired.

Sentence

Fine: £240.00
Prosecution Costs: £260.00
Compensation: £372.00
Victim Surcharge: £24.00

Note:
Travelling knowingly, using another person’s freedom pass, is a serious offence.
This conviction will only be spent after a period of 5 years. It is strongly advised to be legally represented by us in representing those being prosecuted for fare evasion.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. M
West London Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed that having entered a train for the purpose of traveling, did not have a ticket entitling travel.

Prior to entering into Court on the day of Plea, the prosecution withdrew, thereupon an Application was made to the District Judge, who awarded Defence Costs.

---

---

Stage Coach South Western Trains Limited .v. R
Richmond Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with 2 offences:

• Travel, or attempt to travel upon the Railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof.
• Without permission from an authorised person, enter or leave railway premises without passing through the manned or automatic barrier in the correct manner.

 
The plea entered to both charges was not Guilty, and we made representations by way of submissions, which were accepted by the Prosecution, and the matter withdrawn by way of no evidence being offered.

We made an application for costs which was awarded by the Court.

---

---

London Underground .v. J
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with travelling on the Railway without previously having paid the fare with intent to avoid payment thereof, contrary to section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as amended by section 84(2) of the Transport act 1962.

The circumstances being that an oyster Freedom Pass was used that did not belong to him, and in that he used the pass to make a journey on the London Underground.

The Defendant, based upon the facts, was clearly advised to plead Guilty in all the circumstances, and a Plea of Guilty was entered.

On mitigation having been provided on the defendant`s behalf, the sentence was as follows –

12 Month Conditional Discharge
Prosecution costs: £130.00
Compensation to London Underground: £5.50
Victim surcharge: £15.00

---

---

Southern Railway .v. L
Greenwich Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged in respect of travelling on the Railway without having previously paid and with intent to avoid payment thereof contrary to section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, as amended by the Transport Act 1962.

Representations were made, and the matter withdrawn by way of a settlement outside Court.

---

---

Southern Railway .v. M (1) and M (2)
Tower Bridge Magistrates Court

The Defendants were jointly charged by way of receiving an unused ticket intending that a person shall use that ticket to travel on the railway, not being a ticket for which the conditions of use specifically permit transfer, contrary to byelaw 21(2) and 24 of the Railway byelaws made under section 219 of the transport Act 2000 by the strategic Railway Authority and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000, as amended by Section 46 of the Railways act 2005.

We submitted representations, and the matter was resolved by way of an out of court settlement, and the matter withdrawn from the magistrates, hence a criminal record avoided.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. P

Facts

A young lady, whose father had the benefit of providing, as an employee of London Underground, a staff nominee travel pass to his daughter; who, utilised such pass in the course of travel on First Capital Connect within Zone 5. A Revenue inspector challenged the issue of such pass, and the journey. As a result thereof, a Notice of Intention to Prosecute was served.

We made written submissions to First Capital Connect, and as a result withdrew the Intention to Prosecute.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. C
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a University student was summonsed in that having entered a train for the purpose of travelling, did not have a ticket entitling travel, contrary to byelaw 18(1) of the Railway Byelaws under Section 219 of the transport act 2000, and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000.

Prior to the Court date, we made legal written submissions, which were duly accepted.

An out of Court penalty was provided and accepted. As a result the matter was marked no further action by the Prosecutor.

---

---

Transport For London .v. U
Richmond Magistrates Court

The Defendant was alleged to have used a Freedom Oyster Card belonging to a member of the family, whilst using the underground on multiple occasions.

On the evidence provided, the Defendant was strongly advised by us to plead Guilty at the first instance.

On entering the guilty plea and submissions in mitigation, the Defendant was sentenced to a Conditional Discharge for a two year period.

---

---

Transport For London .v. Z

Incident

The client found an Oyster card on a pavement inside London, no identification was attached, and was anonymous. Funds were placed on the Oyster card, and travel undertaken by use of the card, although there was a minimal amount of credit on the card at the time the card was found.

On a routine inspection in course of a bus journey by a Revenue Inspector, it was found that the card was in fact a discounted card requiring a photo ID for the purposes of travel. Clearly the card was not the property of the client.

Penman Sedgwick, on being instructed, made legal written representations, which were accepted. As a result the prosecution did not proceed, and instead, an out of Court financial settlement agreed.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. W

The client received a Notice of Intended prosecution alleging:

• Entry on a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel.
• Altering a ticket for travel with intent.

 
A Summons had not been issued at the time of instruction to Penman Sedgwick.

Evidential material was obtained with a full synopsis of the evidence proffered against the client and representations made to First Capital Connect.

As a result, the prosecution was not proceeded with.

---

---

London Overground .v. R

This instruction was based upon not utilising the Oyster ticket barriers by way of placing an Oyster card at exit, and leaving the station, and was promptly halted by a Revenue Inspector, and interviewed with full details taken. The client was warned that a prosecution would follow.

Written submissions were made based on procedures in breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and that accordingly, that the matter be dealt with instead by way of a penalty, and a Summons not issued in the magistrates Court.

The submissions were accepted by London Underground, and a penalty fare imposed by way of settlement in lieu.

---

---

Regina .v. A
Thames Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a National of Saudi Arabia, and a Student at in the UK on a Student Visa, was charged by way of traveling on a railway, namely the Norwich to London service, without previously having paid the full fare and with intent to avoid payment, contrary to section 5(3)(a) Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

Facts

The Defendant was in possession of a Young person`s Railcard, so to facilitate a discount when purchasing a rail ticket. However, the original card was left behind in Saudi Arabia, yet retained a photocopy, cut to size and retained in the wallet. The photocopy was shown to the booking clerk at the time of purchase of a discounted rail ticket. On board the train, a Revenue Inspector took full details, despite explaining the situation, and was later provided with a summons

Submissions

Legal representations were made in respect of the charge, and as a result the matter was withdrawn by the prosecution before the magistrates, an application for defence costs made, and awarded.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. M
Hammersmith Magistrates Court

Written representations were made and were successful, and the file marked no further action.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. T
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was alleged that on route to Potters Bar Station, travelled on the railway without previously having paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment, contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as amended.

The facts of the case were that the client was in a drunken state, purchased to his mind a train ticket, having placed £10 note into the machine, by way of a single ticket from Welwyn garden city to Bethnal green station, and collected from the machine what he thought in his drunken state was a rail ticket, but in fact later found to be a receipt from a previous customer, and then boarded a train to travel. An explanation was provided to the revenue Inspector on the train, then realising his mistake, and offered to make payment of the fare, which was refused.

Representations were made, on the basis of a not guilty plea.

The Prosecution withdrew the charge, an application for costs were made to the Court and awarded.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. O
West London Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with having entered a train for the purpose of traveling, and not having a ticket for travel, contrary to byelaw 18(1) of the Railway byelaws made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000.

Written submissions were made in respect of investigatory evidence on behalf of the Defendant introduced, which was fully accepted, and as a result thereto, the prosecution tendered no evidence and withdrew the matter before the court, whereupon we made a successful application for defence costs to be awarded by the District Judge.

---

---

First Capital Connect Limited .v. L

The Defendant client, a professional by occupation, received a Notice of Intention to prosecute in regard to entering a train for the purpose of traveling without a ticket entitling travel.

On receiving instructions, legal representations were made in writing, prior to a Summons being issued, and as a result the matter was withdrawn and marked for no further action.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. R
West London Magistrates Court

The facts of this case being that the Defendant, it was alleged failed to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person, contrary to Bye Law 18(2) of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport act 2000 by the Strategic Rail authority and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport on June 2005.

The Defendant, at the time being a student, and incapacitated and utilising crutches during the course of the journey, was challenged on board the train. Despite explanation that a valid ticket for travel had been purchased, and indeed shown at the ticket barrier, but lost whilst on crutches, the ticket inspector cautioned the Defendant, and a Summons issued.

On instructions, a series of submissions were made on behalf of the Defendant, with reference made to Guidelines, and as a result, First Capital Connect formerly withdrew the Prosecution in Court, and wel successfully obtained a Defence Costs Order.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. M
Haywards Heath Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed that having entered a train for the purpose of travelling, did not have a ticket entitling travel contrary to byelaw 1891 of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000.

Robust representations were made by to First Capital Connect, and as a result, the matter was not proceeded with.

An application was made to the Magistrates to formerly withdraw the charge, which was accepted, and another application for defence costs, also awarded.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. S
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with having entered a train for the purpose of traveling, and not having a ticket entitling such travel. The defence was that the client had in fact paid for a return ticket to London from Brookmans Park, but was obliged on the return journey due to a physical injury and severe pain to alight at a previous station, namely Hatfield. Accordingly the Revenue Protection Officer dealt with the matter, and a prosecution followed.

Submissions were made which resulted in the withdrawal of the Prosecution Summons, and an application for defence costs, which was granted.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. W
West London Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged that at Herne Hill Station failed to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification when asked to do so by an authorised person contrary to Bye Law No 18(2) of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Rail authority and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of state for Transport on 22 June 2005.

The Defendant was further supplied with a letter stating that :

“ Travel fraud costs the rail industry over £400 million per year and first capital connect has a zero tolerance approach to fare evasion on our network. We always ask that the courts impose the maximum penalty for offenders, which can include the following:

• A Criminal record
• Fine of up to £1000
• Prison sentence
• Suspended sentence
• Community service
• Seizure of any computer equipment (if involved)

”

Costs

We dealt with the heavy handed approach accordingly, put First Capital Connect to proving the alleged offence in light of a ticket machine being out of order, the defence evidence of the incident, and that the matter would be taken to trial.

As a result, First Capital Connect saw fit to withdraw the charge on the morning of hearing at Court, and an Application for Defence Costs was made, and granted by the Court. Needless to say, Mr Wight, a most respectable businessman was hugely relieved.

---

---

First Capital Connect .v. B
Watford Magistrates Court

Ms B, a Law Student, was summonsed on the basis that she could not show a valid ticket for a train journey, and it was alleged that she did not have the means to pay the railfare, Contrary to Bye Law 18(2) of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Rail authority and confirmed under Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 June 2005.

A Not Guilty plea was entered, with a trial date set.

Due to the nature of the allegations, the prosecution evidence submitted, a most detailed Defence statement was served on First Capital Connect, requiring specific evidence to be served on the defence. As a result, the prosecutor offered no evidence, and the matter was withdrawn. Ms Brill retains her impeccable good character with no record.

An Application for Defence costs was made, to be taxed from Central Funds which was granted by the Magistrates.

We submitted legal representations to the Prosecuting Authority, and the Court, as a result the following case was withdrawn . A successful cost`s Application was made.

---

---

British Transport Police .v. A
Thames Magistrates Court

We negotiated out of court settlements with the Prosecuting Authority on the following matters; and, as a result, the prosecutions were withdrawn in the Magistrates Court: