Gray Hooper Holt -
Successful Railway and Bus Fare Evasion Cases
If you need urgent help now phone: 07951-916784
First Capital Connect –v- J
June 2013
Revenue Protection Inspectors interviewed the client, a professional financier, in respect of a suspected offence of railway fare evasion. It was further alleged against him that he had given a false address.
First Capital Connect served a ‘Notice of Intention to Prosecute’ upon him warning him that he was to be prosecuted for travelling on the railway with intent to avoid payment of the fare and giving false details contrary to sections 5(3)(a) and 5(3)(c) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Gray Hooper Holt made representations to the Prosecutions Department whereupon the case was discontinued against the client. He retained his clean criminal record.
Abellio Greater Anglia Ltd –v- B
May 2013
Revenue Protection Inspectors interviewed the client in respect of a suspected offence of fraud contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. They seized a number of tickets in his possession.
The client was a senior financial adviser for an international company for whom a successful prosecution for railway fare evasion or fraud would have led to the loss of his job and his career.
Detailed representations were made by Gray Hooper Holt to the Fraud Department of the railway company over a period of months. The ultimate outcome was an informal settlement between the parties.
Chiltern Railways – v – A
May 2013
The client was suspected of having breached Railway Byelaw 18 (1) i.e. entering a train for the purpose of travel without a valid ticket.
The parents of the client, a teenage student, put her in touch with Gray Hooper Holt.
Medical evidence was obtained on behalf of the client and served upon the Prosecutions Department. The Prosecutors reviewed the case and agreed to discontinue the criminal investigation.
In this instance, the client was unable to attend in person for a consultation with instructing solicitors because she was on holiday in the United States of America.
A Skype interview was arranged with the client for the taking of instructions.
Southern Railway –v- D
May 2013
The prosecutors alleged that the client was guilty of the inappropriate use of a railway staff pass. They made further allegations against him under the Regulation of Railways of Railways Act 1889.
Gray Hooper Holt entered into lengthy negotiations with the Prosecutions Department with a view to obtaining an informal settlement.
After negotiations lasting two months, a compromise arrangement was agreed acceptable to both parties which brought the matter to a successful termination.
First Great Western –v- G
April 2013
The client was a leading academic. He was being investigated by Revenue Protection Inspectors for an alleged offence of ‘short ticketing’. The allegation was vigorously denied.
Submissions were made by Gray Hooper Holt to the Prosecutors that the Revenue Protection Inspectors had been in breach of the ‘Codes of Practice’ of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and also in breach of articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that, accordingly, the inspectors’ interview was inadmissible.
Upon reconsidering the case, the Prosecutors agreed to discontinue the matter.
First Capital Connect –v- N
Watford Magistrates’ Court
April 2013
The client, a financial consultant, received a ‘Notice of Intention to Prosecute’ from First Capital Connect. She wrote a detailed reply to the railway company attempting to dissuade them. They then advised her that, notwithstanding her arguments, they were proceeding with her prosecution for railway fare evasion alleging that she had contravened section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Gray Hooper Holt made detailed submissions to the Prosecutions Department of the railway company in respect of the client making particular reference to her foreign nationality and ability to understand an English language interrogation.
In the circumstances, the company agreed to an out-of-court settlement.
First Capital Connect –v- Y
March 2013
The client was a civil servant with a clean criminal record. He had been interviewed by Revenue Protection Inspectors in respect of an alleged breach of Railway Byelaw 20(1) – altering a ticket with intent to defraud.
The investigation was affecting the client’s wellbeing. Gray Hooper Holt persuaded the Prosecutions Department to expedite processing of the client’s case so that it could be dealt with more quickly.
Detailed legal representations were made to First Capital Connect. The Prosecutors, after considering the same, agreed to discontinue the investigation.
South West Trains –v- G
February, 2013
The client, an IT Consultant, received a request to attend at the offices of the railway company for a second, longer interview under caution.
Gray Hooper Holt ensured legal representation was made available to the client and provided advice and assistance prior to and throughout his interview.
Further representations were made to the Prosecutions Department in the month after the interview.
After protracted negotiation, it finally proved possible to avoid formal legal proceedings.
Crown Prosecution Service –v- P
February 2013
The client instructed Gray Hooper Holt after he had been charged by the British Transport Police with an offence of fraud against a railway company under sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Gray Hooper Holt made extensive and detailed representations to the senior CPS Prosecutor with a view to the prosecution being discontinued and the case referred back to the British Transport Police for the administration of a conditional caution.
The CPS Prosecutor accepted Gray Hooper Holt’s representations. The matter was referred back to the British Transport Police. The CPS Prosecutor advised the court that the charge was being discontinued.
The client reattended at a British Transport Police Station and received a conditional caution.
British Transport Police –v- G
January 2013
The client, a senior medical professional, attended by appointment at a British Transport Police Station. An officer of the Area Ticket Fraud Squad of the BTP arrested her on suspicion of defrauding a railway company contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
A representative of Gray Hooper Holt was in attendance upon the client throughout her police station attendance. The client was released on police bail whilst the police submitted a file to and liaised with the Crown Prosecution Service solicitors.
Gray Hooper Holt made representations throughout the police station attendance and further representations during the period the client was on police bail. Additional information was forwarded to the Area Ticket Fraud Squad on the client’s behalf.
The result of these representations and the additional information supplied to the Area Ticket Fraud Squad was that the Crown Prosecution Service in consultation with the British Transport Police agreed to take no further action against the client.
Transport for London –v- M
Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court
December, 2012
The client, a student, was reported for an offence of bus fare evasion after he was allegedly stopped on a TFL bus with a relative’s Freedom Pass. He fell foul of TFL’s policy of prosecution after a warning has been given for a first offence.
Gray Hooper Holt referred TFL Prosecutors to their own Guidelines which preclude the prosecution of persons aged under eighteen years save in exceptional circumstances.
Transport for London reconsidered their decision to prosecute and the summons was withdrawn against the client.
Connex South Eastern –v- W
Greenwich Magistrates’ Court
October 2001
The client was prosecuted for travelling with intent to avoid payment of the fare contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Gray Hooper Holt obtained a legal aid certificate to represent the client.
Defence Counsel successfully defended the client and the magistrates acquitted him of the charge and made an order for costs in his favour.
N.B. PLEASE NOTE THAT GRAY HOOPER HOLT NO LONGER CARRY OUT LEGAL AID WORK IN THIS AREA. ALL CLIENTS ARE REPRESENTED ON A PRIVATE BASIS.
We can help you across England and Wales
Although we are based in Surrey and Sussex we can accept instructions for any Court in England and Wales. We can take full instructions on the telephone if visiting our office would be a problem for you and we have barristers countywide to take a brief for any bus fare evasion hearing in any court at short notice!
Call us on (Redhill) 01737 761004 or (Haywards Heath) 01444 411333 or complete our online enquiry form now for a
free no obligation opinion and discussion.
