Pleading Not Guilty to Fare Evasion

Whether a not guilty plea is viable depends significantly on which offence is charged. Under section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, the prosecution must prove that you intentionally travelled with intent to avoid payment. This is an element of the offence that can be contested. Under railway byelaws (used by TfL and some other operators), no intent is required — the prosecution only needs to prove that you did not pay. Byelaw cases are therefore harder to contest on the facts alone.

Lack of intent (section 5 cases) — Where the prosecution is brought under section 5, intent is an essential element. If you genuinely did not know that you lacked a valid ticket, or if the circumstances suggest an innocent explanation for travelling without payment, this may be a complete defence.

Identity — In some cases, details given at the time of the alleged offence are attributed incorrectly. If the allegation relates to a journey you did not make, or if your details were given by another person, this is a defence to the charge.

Procedural challenges — Revenue protection officers must follow proper procedures when stopping and questioning passengers. If the evidence was obtained improperly, or if the officer’s evidence is inconsistent or unreliable, David advises on whether a challenge to that evidence is viable.

Availability of ticket purchasing facilities — In some circumstances, the availability of ticket purchasing facilities at the relevant station or on the relevant service is relevant to the question of intent. David advises on whether this is relevant in the specific circumstances.

Fare evasion trials take place in the magistrates’ court. The case is heard by magistrates (usually three lay magistrates or a district judge) rather than a jury. The prosecution presents its evidence, including evidence from the revenue protection officer and any supporting documentation. David cross-examines prosecution witnesses, challenges the evidence, and presents the defence case.

If the magistrates find the case not proved, you are acquitted. If found guilty, David addresses the court in mitigation before sentence is passed.

Not every fare evasion case is worth contesting. The cost of a trial, the time involved, and the risk of a higher sentence if convicted after a not guilty plea are all relevant considerations. David gives a frank assessment of the realistic prospects before any plea is entered or any response is filed. Where the prospects of acquittal are low, mitigation and pre-summons representations may be more effective in limiting the consequences.