It's a pity you discarded the original (Penalty or Parking) Charge Notice (PCN). If you are able to obtain a copy or duplicate, it would help your case.
Since your case is being prosecuted under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2) as a criminal offence, the prosecution must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they need strong, clear evidence to demonstrate that:
1. You violated the operator's instructions as specified in the byelaw.
2. The signage and instructions were clear and enforceable.
3. Your actions were not justified (e.g., by unclear or inadequate signage).
If you can cast doubt on any of these points—such as showing that the signage was unclear or that your parking did not contravene any specific instruction—the prosecution may fail to meet this high standard, and you could avoid conviction.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest standard of proof in law and applies to criminal cases. It means that the evidence must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge or jury (Magistrate in this case) that the defendant committed the offence.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must prove every element of the offence to this high standard to secure a conviction. Since criminal cases often involve the risk of serious consequences, such as fines, imprisonment, or a criminal record, the law requires this stringent standard to minimise the risk of wrongful conviction.
The prosecution under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2) hinges on whether the signage clearly communicated the parking rules. Your defence should focus on the inadequacy of the signage, the lack of obstruction, and any procedural irregularities (e.g., the shift from a civil PCN to a criminal penalty). If these issues are effectively presented, you have a reasonable chance of challenging the charge.
In this case, the V5C registration certificate only identifies the registered keeper, not necessarily the owner or the driver of the vehicle. This distinction is important, particularly in cases like yours, where liability under a byelaw is being pursued.
Registered Keeper vs. Owner vs. Driver
• Registered Keeper: The person named on the V5C document who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle.
• Owner: The person with legal ownership of the vehicle (e.g., someone who purchased or financed it). This is not necessarily the registered keeper.
• Driver: The person in control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. Liability for parking offences under byelaws generally rests with the driver.
Who is Liable Under Byelaw 14(2)?
Byelaw 14(2) concerns the person in charge of the vehicle. This is typically interpreted as the driver at the time of the alleged offence. If the prosecution cannot prove who the driver was, they may struggle to secure a conviction because liability under the byelaw rests with the driver, not the registered keeper or owner.
Prosecution’s Argument Based on DVLA Enquiries
The charge sheet claims that DVLA enquiries confirmed you as the registered owner. However, the DVLA does not determine ownership, only the registered keeper. The term "registered owner" is incorrect and misleading. It conflates the concepts of keeper and owner, which are legally distinct.
To convict under Byelaw 14(2), the prosecution must prove that you were the driver (i.e., the person in charge of the vehicle) at the time of the alleged contravention. In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must establish:
• That an offence occurred (i.e., parking contrary to the operator’s instructions).
• That you were the person in charge of the vehicle at the time.
If they rely solely on the DVLA information to link you to the offence without direct evidence that you were driving, this leaves their case open to challenge.
One of your defence strategies would be to challenge the assumption of liability. Argue that being the registered keeper (as identified by the DVLA) does not prove that you were the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. If there is no evidence that you were driving (e.g., photographs or witness testimony), the prosecution cannot meet the criminal standard of proof.
Point out that the charge sheet inaccurately refers to you as the registered owner, which is legally incorrect. The V5C registration document explicitly states it does not prove ownership. This error suggests procedural flaws or a lack of understanding by the prosecution, potentially undermining their case.
Ask the prosecution to provide specific evidence that you were the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. If no such evidence exists, the charge cannot be sustained. Even if the prosecution proves that the vehicle was parked improperly, they must also prove that you were the person responsible.
If you can introduce doubt about who was driving, you would avoid conviction. Remember, in a criminal case, the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2), the driver (i.e., the person in charge of the vehicle) at the time of the offence is liable. The prosecution must prove:
• That the offence occurred.
• That you were the driver.
If they cannot link you as the driver beyond a reasonable doubt, the case should fail. The prosecution must prove that you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence, not merely the registered keeper. If their case relies solely on DVLA records without direct evidence, this is a significant weakness you can exploit in your defence.
Here are other points you should use in your defence:
1. Wording of the Signage:
• If the signage does not explicitly state that parking is restricted to reserved bays, you may argue that there was no clear "instruction" from the operator that you violated.
• Check if the signage refers explicitly to Byelaw 14(2) or other enforceable rules. Ambiguity in signage can support your defence, as regulations must be clear and comprehensible to the public.
2. No Obstruction or Hindrance:
• You parked on the kerb without causing an obstruction or hindrance to other vehicles, pedestrians, or the operation of the railway. This can be argued as compliance with Byelaw 14(2)(i).
• If there are photographs of your vehicle showing it was not obstructing or hindering, these will strengthen your case.
3. Compliance with Byelaw 14(2)(iii):
• If you can argue that parking on the kerb does not contravene the operator's instructions due to unclear or absent signage, this undermines the claim of a violation under subsection (iii).
All of the above is only a suggestion. IANAL and I would defer to others on here that may have legal training. If you have any legal protection insurance through your car or home insurance, you could seek legal advice but I would make sure that it is someone who is familiar with these bylaws and not just a plain vanilla solicitor.
These could be some of the challenges to your defence:
Byelaw 14(2) can be interpreted broadly to cover any deviation from the operator's instructions, even if there is no obstruction or hindrance. The court may determine that parking outside designated bays is inherently contrary to the operator's instructions.
The operator may argue that parking outside marked bays disrupts the orderly use of the car park, regardless of whether an obstruction occurred.
The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) is justified in this situation because Merseyrail Byelaws are legally enforceable regulations made under statutory authority. A breach of these byelaws constitutes a criminal offence, not a civil matter. As such, the case is handled in a criminal court rather than a civil court like the Small Claims Court.
The SJP is a streamlined method for dealing with low-level offences without requiring an in-person court appearance unless contested. It is commonly used for minor traffic offences, railway byelaws, and similar infractions. If you plead guilty, the SJP will decide your case on paper. If you contest the case or plead not guilty, the matter will proceed to a magistrates' court hearing.
Whether to plead guilty or not guilty depends on how strong you feel your case is based on the available evidence and the arguments you can present.
If you believe the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
• You were the driver.
• The parking rules were clearly displayed and you contravened them.
Pleading guilty at this stage may result in a reduced fine or penalty, as early guilty pleas often receive leniency. Also, if you plead guilty, you will avoid a trial and reduce the risk of incurring additional prosecution costs, which could be much higher if the case proceeds to trial and you are convicted. If you want to resolve the matter quickly and avoid the stress or time commitment of preparing a defence and attending court, pleading guilty simplifies the process.
However, you should consider pleading not guilty if the prosecution cannot prove that:
• You were the driver at the time of the alleged offence (e.g., if they rely solely on DVLA records of you being the registered keeper).
• The signage was not clear and enforceable, given your points about the faded and unclear sign.
These weaknesses create reasonable doubt, which is enough to avoid conviction.
The use of terms like "registered owner" and reliance on the V5C creates a possible procedural flaw.
The initial issuance of a "Parking Charge Notice" (typically civil) before switching to criminal proceedings might raise procedural irregularities.
Your defence points are strong and you have valid arguments:
• Signage clarity: The signage was ambiguous, faded, and hard to read, failing to clearly communicate the rules.
• No obstruction: The vehicle was not parked obstructively, which undermines part of Byelaw 14(2)’s intent.
• No evidence you were the driver: The prosecution cannot link you to the offence without direct evidence.
If you're willing to fight the case, pleading not guilty means the case will go to trial in a magistrates' court, where you will need to prepare and present your defence and potentially attend court and cross-examine witnesses.