Jump to content



Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3208 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 533
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Everyone. I have a question and would be grateful if someone could help me.

 

An year ago, I was caught by some ticket inspectors for travelling on a bus without a ticket or an oyster card. I didn't want to give my name and address details to the inspector because I was worried about a criminal record, so I started to make up my address. They didn't believe me, and hence they forced me to give my bag, in which they found my NHS card, with my correct contact details. They recorded these details and gave me a small receipt (which I have now lost). They also gave me the penalty fare details, so i paid the 25 pounds penalty fare on the same day online.

 

I am now applying for jobs. My question is that, if employers conducted background checks on me, will they be able to trace both the 'penalty fare' and the 'bag search' that was conducted? My main worry is that, since I did not give the correct details to the ticket inspectors upon being questioned, I was given 'an additional piece of paper' (which I can only assume to be a receipt for the "search" they conducted), and whether this will show up on any background checks that my potential employers will conduct?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

PS: Note that I did not receive any letters in the post regarding this incident afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Everyone. I have a question and would be grateful if someone could help me.

 

An year ago, I was caught by some ticket inspectors for travelling on a bus without a ticket or an oyster card. I didn't want to give my name and address details to the inspector because I was worried about a criminal record, so I started to make up my address. They didn't believe me, and hence they forced me to give my bag, in which they found my NHS card, with my correct contact details. They recorded these details and gave me a small receipt (which I have now lost). They also gave me the penalty fare details, so i paid the 25 pounds penalty fare on the same day online.

 

I am now applying for jobs. My question is that, if employers conducted background checks on me, will they be able to trace both the 'penalty fare' and the 'bag search' that was conducted? My main worry is that, since I did not give the correct details to the ticket inspectors upon being questioned, I was given 'an additional piece of paper' (which I can only assume to be a receipt for the "search" they conducted), and whether this will show up on any background checks that my potential employers will conduct?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

PS: Note that I did not receive any letters in the post regarding this incident afterwards.

As Wriggler said, the matter is now resolved and you have not got a criminal conviction, so it wont affect any job you apply for. You were luck though, because you giving false details was more than likely an offence under TfL's byelaws on the buses, as was the travelling with no ticket, so you could have been visiting a Magistrate!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your responses. Yes I am aware that I was very lucky because what I did was unacceptable and I have learned from my mistake.

 

Are you guys definitely sure though that the ''bag search'' that was conducted is not recorded on the Police Records?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your responses. Yes I am aware that I was very lucky because what I did was unacceptable and I have learned from my mistake.

 

Are you guys definitely sure though that the ''bag search'' that was conducted is not recorded on the Police Records?

Obviously the bag search was done by a Police Officer, and as such a form would have been filled out. This is kept for 12-months, but only as a record of the search, and nothing will be shown on any CRB checks etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Guys,

 

JUst want to know, does a formal warning for fare evasion issued by tfl (summons wasn't issued &case didn't get to court)appear in an enanced crb check?

 

No.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Section 5,3,a requires the prosecution to prove that you travelled by train, without previously paying the fare and with intent to avoid paying. Well eventhough i had my brothers oyster card.. I had enough money on my student oyster card which was enough for me to get to my destination.

 

To prove 'intent not to pay' the prosecutor needs to satisfy the Magistrates that you knew a fare was due, had not paid it and intended not to pay unless you were asked to do so.

 

Your comment about having a pre-pay Oyster in your pocket with sufficient funds held on it is not an absolute defence as you seem to suggest.

 

The shop-lifter who takes a bottle of Whiskey off the display and walks out of the shop intending to leave without paying may well have sufficient cash, or a Debit or Credit Card in his pocket, but he hasn't met the obligation to pay.

 

A pre-pay Oyster card is NOT a rail ticket. It is best described as an 'electronic purse'. A means of carrying credit in order to pay a rail or bus fare and must be touched in before travelling in order to be accepted as valid.

 

Wriggler7 and I often agree on the best recommendation here and I can see why he would be happy to defend the allegation. As he has said, he would be getting paid win or lose.

 

However, based on only what you have said here, I again agree with Wriggler7 and if I were the prosecutor it is quite likely that I would charge with the strict liability Byelaw offence only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Old Codja and I agree rather a lot, it is probably because what we all want to see is the 'right thing done'.

 

It isn't always, there will always be 'miscarriages of justice', and some of the worst criminals will 'get lucky' at Court.

 

There are times when I really do not like the 'instructions' that I am given, and I give the best advice that I am capable of, which is not always correct, but I try.

 

Perhaps this morning, a much better judge of what is right and wrong will have indicated a verdict, and there will be some people waking up to find spaces under the tree to reflect their naughtiness over the past year.

 

Merry Christmas to all of you, and it is my hope that you all have a wonderful, and righteous, new year.

 

If some of you do not like ticket Inspectors or railway prosecutors, the best way to 'get back at them' is to always buy the right ticket before getting on the train, allow them all to be made redundant. I, for one, look forward to the day that my telephone stops ringing, and I can wander into a police station and be told 'no one has done anything wrong, you can go home'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wriggler7, I'd like to second all of that.

 

One of the things I've always tried to instil in training new inspectors is how important it is to deal with each individual fairly and to remember that the ways of the world really does mean that 'you'll never run out of stock in this business'.

 

I'm at that end of the job that now has me thinking just how nice it would be to see a desk with no prosecution cases pending.

 

I'd like to add my good wishes for a Happy Christmas and a healthy & prosperous New Year to you and all the vast majority of people who do try to do their best in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you intend to 'mention' drunkenness, I think you should explain a reason why you were drunk, but only if it is a reason that will seem 'good'. In one of the areas where I work, drunkenness is seen by the local press and Council as a plague that needs to be eradicated. This is one of those cases where if you do seek legal advice, you need a 'local' criminal defence solicitor who will have a good idea about how your local Magistrates are likely to react. He might suggest that your 'mitigation' uses the angle that the volume that you had drunk was the problem, and that you couldn't 'hold on', rather than that the alcohol blurred your judgement, and in an intoxicated state, you just chose to pee.

 

If you have nothing better to do, read the case of Regina V Majewski. Strangely, I did meet Majewski, many years ago. (Only 'met', not a friend)

 

CCTV is likely to only be viewed fully in a 'not guilty' plea and subsequent trial. Frankly, unless you pee on the camera, it is quite likely to only show that you were there, how long you were facing the wall. Without reading the witness statement, we are not able to comment on the 'quality' of the evidence, but I doubt if a Crown Prosecutor would 'run' with the case unless the evidence is all there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wriggler

 

Yes I am sending the form with the apology letter and proof of earnings (pay slips)

 

re drunk

The truth is I had a drink too many but have had a drink too many on occasion and never done anything like that. I had been dieing to pee on the tube and do have bladder issues (bit embarassing but I do go a lot).My letter so far does not mention drunkeness but my concern there is that the magistrate may say 'if you were not drunk why do it'. So should I mention this or not ?

catch 22 as far as I see it.

and as I am asking for the case to be dealt with in my absence and I just say 'moment of madness I couldnt hold on' how likely is it the magistrate will say 'I need to clarify with this man' , adjourn and get me into the courtroom'?

 

Hope you are still online as sending off my paperwork this morning

Link to post
Share on other sites
have just briefly read Regina V Majewski , interesting but bit heavy for me right now.

 

quick question - is my admission of guilt a gurantee I will be found guilty?

 

Re: R v Majewski & also R v Quick, these are matters that questioned whether means rea was present, they have no impact in relation to a byelaw offence as mens rea is not required.

 

A written plea of guilt will be rejected by the court if you do not appear to accept your guilt in any mitigation you give & appear to be pleading guilty for 'convienience'.

 

Am I right in assuming that you were drunk, went to the ladies loo by accident & pee'd over the floor? I am suprised the CPS proceeded to charge on this & did not recommend a caution.

Unless of course there is more to the incident than we are aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: R v Majewski & also R v Quick, these are matters that questioned whether means rea was present, they have no impact in relation to a byelaw offence as mens rea is not required.

 

A written plea of guilt will be rejected by the court if you do not appear to accept your guilt in any mitigation you give & appear to be pleading guilty for 'convienience'.

 

Am I right in assuming that you were drunk, went to the ladies loo by accident & pee'd over the floor? I am suprised the CPS proceeded to charge on this & did not recommend a caution.

Unless of course there is more to the incident than we are aware of.

 

I had been drinking yes but not particularly more than usual and yes I did pee in ladies toilet

 

I received a caution at the time so says officers statement

 

There is the usual questions did you do it etc I denied at time but said sorry

 

I have now written letter apologisng to all involved and advising that I had been dieing for wee on tube and ran to toilet in station but didn't make and through impaired judgement did the deed

 

I have asked the court to deal in my absence

 

You are saying this will be rejected? If so I will have to get off work somehow and maybe go anyway

 

Opinions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My thoughts too SRPO

 

More like what ? There is honestly no mention of anything more.

 

Why would I decieve

 

'Soiling rail property' that is charge honestly

 

Are you suggesting there may be a suprise for me in court ? Surely it is based on the documentation and statements you receive and in that respect I have been honest about everything

Link to post
Share on other sites
More like what ? There is honestly no mention of anything more.

 

Why would I decieve

 

'Soiling rail property' that is charge honestly

 

Are you suggesting there may be a suprise for me in court ? Surely it is based on the documentation and statements you receive and in that respect I have been honest about everything

 

And why recommend a caution if I have already received one on the night?

 

I am very worried and confused now

Link to post
Share on other sites

The paperwork is prepared after the event and no-one doubts that what you have described having received and what you have been charged with is an accurate description

 

The decision as to whether any matter should proceed to issue of a Summons or not will have been based on the evidence and report of what happened at the time of the incident.

 

I haven't seen that report / statement or any of the first hand evidence and therefore will not comment on why the CPS considered the case warrants prosecution, but I do suggest they must have thought that there is very good reason to have gone that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow I cant get my head around this. Lastly OLD_Codja as its NYE Ill leave you too it, but I am now wondering if my letter of apology and request of absteeism was such a good idea, it is def heartfelt I just hope it is viewed that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get confused with 'cautions'. There is the 'caution' that an officer/inspector/investigator is required to give to warn a potential defendant that the questions and answers that are about to happen are going to form part of 'evidence', and then there is the 'Caution' administerd by 'police' to close a case without it going to Court. Such cautions are normally done by officers of Inspector rank, at a Police station, long after the event, and after a decision has been made regarding suitable disposal of the case.

 

Folk are correct to point out that there is no need for prosecution to prove 'mens rea' (guilty mind, or guilty intent depending what school you went to) in a byelaw offence. However, drunkenness as a defence or a mitigation is often 'iffy', it can make the Court see the offence as 'worse', it might not, hence my suggestion for taking advice from a 'local' man.

 

CPS have processes to go through before deciding whether a case is 'in the public interest'. However, there will always be parts of a case which will only seem clear to the prosecutor that made the decision. It may even be that the 'location' has particular problems, and there was pressure for the matter to go to court. We can all speculate, truth is, 'we' don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very clear explanation by Wriggler7 and exactly why I would not attempt to speculate further.

 

I take the point that some Courts may view drunkeness in a dim light, though if you have made up your mind that you accept you are guilty, I don't think you can do yourself any harm by saying sorry and asking the Court to deal with it in your absence as you say you intend to.

 

The only thing that you could do to improve things for yourself is to go to Court and say sorry in person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am surprised the CPS chose to run with this one, and the Police didn't offer an official caution, although given you were drunk, you might have had to been arrested to implement this...Same goes for a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND - £80), although you'd have had to have been in clear public view for the latter to be implemented, as the Public Order Act would be used, also would need arresting or for the officer to visit you when you were sober. From what I gather, although the toilet was not meant for Gentlemen, surely the fact that you urinated in a Toilet, regardless of for whom it was intended, you didn't soil railway property, as the toilet is designated for this very use...

 

Unless of course you missed the toilet on account of you being elephant's.... ;)

Edited by Stigy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3208 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...