First Capital Connect MG11 form

[unjust1401]

I was hoping someone could advise me. Apologies in advance if I'm posting this thread in the wrong place, I'm new to the site and can't see another way of starting a new thread.

 

My husband was caught filling out a date on his First Capital Connect carnet when the inspector came to check tickets. When the inspector took it off him presumably as 'evidence' it was correctly dated. He is new to the system and simply forgot to fill it in - he had no intention of re-using it in fact his route would make this impossible in any case. In preparation for the potential prosecution letter I have a few questions which I was hoping someone could advise on,

 

1. Can a carnet ticket physically be used again after they have been through both the station entry and exit barriers once a journey is complete? Surely the machine renders them 'used'?

 

2. Can an inspector offer a penalty fare and once it is accepted by the passenger withdraw the option?

 

3. On serving of a MG11 form, does the inspector have to specifically tell the passenger what the MG11 is exactly before reading out any rights?

 

4. Does the inspector have to show the passenger the details he has included in the MG11 form at the time of filling it in?

 

5. Does the passenger have to sign the MG11 form at the time?

 

6. Is there any scope in complaining about the carnet system, which effectively has no way of accounting for human error?

 

Any help and advice would be appreciated. I can see a lot of posts on this so I'm hoping there are some experienced people out their willing to share their wisdom.

[Old-CodJA]

I have responded to your 6 queries in bold type below:

 

I was hoping someone could advise me. Apologies in advance if I'm posting this thread in the wrong place, I'm new to the site and can't see another way of starting a new thread.

 

My husband was caught filling out a date on his First Capital Connect carnet when the inspector came to check tickets. When the inspector took it off him presumably as 'evidence' it was correctly dated. He is new to the system and simply forgot to fill it in - he had no intention of re-using it in fact his route would make this impossible in any case. In preparation for the potential prosecution letter I have a few questions which I was hoping someone could advise on,

 

1. Can a carnet ticket physically be used again after they have been through both the station entry and exit barriers once a journey is complete? Surely the machine renders them 'used'?

 

Yes, it is possible to physically attempt to re-use a ticket, but to do so would be considered a fraudulent intention to avoid a fare

 

2. Can an inspector offer a penalty fare and once it is accepted by the passenger withdraw the option?

 

It depends on exactly what was said. If an inspector is making out a Penalty Fare Notice and discovers that the traveller did not actually have the means to pay the single fare for the journey with them, yes, the Penalty Fare Notice will be cancelled and the opportunity withdrawn

 

3. On serving of a MG11 form, does the inspector have to specifically tell the passenger what the MG11 is exactly before reading out any rights?

 

No, as soon as an inspector suspects that an offence may be evident, the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) Codes of Practice require that the officer conducting the interview must caution the suspect before further questioning commences.

 

4. Does the inspector have to show the passenger the details he has included in the MG11 form at the time of filling it in?

 

If a pro-forma is used, the inspector will read the form to the person being reported whilst showing him/her the form and will ask that person to sign the form at the end of the interview, if they agree the notes. The same procedure applies if the report is made out in a pocket notebook. It is exactly the same for Police Officers.

 

5. Does the passenger have to sign the MG11 form at the time?

 

 

No, they will be given an opportunity to do so, but if that is opportunity declined, the reporting inspector will make a note and get another member of staff (if one is present) to witness the refusal.

 

6. Is there any scope in complaining about the carnet system, which effectively has no way of accounting for human error?

 

You can write to the issuing TOC, but the conditions of issue and use of Carnet tickets are very straingtforward

 

Any help and advice would be appreciated. I can see a lot of posts on this so I'm hoping there are some experienced people out their willing to share their wisdom.

[unjust1401]

Thanks Old-CodJa, that's really useful.

 

I've referenced the nos of my original questions for ease of reference below. I was hoping you could help further if you don't mind...

 

1. Can I just clarify - when the carnet ticket goes through the ticket barrier machine at both the start and end of the journey the same ticket can be used again for another journey either the same day or another day, is that correct? (I appreciate its fraud, I'm certainly not about to try this, I just want to be absolutely sure I'm understanding you correctly).

 

2. There was no question of not having the means to pay the penalty, it was a simple change of heart from the inspector - is this allowed once an agreement to pay has been reached?

 

3. Is there a certain procedure that the inspector must comply with when completing an MG11? I've been searching google for this but haven't found anything specific. If you have a link to this info I'd be very grateful if you could send it over or advise me of the specific procedure. I want to be sure the inspector in question followed this as there was certainly no opportunity given to my husband to either see or sign the form, nor did anyone else sign the form at the time. My husband did ask if he could see what had been written but he was refused.

 

Thanks for all your help so far, its much appreciated.

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks Old-CodJa, that's really useful.

 

I've referenced the nos of my original questions for ease of reference below. I was hoping you could help further if you don't mind...

 

1. Can I just clarify - when the carnet ticket goes through the ticket barrier machine at both the start and end of the journey the same ticket can be used again for another journey either the same day or another day, is that correct? (I appreciate its fraud, I'm certainly not about to try this, I just want to be absolutely sure I'm understanding you correctly).

 

2. There was no question of not having the means to pay the penalty, it was a simple change of heart from the inspector - is this allowed once an agreement to pay has been reached?

 

3. Is there a certain procedure that the inspector must comply with when completing an MG11? I've been searching google for this but haven't found anything specific. If you have a link to this info I'd be very grateful if you could send it over or advise me of the specific procedure. I want to be sure the inspector in question followed this as there was certainly no opportunity given to my husband to either see or sign the form, nor did anyone else sign the form at the time. My husband did ask if he could see what had been written but he was refused.

 

Thanks for all your help so far, its much appreciated.

 

 

1. If the ticket has been returned to the user by the barrier gate, the user can attempt to fraudulently re-use it.

 

2. Yes, if during questioning, the inspector now believes that a Penalty Notice is not the appropriate action it can be cancelled at any time. There is never any obligation on an inspector to accept a penalty nor to issue a Penalty Fare Notice.

 

3. After cautioning the person being reported the inspector will either make out a pro-forma, reading aloud the questions on that form and recording the 'suspects' answers until the form is complete, or will ask questions and record both the question and answer in his/her pocket book. At the conclusion of this procedure, that is once the inspector is satisfied that sufficient evidence to prove the case has been adduced, the questions & answers are read aloud by the inspector and in view of both parties. These notes are then agreed, or amended as necessary and an opportunity to sign will be given to the 'suspect'.

 

If the person being reported refuses to sign the notes, this does not prevent the company taking action, it merely requires that the inspector records that an opportunity to sign the notes was given and declined. The person being reported is not obliged to sign anything.

 

As I previously said, this is exactly the same procedure for Police Officers or any investigating officer who is reporting an allegation of an offence. The relevant rules are found in the Codes of Practice for reporting offences, which are defined by the Police & Criminal Evidence Act [1984].

 

As additional information, which I hope will be useful, unless you are a Lawyer representing your husband if this matter proceeds to Court action, the company is not obliged to respond to a letter from a third party who was not present at the time so it is important that your husband answers any letter from the TOC himself.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[unjust1401]

Thanks again Old CodJa. Much appreciated information.

 

I hope you don't mind if I pick your brains some more... you are obviously very knowledgeable.

(BTW I'm not a lawyer I'm simply a concerned wife doing a bit of research to try and help her husband, my husband will of course answer any letter from the TOC himself when the time comes)

 

Again for clarity I'll number my further questions in light of your responses...

 

1. I understand that if the ticket is returned by the gate that the user could try to fraudulently re-use it as you say. My question really is do you know whether said ticket would physically pass through the barrier once again - ie. would the barrier accept it and open as usual given that the ticket has already passed through barriers at the start and again at the end of one journey?

 

2. Are there a set of defined rules as to under what circumstances the inspector can change his mind once offering a penalty and having it accepted by the passenger? You mentioned before that it depends what was said...

By the sounds of it I'm guessing its totally at the inspectors discretion, but it would be good to know for sure nonetheless.

 

3. By cautioning do you specifically mean reading out rights to the passenger?

There was no opportunity given to the 'suspect' (in this case a passenger) to sign anything, my husband even asked if he could see or have a copy of what the inspector had written and this was declined. The inspector simply said he's get a copy in the post in a few weeks time.

Should the 'suspect' always be asked to sign the form?

If the 'suspect' is not given this opportunity does this render it invalid?

I'm looking for the specific section in the PACE Act that details the codes of practice for reporting offences and I can't seem to find this. These are the PACE codes I can find (as listed on Wikipedia). Is there any chance you can point me in the right direction of the section you mention?

 

PACE Code A: deals with the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest. It also deals with the need for a police officer to make a record of such a stop or encounter.

On 1 January 2009, Code A was amended to remove lengthy stop and account recording procedures, requiring police to only record a subject's ethnicity and to issue them with a receipt.

PACE Code B: deals with police powers to search premises and to seize and retain property found on premises and persons.

PACE Code C: sets out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of people in police custody by police officers.

PACE Code D: concerns the main methods used by the police to identify people in connection with the investigation of offences and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records.

PACE Code E: deals with the tape recording of interviews with suspects in the police station.

PACE Code F: deals with the visual recording with sound of interviews with suspects.

On 1 January 2006 an additional code came into force:

PACE Code G: deals with statutory powers of arrest.

On 24 July 2006 a further code came into force:

PACE Code H: deals with the detention of terrorism suspects.

Thanks again for all your help!

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks again Old CodJa. Much appreciated information.

 

I hope you don't mind if I pick your brains some more... you are obviously very knowledgeable.

(BTW I'm not a lawyer I'm simply a concerned wife doing a bit of research to try and help her husband, my husband will of course answer any letter from the TOC himself when the time comes)

 

Again for clarity I'll number my further questions in light of your responses...

 

1. I understand that if the ticket is returned by the gate that the user could try to fraudulently re-use it as you say. My question really is do you know whether said ticket would physically pass through the barrier once again - ie. would the barrier accept it and open as usual given that the ticket has already passed through barriers at the start and again at the end of one journey?

 

2. Are there a set of defined rules as to under what circumstances the inspector can change his mind once offering a penalty and having it accepted by the passenger? You mentioned before that it depends what was said...

By the sounds of it I'm guessing its totally at the inspectors discretion, but it would be good to know for sure nonetheless.

 

3. By cautioning do you specifically mean reading out rights to the passenger?

There was no opportunity given to the 'suspect' (in this case a passenger) to sign anything, my husband even asked if he could see or have a copy of what the inspector had written and this was declined. The inspector simply said he's get a copy in the post in a few weeks time.

Should the 'suspect' always be asked to sign the form?

If the 'suspect' is not given this opportunity does this render it invalid?

I'm looking for the specific section in the PACE Act that details the codes of practice for reporting offences and I can't seem to find this. These are the PACE codes I can find (as listed on Wikipedia). Is there any chance you can point me in the right direction of the section you mention?

 

PACE Code A: deals with the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest. It also deals with the need for a police officer to make a record of such a stop or encounter.

On 1 January 2009, Code A was amended to remove lengthy stop and account recording procedures, requiring police to only record a subject's ethnicity and to issue them with a receipt.

PACE Code B: deals with police powers to search premises and to seize and retain property found on premises and persons.

PACE Code C: sets out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of people in police custody by police officers.

PACE Code D: concerns the main methods used by the police to identify people in connection with the investigation of offences and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records.

PACE Code E: deals with the tape recording of interviews with suspects in the police station.

PACE Code F: deals with the visual recording with sound of interviews with suspects.

On 1 January 2006 an additional code came into force:

PACE Code G: deals with statutory powers of arrest.

On 24 July 2006 a further code came into force:

PACE Code H: deals with the detention of terrorism suspects.

 

 

Thanks again for all your help!

 

 

Firstly, I have to ask, if you were not present, how are you certain that your husband has been reported on an 'MG11' ? He may have been reported on a TIR (Travel Irregularity Report form), but I'm intrigued as to how he knew it was an MG11 Form if he was not shown it..

 

1.) Barriers may well be open and only cursory manual checking taking place if there is very heavy overcrowding, Additionally, it is often found that travellers fail to date Carnet tickets and use them, but once returned by the gate, will date for another day and attempt to use them again by the simple expedient of putting them in the barrier and the gate fails to open. That done the offender then shows the ticket to the gateline staff and complains that the gate didn't open. The member of staff uses their key to open the barrier. If caught out and convicted, the penalty can be a criminal record and a fine of up to £1000. This is one of the reasons that revenue staff hate Carnet tickets.

 

2.) No. If during conversation or questioning it becomes evident that a Penalty Fare Notice is not appropriate it will not be issued.

 

3.) 'reading their rights' is American jargon, but in essence, yes.

 

The caution will be in words to the following effect: 'You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something that you may later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence, do you understand the caution?'

 

An "interview" is defined by Code C as the questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences. The interview should always be carried out under caution. Therefore, whenever a P.A.C.E trained member of staff cautions someone and questions them about their involvement in an alleged offence, the inspector is conducting an interview under caution within the meaning of Code C.

 

The suspect’s responses to questions put to him/her during an interview under caution conducted in accordance with Code C may be used as evidence against him/her in any subsequent criminal proceedings. This is explained to the suspect by the caution. Evidence obtained during the interview can only be used against the person being questioned; it cannot be used in evidence against another person(for example, a co-defendant), although it may suggest additional lines ofenquiry.

 

An informal discussion can be an "interview" within the meaning of Code C. A conversation will constitute an interview if a suspect is being asked to incriminate himself. Also, since Code C refers to "any questioning", a single question can amount to an interview.

 

If a person is not ‘cautioned’, but is questioned about their involvement/suspected involvement in an offence, this is still an "interview", however, any evidence contained in the interview may not be admissible before a Court.

 

An accurate record must be made of every interview with a person suspected of an offence (i.e. every interview under caution).

 

That record must state the place of the interview, the time it begins and ends, the time the record is made (if different), any breaks in the interview and the names of all those present and taking part. The record can be made on forms provided for this purpose, or in the investigator’s note book, or, if audio recording facilities were available, it can be made in accordance with the code of practice for the audio recording of interviews with suspects (Code E)

Edited January 16, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[firstclassx]

It is also worth remembering that to prosecute, it is not always necessary to complete an MG11 at the time of the incident.

 

It would be acceptable for a member of staff to simply demand your name and address, (which you are obliged to give if suspected of travelling without a valid ticket), and pass this to the Prosecutions Dept with a brief version of events. You don't need to question a passenger under caution.

 

The TOC can then write to the passenger and request a version of events. If the TOC decides to prosecute, the member of staff can write his own MG11 statement describing what occurred and what he witnessed.

 

Whilst it may make a Section 5 prosecution difficult, a Railway Byelaw 18 prosecution could still succeed.

 

My point is that even without a PACE compliant interview taking place, it does not prevent you from being prosecuted.

 

Further, courts take a dim view of suspects who commit a crime, and try to "defend" their actions by trying to nit pick on a technicality. Things like the "slip rule" can be used to correct clerical errors. It ensures that clerical mistakes can be corrected without the need for an appeal/further hearings.

 

Of course, anyone who is guilty, and has any sense, will simply respond "No comment" to any question, should they be interviewed.

 

You are wasting your time trying to use PACE Codes of Practice as a defence. As mentioned earlier, even if your statement was thrown out, doesn't mean that the Inspector's own statement would not be sufficient to convict you.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to here:

 

If a person is not ‘cautioned’, but is questioned about their involvement/suspected involvement in an offence, this is still an "interview", however, any evidence contained in the interview may not be admissible before a Court.

 

The important word is 'may' not be admissible, it does not prevent a prosecution from succeeding for exactly the reason given. The inspector will write a witness statement from his or her contemporaneous notes.