IRCAS Prosecution

[j4k3y]

Hi,

 

I'm looking for some advice.

 

A few months ago I went through Green Park Tube without a valid ticket,

 

I was stopped and explained the situation to a staff member who issues me with a pink slip.

 

There was no mention of a penalty being issued or anything else

and he explained to me at the time there would probably be no further action taken against me

as I'd never offended before and he was happy

I regularly do pay for my travel (I commute to work every day through the underground).

 

Speaking with a ticket inspector on the overground yesterday after purchasing an off peak ticket by mistake,

he ran my name and advised me I had a charge in the "prosecution" bracket in relation to this incident.

 

After researching I've came across a company called IRCAS who seem to handle all of TFL's fines etc.

 

I've not been successful in trying to locate a telephone number to call up,

 

I've never received a letter from them and the slip I was handed in the underground had no information about a penalty being applied.

 

I've tried to contact IRCAS through their website and will send a letter on Monday. I'd have happily paid the fine if I was aware of it however...

 

The positions I work in require advanced security checks including enhanced CRB's, CTC's and the like.

A prosecution would likely result in me losing my job.

 

All over £3.60.

 

How would be best to approach this?

[BazzaS]

Hi,

 

I'm looking for some advice.

 

A few months ago I went through Green Park Tube without a valid ticket,

 

.

The positions I work in require advanced security checks including enhanced CRB's, CTC's and the like.

A prosecution would likely result in me losing my job.

 

All over £3.60.

 

How would be best to approach this?

 

1) best of all would have been to pay the £3.60, avoiding all the stress and risk of losing your job, by you having a ticket when stopped. This is especially relevant for people who require a clear enhanced DBS (the replacement for eCRB), visa free travel to the US. applications for UK visa, indefinite leave to remain and such like.

 

For them it is worth prosecuting you over £3.60, if they choose to prosecute:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/#fare

"This is the principal form of dishonesty to affect public transport" : so there is the "public interest" component of the decision to prosecute.

Also, people might think "they won't prosecute me over £3.60 ", and hearing of cases where they have done just that for deliberate fare evasion might dissuade some potential evaders.

 

Hope they write to you, rather than just issue a summons.

Respond truthfully. Look at other threads here for an idea of how to reply, but do so in your own words.

Ask if they will accept an administrative settlement in place of prosecution.

Edited August 17, 2013 by BazzaS

[Old-CodJA]

Hi,

 

I'm looking for some advice.

 

A few months ago I went through Green Park Tube without a valid ticket,

 

I was stopped and explained the situation to a staff member who issues me with a pink slip.

 

There was no mention of a penalty being issued or anything else

and he explained to me at the time there would probably be no further action taken against me

as I'd never offended before and he was happy

I regularly do pay for my travel (I commute to work every day through the underground).

 

Speaking with a ticket inspector on the overground yesterday after purchasing an off peak ticket by mistake,

he ran my name and advised me I had a charge in the "prosecution" bracket in relation to this incident.

 

After researching I've came across a company called IRCAS who seem to handle all of TFL's fines etc.

 

I've not been successful in trying to locate a telephone number to call up,

 

I've never received a letter from them and the slip I was handed in the underground had no information about a penalty being applied.

 

I've tried to contact IRCAS through their website and will send a letter on Monday. I'd have happily paid the fine if I was aware of it however...

 

The positions I work in require advanced security checks including enhanced CRB's, CTC's and the like.

A prosecution would likely result in me losing my job.

 

All over £3.60.

 

How would be best to approach this?

 

 

 

 

It will not be IRCAS who is undertaking any prosecution IF there is one.

 

They are an agency who deal with the processing of PF notices and UF notices for some of the TOCs and TfL and may produce some of the paperwork for the TfL prosecution unit, but it will be TfL prosecutors who deal with the Court aspect of any prosecution.

 

If you were handed a penalty fare slip and you failed to pay or successfully appeal the liability in writing within 21 days of the issue, they can cancel that notice and go to prosecution. This is advised on the slip that you were handed.

 

It is TfL prosecution unit that you need to contact if indeed you do receive formal notification of action being taken against you.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Madamfluff]

Sorry was the £3.60 for the first fare you didn't pay or the time you paid a reduced fare 'by mistake' or a combination of both

[Stigy]

It certainly sounds as if your were reported for an alleged offence. How many months ago exactly, was it? Did you supply the address you are NOW residing at?

[CRblogger]

1) best of all would have been to pay the £3.60, avoiding all the stress and risk of losing your job, by you having a ticket when stopped. This is especially relevant for people who require a clear enhanced DBS (the replacement for eCRB), visa free travel to the US. applications for UK visa, indefinite leave to remain and such like.

 

For them it is worth prosecuting you over £3.60, if they choose to prosecute:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/#fare

"This is the principal form of dishonesty to affect public transport" : so there is the "public interest" component of the decision to prosecute.

Also, people might think "they won't prosecute me over £3.60 ", and hearing of cases where they have done just that for deliberate fare evasion might dissuade some potential evaders.

 

Hope they write to you, rather than just issue a summons.

Respond truthfully. Look at other threads here for an idea of how to reply, but do so in your own words.

Ask if they will accept an administrative settlement in place of prosecution.

 

Amen to respond truthfully. But however you choose to reply:

(a) mark the entire letter WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS so they can't use the *document* against you as a confession;

(b) say as little factual as possible (in particular no factual admissions) so they can't use the *substance* of the letter against you in cross-examination.

 

If you are inclined to confess anyway, it might be better first to write a without prejudice letter saying this is all rather unfortunate but also likely very costly for everyone to take a day off to attend court, it might be easier and cheaper for everyone if we resolve it amicably, how about say £xxx (being a number somewhere between zero and the potential fine).

 

They might say yes. Or they might say no how about the full fine. In which case offer to pay them the full whack (and if they change your mind and you later get convicted you can use your written offer to try to avoid being landed with costs).

 

Or they might say no we're going to prosecute you anyway. In which case DON'T SEND THEM a confession letter. Make the barstewards work for it. And you've lost nothing...

[firstclassx]

Amen to respond truthfully. But however you choose to reply:

(a) mark the entire letter WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS so they can't use the *document* against you as a confession;

(b) say as little factual as possible (in particular no factual admissions) so they can't use the *substance* of the letter against you in cross-examination.

 

If you are inclined to confess anyway, it might be better first to write a without prejudice letter saying this is all rather unfortunate but also likely very costly for everyone to take a day off to attend court, it might be easier and cheaper for everyone if we resolve it amicably, how about say £xxx (being a number somewhere between zero and the potential fine).

 

They might say yes. Or they might say no how about the full fine. In which case offer to pay them the full whack (and if they change your mind and you later get convicted you can use your written offer to try to avoid being landed with costs).

 

Or they might say no we're going to prosecute you anyway. In which case DON'T SEND THEM a confession letter. Make the barstewards work for it. And you've lost nothing...

 

Yeah, I would ignore this post TBH.

 

TfL in all probability aren't going to settle, so it is important to ensure the letters you send are genuine and sincere.

 

TfL, and the court for that matter, will look a lot more favourably on someone who holds their hands up and apologies, rather than someone who thinks they can be a bit smart and create extra paperwork.

 

You must remember too that this is a CRIMINAL case.

[CRblogger]

Ok, you might or might not be right. I'm not going to comment on substance. However to avoid the "bit smart and create extra paperwork" issue, there's nothing to stop you doing the same negotiation over the phone, starting with the precondition "are you authorised to hold a without prejudice conversation?". No extra paperwork. Just make sure you and they know you're recording it (as they probably will anyway, but then any extra paperwork is down to them).

 

On the notes I've noticed comes up as a "tooltip" when "without prejudice" is mentioned, I won't agree or disagree but I would amplify one point in particular: when it says make sure that offers are made without admission of liability. I'd extend that to say "also don't make any admissions of fact that might be used against you in Court". It's completely superfluous in offers to settle (if you really want to disclose incriminating facts to torpedo yourself at trial you can do that in separate correspondence anyway); and any disclosed facts will only encourage prosecution and discourage settlement. What facts might be used against you? Your lawyer will know. If you're a litigant in person, you may not know which is which because you may not know the ingredients of the offence and the applicable case law to the offence and the current law of evidence which changes continuously. So keep it simple. Enough said.

 

(if you truly want to educate yourself semi-properly to appreciate what facts are relevant: by all means go for it, start by spending a few hours/days doing research in a law library, just ask permission from your local university with a law faculty that has *practitioner* textbooks eg Archbold and databases - say Halsbury's Laws on LexisNexis is a good starting point before you go to the practitioner texts. Ask for as much help as you need to get up to speed with how to search stuff, law librarians are pretty helpful)

 

Of course this is all just words, not legal advice, so if you want to disagree with anything said above, fine, I'm not bovvered

[spalding78]

Why would you write a without prejudice letter in criminal proceedings?

[CRblogger]

It shouldn't matter if there ARE proceedings of any kind or not. Because they're not open letters, the parties can communicate freely, notably for negotiating or making offers to each other, both sides secure in the knowledge that a judge will never see the documents in current or future proceedings. The traditional impression conveyed to the judge by OPEN settlement offers is "because they offered to settle rather than say in yer face let's go to trial, the party must be a bit worried about the strength of their position", the exception being to convey the attitude "Our position is obviously so unassailable that we don't mind being magnanimous". Same applies to both sides of course. (theoretically there's nothing to stop you pitching both types of offer in parallel, but maybe that's one for "don't try this at home").

[CRblogger]

For anyone who still wants to spill their guts on facts, in open correspondence or otherwise, because it's right thing to do, etc, take a look at this "challenge" debate between a lawyer and a police officer.

(if you don't like the references to the fifth amendment etc, just substitute their English inspiration, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, now sadly repealed).

 

The lawyer's view:

The police's view:

 

I'm grateful to another member of CAG who drew my attention to these some years ago.

[Stigy]

The TOC will likely only settle if you admit wrongdoing, as their terms will be to settle the matter administratively by way of a final warning. Why you agree to a warning if you're not admitting liability? Also, chances are there's enough evidence to secure a fairly easy result in court for the TOC, so trying to be cleaver will most likely not help the defendant as the TOC will see they're being clever and probably be less likely to settle, therefore proceeding to court.

[BazzaS]

For anyone who still wants to spill their guts on facts, in open correspondence or otherwise, because it's right thing to do, etc, take a look at this "challenge" debate between a lawyer and a police officer.

(if you don't like the references to the fifth amendment etc, just substitute their English inspiration, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, now sadly repealed).

 

The lawyer's view:

The police's view:

 

I'm grateful to another member of CAG who drew my attention to these some years ago.

 

Those videos are *ESSENTIAL* viewing for anyone facing a US Criminal investigation.

 

However, US law doesn't equate with UK law.

The UK has no 5th Amendment.

 

By all means follow CRblogger's advice if you choose.

I'm with Stigy though : if I saw comments headed "without prejudice", I'd be tempted to think "I'll issue the summons without prejudice, and let the court insist on replies".

[CRblogger]

The TOC will likely only settle if you admit wrongdoing, as their terms will be to settle the matter administratively by way of a final warning. Why you agree to a warning if you're not admitting liability? Also, chances are there's enough evidence to secure a fairly easy result in court for the TOC, so trying to be cleaver will most likely not help the defendant as the TOC will see they're being clever and probably be less likely to settle, therefore proceeding to court.

 

A final warning is an offence held on a criminal record. Therefore if a final warning is all that is on offer, the "settlement" is illusory. Of course you're absolutely right. "Why you agree to a warning if you're not admitting liability? ". Indeed. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

 

If however the defendant wishes not to have a criminal record, they have absolutely nothing to lose by going to Court. And equally nothing to lose by offering an administrative solution.

 

What the TOC thinks is "clever" is utterly irrelevant. If you're facing a criminal record, there is NO incentive not to be clever" as it loses you nothing.

[CRblogger]

Those videos are *ESSENTIAL* viewing for anyone facing a US Criminal investigation.

By all means follow CRblogger's advice if you choose.

I'm with Stigy though : if I saw comments headed "without prejudice", I'd be tempted to think "I'll issue the summons without prejudice, and let the court insist on replies".

 

Fair enough. Then the Court would throw it out or recuse itself, award as much costs as they could think of against the prosecuting authority, and report any prosecuting solicitor or barrister involved to their regulator for disciplinary action for professional misconduct. And if you were there and chose to argue the toss, you might just end up in the cells yourself as a contemner.

 

Go on. Give in to your temptation. :-;

 

As to "However, US law doesn't equate with UK law.

The UK has no 5th Amendment."

 

Quite right and I implicitly acknowledged this in what I said in that post about the repeal of habeas corpus etc. What's your point?

[BazzaS]

Fair enough. Then the Court would throw it out or recuse itself, award as much costs as they could think of against the prosecuting authority, and report any prosecuting solicitor or barrister involved to their regulator for disciplinary action for professional misconduct. And if you were there and chose to argue the toss, you might just end up in the cells yourself as a contemner.

 

Go on. Give in to your temptation. :-;

 

As to "However, US law doesn't equate with UK law.

The UK has no 5th Amendment."

 

Quite right and I implicitly acknowledged this in what I said in that post about the repeal of habeas corpus etc. What's your point?

 

The TOC staff would issue the request for summons without prejudice : without prejudging the outcome : on the basis of a realistic prospect of conviction, and the summons in the public interest. They wouldn't LITERALLY write "without prejudice" on the documentation.

Since you are so literal : they wouldn't write "with prejudice" either ; they'd just fill the request out, sign it, and let the court issue the summons.

 

Why would I be there?.

Why would I argue with the court?

Those are 'straw man' arguments by you, as are your fantasies of the court recusing itself, or a TOC employed barrister even being present (let alone thence reported to their professional body).

 

My point?. Your use of the USA's constitution's 5th amendment in argument, or of statute you yourself describe as repealed E&W law in argument, showing a tenuous hold on statute or case law applicable currently in E&W, making your advice at best unreliable.

Edited September 13, 2013 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

A final warning is an offence held on a criminal record.

 

Poppycock (since you are replying about warnings from the TOC)

A warning, final or otherwise, issued by a TOC is not an offence held on a criminal record. I suspect you are confusing administrative actions by a TOC with action(s) by the police.

 

A warning from a police officer MIGHT be disclosed on a eDBS as "other information at discretion of chief officer of police"

 

A (formal, police) caution would be disclosed on a eDBS.

Edited September 13, 2013 by BazzaS

[CRblogger]

Poppycock (since you are replying about warnings from the TOC)

A warning, final or otherwise, issued by a TOC is not an offence held on a criminal record. I suspect you are confusing administrative actions by a TOC with action(s) by the police.

 

A warning from a police officer MIGHT be disclosed on a eDBS as "other information at discretion of chief officer of police"

 

A (formal, police) caution would be disclosed on a eDBS.

Yes I am confusing "final warning" with the criminal offence final warning. Thank you for your correction. I also agree a non-formal warning (except perhaps a cannabis warning on which the Home Office seems to have a bet each way) does as you say appear on enhanced certificates - whether this is a criminal record or a pseudo-criminal record I guess we don't have to argue.

 

The Home Office does however say even acquittals should be recorded against the alleged perp as a crime (which they sometimes describe as a "non sanction detection"), just not on the PNC. So what we say may be moot anyway...

[CRblogger]

The TOC staff would issue the request for summons without prejudice : without prejudging the outcome : on the basis of a realistic prospect of conviction, and the summons in the public interest. They wouldn't LITERALLY write "without prejudice" on the documentation.

Since you are so literal : they wouldn't write "with prejudice" either ; they'd just fill the request out, sign it, and let the court issue the summons.

 

Why would I be there?.

Why would I argue with the court?

Those are 'straw man' arguments by you, as are your fantasies of the court recusing itself, or a TOC employed barrister even being present (let alone thence reported to their professional body).

 

My point?. Your use of the USA's constitution's 5th amendment in argument, or of statute you yourself describe as repealed E&W law in argument, showing a tenuous hold on statute or case law applicable currently in E&W, making your advice at best unreliable.

 

"straw man", "fantasies", "tenuous", "unreliable"! A bit defensive? Fine, please understand I'm not trying to criticise you and I did not mean any offence. I accept that in your position you don't need to use WP or WPSATC, and don't see Courts recusing themselves or retaliating against misconduct. On your own case you don't understand why others do. I think that one ends there.

 

In the context of right to silence I think you've mischaracterised my position but let's leave that. Your point is more interesting: you say " a tenuous hold on statute or case law applicable currently in E&W". Ok let's look at substance. If I might hazard a guess your starting point will be ss34-38 CJPO 1994 and related case law but I actually hope I'm wrong on that so I can learn something! So please explain.

[BazzaS]

"straw man", "fantasies", "tenuous", "unreliable"! A bit defensive? Fine, please understand I'm not trying to criticise you and I did not mean any offence. I accept that in your position you don't need to use WP or WPSATC, and don't see Courts recusing themselves or retaliating against misconduct. On your own case you don't understand why others do. I think that one ends there.

 

In the context of right to silence I think you've mischaracterised my position but let's leave that. Your point is more interesting: you say " a tenuous hold on statute or case law applicable currently in E&W". Ok let's look at substance. If I might hazard a guess your starting point will be ss34-38 CJPO 1994 and related case law but I actually hope I'm wrong on that so I can learn something! So please explain.

 

It isn't at all defensive when taken with the fact that you accepted that you had already confused a TOC caution and a police caution. You recall, the bit where you say:

Yes I am confusing "final warning" with the criminal offence final warning. Thank you for your correction.

 

I think you have been further confused, and here is why:

 

You used "5th amendment", I pointed out E&W don't utilise that American constitutional right, you cited CJPO 1994 (ss34-38), so lets give them a whirl......

 

S. 34 CJPO 1994 : The OP hasn't been questioned by a constable, so almost all of this section isn't applicable.

S.34(4) is a bit of a stretch to apply your reasoning, but lets roll with it for a moment. Oops, you are still mistaken, as it is still not applicable (given the aim is to help the OP avoid court, and it would only become relevant if proceedings were commenced). Next!.

 

S.35 CJPO 1994: The aim is for the OP to avoid having to go to court (by them not following your poor advice). S.35 is irrelevant if they don't go to court ...... Next!

 

S.36 CJPO 1994: applies where a person has been arrested by a constable. The OP hasn't stated they were arrested by a constable, so why are you (again) citing irrelevant statute?. Next!

 

S.37 : again "arrested by a constable" or "that or another constable investigating the offence" : so, again, irrelevant to the OP, as the police haven't been involved so far. Next!

 

S.38 : at a stretch one might consider if '"legal representative” means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990' may apply. At last, something that MIGHT be relevant to the OP ....... However, since this section is clarifying the meaning as applicable to the preceeding sections (35-37) which you cite, and those sections don't apply as the OP was never arrested, charged nor interviewed by a constable: you are still citing law that MIGHT be relevant to someone other than the OP, but NOT the OP.

 

Feel free to try to hurl some more random statutes my way : but since I've done the legwork for you on the specific ones you have mentioned - how about for the others why don't YOU say why they are applicable, and how they help the OP, rather than me having to point out your errors regarding statute law apparently quoted either at random or when not applicable.

 

You mentioned Halsbury's : Did Halsbury's fall and hit you on the head?. Perhaps you should soften that blow by protecting yourself with Bennion : once you have used it to deflect the falling tome(s) you can read it and it'll help you quote statute that is actually relevant to helping the OP.

Edited September 14, 2013 by BazzaS

[CRblogger]

It isn't at all defensive when taken with the fact that you accepted that you had already confused a TOC caution and a police caution. You recall, the bit where you say:

 

 

I think you have been further confused, and here is why:

 

You used "5th amendment", I pointed out E&W don't utilise that American constitutional right, you cited CJPO 1994 (ss34-38), so lets give them a whirl......

 

S. 34 CJPO 1994 : The OP hasn't been questioned by a constable, so almost all of this section isn't applicable.

S.34(4) is a bit of a stretch to apply your reasoning, but lets roll with it for a moment. Oops, you are still mistaken, as it is still not applicable (given the aim is to help the OP avoid court, and it would only become relevant if proceedings were commenced). Next!.

 

S.35 CJPO 1994: The aim is for the OP to avoid having to go to court (by them not following your poor advice). S.35 is irrelevant if they don't go to court ...... Next!

 

S.36 CJPO 1994: applies where a person has been arrested by a constable. The OP hasn't stated they were arrested by a constable, so why are you (again) citing irrelevant statute?. Next!

 

S.37 : again "arrested by a constable" or "that or another constable investigating the offence" : so, again, irrelevant to the OP, as the police haven't been involved so far. Next!

 

S.38 : at a stretch one might consider if '"legal representative” means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990' may apply. At last, something that MIGHT be relevant to the OP ....... However, since this section is clarifying the meaning as applicable to the preceeding sections (35-37) which you cite, and those sections don't apply as the OP was never arrested, charged nor interviewed by a constable: you are still citing law that MIGHT be relevant to someone other than the OP, but NOT the OP.

 

Feel free to try to hurl some more random statutes my way : but since I've done the legwork for you on the specific ones you have mentioned - how about for the others why don't YOU say why they are applicable, and how they help the OP, rather than me having to point out your errors regarding statute law apparently quoted either at random or when not applicable.

 

You mentioned Halsbury's : Did Halsbury's fall and hit you on the head?. Perhaps you should soften that blow by protecting yourself with Bennion : once you have used it to deflect the falling tome(s) you can read it and it'll help you quote statute that is actually relevant to helping the OP.

 

Many thanks. I think we're in violent agreement and I can't yet see why you can't see that.

 

1. on the 5th amendment, cutting and pasting all I ever said was "(if you don't like the references to the fifth amendmenticon etc, just substitute their English inspiration, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, now sadly repealed)." I too find the videos grating, that's the point. I stated the English inspiration was repealed. I just wanted people to ignore the labels and go for the substance of what's in the videos. I apologise for having given an impression other than what I thought I had said.

 

2. I agree with you about the CJPO 1994. I always did. Again: what I said was "If I might hazard a guess your starting point will be ss34-38 CJPO 1994 and related case law but I actually hope I'm wrong on that so I can learn something!" Regrettably you have not *yet"* proved me wrong because that indeed was your starting point. I trust that was just because you thought I was arguing with you when in fact I was just hinting that I wanted something more. Now let's try again because I am genuinely interested. I still want to learn something which is precisely what I said to you) and I'm hoping I can learn it from you. Remember the context was right to silence. So this time I won't mention anything specific because frankly you and I appear to confuse each other (apologies for any miscommunications on my part!). So: what do you have on the right to silence in this context? Is it completely untrammelled or gone or something in between?

 

(nice one on Bennion's, but it could have been the whole stack of Halsbury's - fortunately the one and only time I ended up beneath a stack it wasn't in a law library!)

[BazzaS]

Many thanks. I think we're in violent agreement and I can't yet see why you can't see that.

 

1. on the 5th amendment, cutting and pasting all I ever said was "(if you don't like the references to the fifth amendmenticon etc, just substitute their English inspiration, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, now sadly repealed)." I too find the videos grating, that's the point. I stated the English inspiration was repealed. I just wanted people to ignore the labels and go for the substance of what's in the videos. I apologise for having given an impression other than what I thought I had said.

 

2. I agree with you about the CJPO 1994. I always did. Again: what I said was "If I might hazard a guess your starting point will be ss34-38 CJPO 1994 and related case law but I actually hope I'm wrong on that so I can learn something!" Regrettably you have not *yet"* proved me wrong because that indeed was your starting point. I trust that was just because you thought I was arguing with you when in fact I was just hinting that I wanted something more. Now let's try again because I am genuinely interested. I still want to learn something which is precisely what I said to you) and I'm hoping I can learn it from you. Remember the context was right to silence. So this time I won't mention anything specific because frankly you and I appear to confuse each other (apologies for any miscommunications on my part!). So: what do you have on the right to silence in this context? Is it completely untrammelled or gone or something in between?

 

(nice one on Bennion's, but it could have been the whole stack of Halsbury's - fortunately the one and only time I ended up beneath a stack it wasn't in a law library!)

 

I'm not sure we are in agreement.

 

You want the OP to send a "without prejudice" letter.

I think that is a bad move as I think it will make the TOC more likely to move to prosecution.

 

You "want people to go for the substance of what's in the videos". I think trying to exercise (non-existent in the UK) rights to a 5th Amendment is a bad move.

WHEN guided by a lawyer (which I'm not!) a "no comment" at PACE interview might become appropriate : the OP isn't being questioned under PACE.

 

You (not I) raised ss34-38 CJPO 1994.

I pointed out it was irrelevant to the OP and why.

It was never "my starting point " : I'm still unclear why you brought it up , other than as a "Stalking horse "

( If I agree with you about it I'm wrong : If I disagree with you about it you can say that you thought I was considering it relevant but you may have been mistaken). Poppycock again : you raised it, not me.

 

I reject that the key issue for the OP is "right to silence ". That is a topic you have raised. I suggest the key issue for the OP is avoiding prosecution if possible. I suggest your posts are obscuring that.

 

You now "want to avoid specifics".

This is probably wise, given "the specifics" you have raised so far have been at best irrelevant and at worst misleading or potentially harmful.

However, without "specifics", how are you planning that your posts will help the OP?

Edited September 14, 2013 by BazzaS

[honeybee13]

Guys, I think this dicussion of legal points has probably gone far enough. Maybe we could wait for the OP to reply now, please?

 

In the meantime, if you want to pursue this, may I suggest a separate discussion thread?

 

HB

[CRblogger]

Guys, I think this dicussion of legal points has probably gone far enough. Maybe we could wait for the OP to reply now, please?

 

In the meantime, if you want to pursue this, may I suggest a separate discussion thread?

 

HB

 

Apologies I didn't see this earlier. I will withdraw it if you or BazzS asks.

[BazzaS]

Guys, I think this dicussion of legal points has probably gone far enough. Maybe we could wait for the OP to reply now, please?

 

In the meantime, if you want to pursue this, may I suggest a separate discussion thread?

 

HB

 

Thank you HB, for the separate thread :

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?403172-Discussion-thread-on-railway-prosecutions%288-Viewing%29-nbsp

Edited September 16, 2013 by honeybee13