Prosecuted for fare evasion, interviewed without caution

[user566]

Dear all,

 

In mid-May I was stopped by an inspector after touching into a station

and was caught using my friend’s 18+ oyster which has a monthly travel card on,

I initially remained quiet because I thought I was under arrest.

 

The inspector then threatened me if I kept quiet she will call the police

and the police will ask me the questions,

I did not know if she has the right to do so but I flustered upon hearing possible police intervention and obeyed.

 

She then took her notebook out and asked me a series of questions,

while another guy went to get the oyster history printout of both oyster cards she found in my holder

(I was carrying my friend’s oyster and my old photocard which I kept as souvenir after its expiry).

She also got another lady to take my address and call someone else up to check the validity of my address.

 

I cooperated and answered all her questions honestly,

however I received rather racist comments during the interview

which obviously was not recorded in her notes.

 

At the end of interview she pulled out a small rectangular yellow card and read the words out to me,

it was along the line of

“you are not under arrest and you do not have to stay with me”.

I am certain about the “you do not have to stay with me” part because I clearly remember feeling very confused.

 

She then added a question to her notebook and asked me

“I read these words out to you [motion towards yellow card], yes or no?”,

to which I said “yes” because, well, she did.

 

She read her notes out and asked me to sign at the bottom,

in her notes she said I deliberately tried to hide my friend’s oyster by giving her my old oyster first,

which does not match the facts because she opened my oyster holder herself (without my permission!)

and found my friend’s oyster before I took my old oyster out.

 

By no means was I trying to hide anything

so I immediately disagreed with her,

and she changed her notes into a neutral statement of me presenting her with two oysters.

 

However when I got the prosecution letter earlier this week,

the statement of facts clearly says I initially showed my old oyster

and before presenting my friend’s oyster when being asked.

 

The typed version of notes from her notebook, which does not have my signature,

also incorrectly says she cautioned me before asking me any questions.

 

Apart from this she also changed my answer to one of her questions,

from “my friend bought it (the pass)” to

“I asked my friend to buy it (the monthly travelcard) for me”.

 

I am very very worried now, what could/should I do?

 

If I write to them to ask for settlement out of court, would this indirectly means I agree with the evidences?

 

If I do so and they do not accept my offer of settling out of court,

would I still be able to choose to plead not guilty and would the letter I wrote make any difference to the trial?

 

Would the omission of caution make any difference to the validity to the statement?

If I knew I did not have to stay with the inspector before answering any questions at the very least

I would have kept my mouth shut!

 

I have read through a lot of threads on this forum

but don’t seem to find a similar case,

 

thank you very much for everyone’s patience and time to read my entire post up to here.

 

Any help would be gratefully appreciated, thank you very much in advance!

[Conniff]

You must certainly deny anything that was not how it was originally. You can ask to see the written notes.

 

 

The experts on this will be along later, but it is weekend so might be a bit slow.

[BazzaS]

Consider

"if I had said nothing, beyond giving my name and address (as the law requires),

would they still he able to prosecute me successfully?".

 

I think the answer is yes

(certainly for a Bylaw 18 prosecution, and potentially for a S5 RRA 1889 prosecution

- these being the 2 main offences for traveling without a valid ticket / 'fare dodging ')

 

So, what is your aim?.

 

If you are thinking "I'll use this as a loophole to get off",

or

"I want to seek an alternative to going to court",

it opens an avenue that may give the TOC pause,

but beware it irritating the prosecutions team enough that they say

"we'll go to court with the information we can rely on in court ,

even if we can't use some aspects".

[rebel11]

Hi user566

 

Welcome to CAG

 

1)There are two seperate issues here, did you have a valid ticket for your travel? No.

2)The other issue is the conduct of the RI, that's totally seperate, which you can write a letter of complaint.

 

You need to deal with 1) as that can have implications for you.

[user566]

You must certainly deny anything that was not how it was originally. You can ask to see the written notes.

The experts on this will be along later, but it is weekend so might be a bit slow.

 

Thanks Conniff for your input.

 

I called the prosecution managers on Friday and asked for the written statement

that I signed on the inspector’s notebook,

 

the reply I got was that version will never appear again

because they will assume what the inspector typed is true.

 

The person who picked up my call said if I think the statement is not reflecting

what I said that day I will have to go to court and undergo something called cross examination,

 

I was also told my signature on the notebook is not important because

“not having your signature will not make it (the report) any less valid”.

Not sure if anyone can confirm if this what would happen?

 

Consider

"if I had said nothing, beyond giving my name and address (as the law requires),

would they still he able to prosecute me successfully?".

 

I think the answer is yes (certainly for a Bylaw 18 prosecution, and potentially for a S5 RRA 1889 prosecution

- these being the 2 main offences for traveling without a valid ticket / 'fare dodging ')

 

So, what is your aim?.

If you are thinking "I'll use this as a loophole to get off",

or

"I want to seek an alternative to going to court",

it opens an avenue that may give the TOC pause, but beware it irritating the prosecutions team

enough that they say "we'll go to court with the information we can rely on in court ,

even if we can't use some aspects".

 

Thanks BazzaS,

my aim is to settle out of court and not get a criminal record.

I admit that was a very stupid and foolish mistake made under the array of problems

I was facing in life at that point,

but since then I have worked hard and recently got a job offer that requires me to have a clean record,

so being found guilty will no doubt jeopardise my career and bring my life back to the muddle that I was in before.

 

I honestly regret it so badly that I will never ever think about doing it again even in my wildest dream!!

 

The thing I am not sure is,

if I write a grovelling letter of apology and offer to reimburse their loss caused by my error in judgement,

would this imply I am agreeing to the evidences presented?

 

The alterations the inspector made to the statement is making it look a lot more unfavourable to me,

 

I am worried that they will think

"oh this case is so serious that we should not let it settle outside court".

 

Should I point that out in my letter or would that not be good...?

If I don't point it out would this mean I am agreeing to it?

 

Hi user566

 

Welcome to CAG

 

1)There are two seperate issues here, did you have a valid ticket for your travel? No.

2)The other issue is the conduct of the RI, that's totally seperate, which you can write a letter of complaint.

 

You need to deal with 1) as that can have implications for you.

 

Thanks rebel11 for your clarification.

Like I said in my response to BazzaS above,

I am not sure what would be a better way to deal with

1. Would dealing with 2 have more of a negative impact on dealing with 1,

or would it help in any way?

 

Thank you so much for all your help and input!

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks Conniff for your input. I called the prosecution managers on Friday and asked for the written statement that I signed on the inspector’s notebook, the reply I got was that version will never appear again because they will assume what the inspector typed is true. The person who picked up my call said if I think the statement is not reflecting what I said that day I will have to go to court and undergo something called cross examination, I was also told my signature on the notebook is not important because “not having your signature will not make it (the report) any less valid”. Not sure if anyone can confirm if this what would happen?

 

 

To some extent this is true, if the person being interviewed in accordance with P.A.C.E codes of practice declines to sign the notes, this does not prevent the prosecution from going ahead, however if you plead 'Not Guilty' to the charge the matter will go to trial and you, or your legal representative can insist that the original notes are put before the Court and examined.

 

 

At trial you and the prosecution witness (inspector) can be cross-examined by both defence & prosecution

 

 

 

Thanks BazzaS, my aim is to settle out of court and not get a criminal record. I admit that was a very stupid and foolish mistake made under the array of problems I was facing in life at that point, but since then I have worked hard and recently got a job offer that requires me to have a clean record, so being found guilty will no doubt jeopardise my career and bring my life back to the muddle that I was in before. I honestly regret it so badly that I will never ever think about doing it again even in my wildest dream!!

 

 

The decision as to whether or not the case can be settled out of Court rests entirely with the Rail Company

 

The thing I am not sure is, if I write a grovelling letter of apology and offer to reimburse their loss caused by my error in judgement, would this imply I am agreeing to the evidences presented? The alterations the inspector made to the statement is making it look a lot more unfavourable to me, I am worried that they will think "oh this case is so serious that we should not let it settle outside court". Should I point that out in my letter or would that **** them off instead...? If I don't point it out would this mean I am agreeing to it?

 

Thanks rebel11 for your clarification. Like I said in my response to BazzaS above, I am not sure what would be a better way to deal with 1. Would dealing with 2 have more of a negative impact on dealing with 1, or would it help in any way?

 

Thank you so much for all your help and input!

 

 

If you are totally honest and apologetic, offer to meet all of the reasonable costs that the rail company have incurred and give a sincere undertaking not to travel without a valid rail ticket again there is a fair chance that they may be sympathetic. The worst thing that you can do in your letter is to go on the attack as that may well harden their resolve to prosecute

[user566]

To some extent this is true, if the person being interviewed in accordance with P.A.C.E codes of practice declines to sign the notes, this does not prevent the prosecution from going ahead, however if you plead 'Not Guilty' to the charge the matter will go to trial and you, or your legal representative can insist that the original notes are put before the Court and examined.

 

 

At trial you and the prosecution witness (inspector) can be cross-examined by both defence & prosecution

 

The decision as to whether or not the case can be settled out of Court rests entirely with the Rail Company

 

If you are totally honest and apologetic, offer to meet all of the reasonable costs

that the rail company have incurred and give a sincere undertaking not to travel

without a valid rail ticket again there is a fair chance that they may be sympathetic.

 

The worst thing that you can do in your letter is to go on the attack as that may well harden their resolve to prosecute

 

Thanks Old-CodJA, your input is much valued.

 

I think I was not interviewed accordance with P.A.C.E. codes of practice,

since I was not cautioned at all before the interview. Is this what it means?

 

My current plan is to write a letter to apologise and ask to settle out of court,

but would this imply I am agreeing to the statements being presented as a true reflection

of what happened that day? In other words,

 

IF *touch wood* they do not accept my request to settle out of court,

can I still bring the point up in court that some parts in the statement

is different from what actually happened that night?

 

Would the court find this defence invalid because of my apology letter?

 

I am also planning to plead not guilty (I have to return the letter within 7 days so it is not

likely I can settle out of court before then,

and pleading guilty will just means I don't even have a chance to settle out of court),

 

in the box where I sign the NOT GUILTY statement it gives me an option to be represented by a lawyer or not.

 

Can anyone confirm that I can change this option later on...?

ie. Can I choose not to be represented by a solicitor for now

and then if I really have to attend the trial on whatever date can I still change my mind and be represented?

 

For the letter to prosecutions manager asking to settle out of court,

is there any guidelines as to how much I should offer to compensate them,

or should I just say

"all the reasonable costs incurred"...?

 

I have never written anything like this before and much as I have a lot of mitigating circumstances

I am very flustered and worried I will get something wrong!

 

In the forms that came with the pack there is also a statement of means form

which it says I need to return it to the court asap,

 

does this falls in the 7 day deadline as well?

 

In there they asked got my employer details

--does anyone know if they are going to contact my employer and check my income???

 

Not that I am trying to hide anything from the court,

just that I don't want my employers know I am in trouble!

 

Many thanks for any help in advance!!!

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, if you were not cautioned no interview under P.A.C.E conditions took place, but that does not mean a prosecution may not succeed. If that were the case no-one could ever be prosecuted for failing to pay a speeding fine etc.

 

 

Yes, if you enter a 'Not Guilty' plea the case will be adjourned to full trial at a later date. The only thing to remember is that if you really are guilty of the offence is that you will lose any credit that the Court might give for an early guilty plea in these circumstances, but you should not plead guilty just for the sake of expediency. For example, if you plead guilty but say in mitigation But 'I didn't intend to do it', the Court will find your plea equivocal and will adjourn the case anyway.

 

 

It is probably best to enter 'Yes' in the box where it asks 'will you be legally represented?' and add the note 'Name of Solicitor to be advised'. If you do not then engage representation that is a matter for you and you could choose to defend yourself at trial if you feel confident. Beware, it isn't quite as simple as many people might have you believe, but if you have read and clearly understand the particular law under which you are charged you will be given some limited procedural guidance by the Court Legal Advisor on the day.

 

 

Your request to settle out of Court should offer to pay all of their reasonably incurred costs.

 

 

Yes, you need to complete and return the form MC100 (Statement of means). This is especially important if anyone intends to plead guilty without attending Court because if money is tight, a full explanation will assist the Magistrates in setting a penalty that is both a punishment in accordance with their guidelines and affordable for the transgressor.

 

 

No, I wouldn't worry about the generality of your income being checked with your employer. It is generally very unlikely that anyone will contact an employer, but if it comes to light that someone has been untruthful and has failed to declare their true income in order to minimise a penalty this is a very serious matter and they can find themselves back before the Court for further punishment. The only thing that I would add is that depending on what you have actually been charged with, if convicted you may have to declare that fact in some employments and certainly would be well advised to do so if applying for new employment if convicted for intentionally avoiding payment of a fare.

[user566]

Yes, if you were not cautioned no interview under P.A.C.E conditions took place, but that does not mean a prosecution may not succeed. If that were the case no-one could ever be prosecuted for failing to pay a speeding fine etc.

 

 

Yes, if you enter a 'Not Guilty' plea the case will be adjourned to full trial at a later date. The only thing to remember is that if you really are guilty of the offence is that you will lose any credit that the Court might give for an early guilty plea in these circumstances, but you should not plead guilty just for the sake of expediency. For example, if you plead guilty but say in mitigation But 'I didn't intend to do it', the Court will find your plea equivocal and will adjourn the case anyway.

 

 

It is probably best to enter 'Yes' in the box where it asks 'will you be legally represented?' and add the note 'Name of Solicitor to be advised'. If you do not then engage representation that is a matter for you and you could choose to defend yourself at trial if you feel confident. Beware, it isn't quite as simple as many people might have you believe, but if you have read and clearly understand the particular law under which you are charged you will be given some limited procedural guidance by the Court Legal Advisor on the day.

 

 

Your request to settle out of Court should offer to pay all of their reasonably incurred costs.

 

 

Yes, you need to complete and return the form MC100 (Statement of means). This is especially important if anyone intends to plead guilty without attending Court because if money is tight, a full explanation will assist the Magistrates in setting a penalty that is both a punishment in accordance with their guidelines and affordable for the transgressor.

 

 

No, I wouldn't worry about the generality of your income being checked with your employer. It is generally very unlikely that anyone will contact an employer, but if it comes to light that someone has been untruthful and has failed to declare their true income in order to minimise a penalty this is a very serious matter and they can find themselves back before the Court for further punishment. The only thing that I would add is that depending on what you have actually been charged with, if convicted you may have to declare that fact in some employments and certainly would be well advised to do so if applying for new employment if convicted for intentionally avoiding payment of a fare.

 

Thanks ao much for your reply Old-codJA. I am going to go ahead with an apologetic letter asking to settle of court, I understand pleading not guilty will lose the possible credit the court would give me, but if I plead guilty would it make tfl not bothering to settle the case out of court since I have already pled guilty anyway? If I choose to plead not guilty instead I assume I can change my mind and plead guilty at a later date if I want to...? Would there be any other punishment or consequences other than losing the credit the court might give me? Thanks again!

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks ao much for your reply Old-codJA. I am going to go ahead with an apologetic letter asking to settle of court, I understand pleading not guilty will lose the possible credit the court would give me, but if I plead guilty would it make tfl not bothering to settle the case out of court since I have already pled guilty anyway? If I choose to plead not guilty instead I assume I can change my mind and plead guilty at a later date if I want to...? Would there be any other punishment or consequences other than losing the credit the court might give me? Thanks again!

 

No, that's fine. All you would lose would be the right to automatic credit for the early guilty plea

[user566]

Dear all,

 

I have just sent a grovelling letter in to ask to settle out of court today,

 

how long should I wait before following up with a phone call?

 

I posted the letter by first class signed for.

 

I also realised I made a mistake in the letter by saying I know I have broke the Byelaw,

but when I looked into more posts from this forum just now I realised it should have been the Railways Act..

 

. I am not familiar with legal stuff and did not know the difference, would this kill my chance...?

 

So very worried now!

 

Thank you everyone for your help, fingers crossed they will allow me to settle out of court!

[firstclassx]

Dear all,

 

I have just sent a grovelling letter in to ask to settle out of court today,

 

how long should I wait before following up with a phone call?

 

I posted the letter by first class signed for.

 

I also realised I made a mistake in the letter by saying I know I have broke the Byelaw,

but when I looked into more posts from this forum just now I realised it should have been the Railways Act..

 

. I am not familiar with legal stuff and did not know the difference, would this kill my chance...?

 

So very worried now!

 

Thank you everyone for your help, fingers crossed they will allow me to settle out of court!

 

As long as you have't been in contact with them prior to this letter requesting a settlement, I'd say you have a good chance.

 

If you've been contacting them previous to this, claiming your innocence, refusing to accept liability, trying to use spurious legal arguments/threats or just generally being rude, then I suspect your letter is going to be disregarded and the Magistrates can deal with this one.