Interview Under Caution TFL

[NW11]

Hi,

 

I was just wondering if anyone could help me with what happens next.

 

I have been stopped in a ZONE 1 station using a ZONE 2/3 travel card, so obviously my ticket was invalid. I was interviewed under caution and because I was quite shocked and didn't want to put my foot in anything, I refused to answer questions under caution, when questions where asked I answered "no comment"

 

I was also asked to sign his notebook, without him telling me what it was for, i refused to sign until he explained what i was signing, I then read through his notes and signed.

 

What is the most likely outcome, would it be court action against me?

[Bazooka Boo]

You're under no legal obligation to say or sign anything, so I wouldn't have signed either, but hey ho it's done.

 

No doubt you'll receive something in the post asking you to admit your guilt, and a fine.

[Stigy]

Hi,

 

I was just wondering if anyone could help me with what happens next.

 

I have been stopped in a ZONE 1 station using a ZONE 2/3 travel card, so obviously my ticket was invalid. I was interviewed under caution and because I was quite shocked and didn't want to put my foot in anything, I refused to answer questions under caution, when questions where asked I answered "no comment"

 

I was also asked to sign his notebook, without him telling me what it was for, i refused to sign until he explained what i was signing, I then read through his notes and signed.

 

What is the most likely outcome, would it be court action against me?

Hi,

 

As Bazooka said, you're under no obligation to say anything hence the wording of the caution. You're also under no obligation to sign anything, nobody is. All you HAVE to supply is your name and address, which is why these are obtained before the caution!

 

The problem with a No Comment interview is that people think it's a good thing in order not to incriminate yourself, which is true to an extent, but not very often and certainly not for somebody who appears to have made no attempt to avoid paying their fare. What often isn't explained at the time though, is that the court can make inference to your lack of comment which basically means if you say nothing when being interviewed at the time, then decide to plead your case in court, the Magistrates can suggest that because you've had 6-months or more between being 'caught' and the case being heard in court, you've had plenty of time to conjure up a story (After all, why would one go 'no comment' at the time of the alleged offence, yet plead their innocence to the Magistrates? Why not say this at the time under caution?). One might also ask that if you truly believed you'd not done anything wrong, why go no comment? Not that you'd know this as it's not a layman thing, but no comment or not, even if you refused to sign the Officer's notes, you're likely to be convicted of a Byelaw offence which is strict liability, meaning all TfL needs to prove is that you didn't have a ticket when stopped, which you obviously didn't otherwise they wouldn't have spoken to you. There's no need to prove intent to avoid payment for a Byelaw offence. I'd say because of the limited information they were able to obtain from you at the time, they'd probably progress the matter to court, but only time will tell.

[NW11]

Thanks for replies.

 

 

Do we have any idea what the percentage of cases are pursued up by the TFL after being interviewed under caution at stations?

[Stigy]

Thanks for replies.

 

 

Do we have any idea what the percentage of cases are pursued up by the TFL after being interviewed under caution at stations?

No a percentage, but from experience of this place and the industry in general, they do seem to be one of the more 'proactive' pursuers of cases through the courts. Best bet is to await their correspondence and reply as necessary.

[Bazooka Boo]

Why not say this at the time under caution?). One might also ask that if you truly believed you'd not done anything wrong, why go no comment

 

The reason why you never answer their questions, under caution or not, is purely because there is absolutely NO LEGAL requirement for you to do so, but they question you to obtain your admission of guilt, therefore making their job all the more easier, so much better to get proper legal advice before talking to anyone, you have a right to silence, and no court in the land will infer your silence as guilt, that's what the authorities want you to believe, you simply stay silent, as is your RIGHT, so that you are able to seek professional legal advice, which again is your RIGHT.

 

If they need to ask you questions then that could mean they don't have enough evidence to convict you, or they're simply wanting you to convict yourself so they don't have to do any leg work.

[dx100uk]

how many times have you done this?

 

 

if its a one off then you might well get off with an out of court settlement

if you grovel nicely if/when the letter comes.

 

 

dx

[Stigy]

The reason why you never answer their questions, under caution or not, is purely because there is absolutely NO LEGAL requirement for you to do so, but they question you to obtain your admission of guilt, therefore making their job all the more easier, so much better to get proper legal advice before talking to anyone, you have a right to silence, and no court in the land will infer your silence as guilt, that's what the authorities want you to believe, you simply stay silent, as is your RIGHT, so that you are able to seek professional legal advice, which again is your RIGHT.

 

If they need to ask you questions then that could mean they don't have enough evidence to convict you, or they're simply wanting you to convict yourself so they don't have to do any leg work.

 

 

Sorry but that's absolute rubbish.

You're questioned under caution so that the facts can be ascertained, after all,

the officer only has to believe offences to have been committed in order to report somebody for an offence.

 

 

That being the case, due to questioning it may be ascertained that an individual either needs words of advice,

or they have in fact done nothing wrong.

 

 

By remaining silent or answering "No Comment" when under caution will almost certainly end up in court

because the reporting TOC has no other option.

 

 

They will have enough evidence to convict under railway byelaws at the very least,

so if one thinks they've done nothing wrong or made a simple honest mistake, they might as well answer questions.

 

Courts can and often DO make inference, otherwise I wouldn't have said this .

 

 

What's the point in the caution if it has no standing in law? Think about the wording of it.

There's nothing wrong with one seeking legal advice and explaining this to the Magistrates/District Judge

as to why they answered no comment, and they won't take that to infer guilt obviously.

 

 

What they potentially won't listen to or take in to account is any specific account the defendant has of events

as they had their chance to say this under caution but chose not to. Bear in mind also that the officer

will have made notes which again will be part of his evidence.

[Bazooka Boo]

OK we have a difference of opinion, that's all. I think your opinion is rubbish too, but there you go.

 

It'd be a dull world if we were all the same.

[Stigy]

OK we have a difference of opinion, that's all. I think your opinion is rubbish too, but there you go.

 

It'd be a dull world if we were all the same.

 

It's not an opinion, otherwise I'd have said "in my opinion"

 

But you're obviously entitled to your opinion and I respect that

[Ganymede]

For the record...

 

Adverse Inferences

 

Section 34, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

 

A court can draw an adverse inference from a defendant's silence in circumstances as set out in sections 34 to 37 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

 

Section 34 allows an inference to be drawn when a suspect is silent when questioned under caution prior to charge (section 34(1)(a)).

 

An inference can also be drawn when a defendant is silent on charge (section 34(1)(b)).

 

These subsections are distinct and the fact that no inference can be drawn from silence during questioning does not mean that no adverse inference can be drawn from silence on charge.

 

In Dervish and Anori [2001] EWCA Crim. 2789, the trial judge had ruled that the defendants' no comment interviews were inadmissible, but had directed that the jury may draw an adverse inference from silence at charge in accordance with section 34(1)(b). At the Court of Appeal, the defendants had argued that this approach was wrong as the two limbs of section 34 were inextricably linked. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and approved the judge's approach.

 

There are two points that arise - (1) if faced with a situation of silence on charge and interview, you should remind the court of the potential drawing of adverse inference under both subsections, and; (2) if there is any doubt as to the admissibility of the interviews, you should be prepared to invite the court to draw an adverse inference under section 34(1)(b) if applicable.

 

This guidance will concentrate on section 34, as it is under this provision that adverse inferences are almost always invariably drawn.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/