I'm an idiot. Just how bad is it?

[tobymcg]

So...

I'm a regular commuter, I have a weekly season. However due to an incredibly emotionally stressful situation I had to leave work early and go on an unplanned route, a journey which I couldn't afford.

I boarded the train and an inspector asked me for my ticket. I got off with him. Initially I panicked and said I had come from another, closer station, he knew I was lying, I then admitted it. I told him the truth, where I was coming from, where I was going I gave him my full ID and address.

He made a note, including confirmation of my initial deception, gave me a slip for the rest of the way and said I would be written to.

I'm assuming FCC will seek to prosecute me. I know I deserve it, but the fines mentioned on here for similar situations are huge. It would actually cripple me.

Essentially I know i've been an idiot in how I handled it, but its been a horrible 48 hours and now this has just sealed it. Can anybody advise what the course of action FCC is likely to take, anyway I might be able to mitigate this and just generally any advice?

Feeling pretty hopeless right now.

All help would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks.

 

[cuccir]

As you seem to have appraised from reading this forum, your situation is a bad one. The rail industry has little sympathy for people who claim that they've got on at a station after the one that they did: it's often a pretty easy prosecution under the Regulations of the Railways Act, as your act will be interpreted as showing a deliberate intention to avoid paying the fare for your actual a journey. Successful prosecution comes with a fine and a criminal record.

What's likely to happen next is that you will receive a letter from FCC, asking you for your version of events and any mitigating information. When you receive the letter, respond by apologizing profusely. Write a succinct description of what happened, remembering that anything you write could be used as evidence against you in court. DO tell them that you're willing to settle any administrative costs incurred to date, and the fare owed.

At that point, emphasise that you're a season ticket holder - don't go on about how much you spend, but tell them how long you've held a ticket for and intimate that you intend to do so in future. FCC may then conclude that they're better having your out of court settlement and ongoing season ticket, rather than a fine and you no longer requiring a season ticket. But don't put that down as a threat in any way!

All that said, FCC may still chose to push ahead and prosecute you. Alternatively, they may prosecute under the Railway Byelaws, which would come with a lower fine and no criminal record. At that stage, it might then be appropriate to seek legal advice, if you can afford it. However, if the prosecution would not affect your employment, it would be cheaper to accept that and the fine.

Summary - It's bad, but FCC may still chose to offer to settle your case out of court.

Edit - It's also worth noting that any fine would be proportional to your income. It's usually equivalent to a certain number of weeks wages.

 

[6Gman]

So...

I'm a regular commuter, I have a weekly season. However due to an incredibly emotionally stressful situation I had to leave work early and go on an unplanned route, a journey which I couldn't afford.

I boarded the train and an inspector asked me for my ticket. I got off with him. Initially I panicked and said I had come from another, closer station, he knew I was lying, I then admitted it. I told him the truth, where I was coming from, where I was going I gave him my full ID and address.


Feeling pretty hopeless right now.

All help would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks.

Was your "incredibly emotionally stressful situation" of a nature that could get you a letter from your GP explaining that it could have affected your judgement?

Don't know whether that would have any impact on FCC.

 

[stevefreestone]

End of the day, it's always best to say nothing, until at least you have spoken to a solicitor.

Do these inspectors work just on railway bylaws or is PACE involved?

 

[yorkie]

Was your "incredibly emotionally stressful situation" of a nature that could get you a letter from your GP explaining that it could have affected your judgement?

Don't know whether that would have any impact on FCC.

I have my doubts.

Each situation is different, but the feedback I've had from people who have attempted to settle out of court with FCC, is that FCC are generally one of the more willing Train Companies to settle. It's by no means guaranteed, and it may not be cheap, but in such a clear-cut case where the offence has been admitted, it seems the only sensible course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do these inspectors work just on railway bylaws or is PACE involved?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking (the first part of the question doesn't make sense to me, and I don't see why it's one or the other?) but if you are implying that if an inspector is not PACE trained then the TOC can only prosecute under the byelaws, that is definitely not the case. But perhaps you are asking something else?

It doesn't really matter much if the inspector is PACE trained, from what I've been told, the main difference being that they can write down their evidence in a more concise way.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with cuccir. Technically, having stated a closer station with the apparent intention of avoiding payment of the due fare would be a Fraud, but, depending on exactly what was stated to the Inspector, I agree that a Prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA) or the Railway Byelaws will be much more likely.

I specifically agree that:

What's likely to happen next is that you will receive a letter from FCC, asking you for your version of events and any mitigating information. When you receive the letter, respond by apologizing profusely. Write a succinct description of what happened, remembering that anything you write could be used as evidence against you in court. DO tell them that you're willing to settle any administrative costs incurred to date, and the fare owed.

I'll just add that you may be waitiing for many weeks for that letter to arrive.

I'm not persuaded by this advice:

End of the day, it's always best to say nothing, until at least you have spoken to a solicitor.

If you do not respond to the letter in the terms that cuccir suggests, then a Criminal Prosecution by FCC against you will be the outcome with the highest probability.
It is unlikely that a local solicitor would be able to add any further insight (unless there is more that you haven't told us here). However, if FCC respond to your reply with notice of a Criminal Prosecution under the RoRA or Fraud Act, then a local Solicitor specialising in Criminal Defence work will be able to assist at that stage with mitigation if nothing else.

Do these inspectors work just on railway bylaws or is PACE involved?

I doubt that the OP will know. Some Inspectors are PACE trained and some are not. It is hard to see what bearing that distinction has now, since the passenger has admitted to their attempt at deception.
However, the Inspectors have every right to gather evidence for the investigation of Offences under the Byelaws, the RoRA, or indeed the Fraud Act.

 

[Fare-Cop]

It doesn't really matter much if the inspector is PACE trained, from what I've been told, the main difference being that they can write down their evidence in a more concise way.

That's exactly right Yorkie.

It is not necessary to caution and conduct an interview under P.A.C.E for a prosecution to succeed, but if a P.A.C.E trained inspector conducts an interview with intention that a prosecution should ensue, then the Codes of Practice governing the interview and recording of evidence must be followed.

 

[tobymcg]

thanks to everyone for their advice, will just have to wait and see what comes...

 

[stevefreestone]

That's exactly right Yorkie.

It is not necessary to caution and conduct an interview under P.A.C.E for a prosecution to succeed, but if a P.A.C.E trained inspector conducts an interview with intention that a prosecution should ensue, then the Codes of Practice governing the interview and recording of evidence must be followed.

If the inspector is acting under PACE then legal representation for the person questioned is a right. So also is the right of silence. It is their job to prove a crime has been committed, not the person interviewed.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If the inspector is acting under PACE then legal representation for the person questioned is a right. So also is the right of silence. It is their job to prove a crime has been committed, not the person interviewed.

Correct, though the fact remains that is not necessary to caution and conduct a P.A.C.E interview in order to proceed to prosecution in every case and that was the point made by Yorkie.

 

[34D]

Can you tell us:

-What season ticket is held (from and to) and whether it was valid on the day in question

-The station you actually boarded at

-Where you said you boarded at

-Where your journey that day ended.

This may enable us to make some suggestions.

 

[stevefreestone]

Correct, though the fact remains that is not necessary to caution and conduct a P.A.C.E interview in order to proceed to prosecution in every case and that was the point made by Yorkie.

PACE or no PACE, the best thing to do in any circumstance, without a legal observer/solicitor available, is to keep silent.

 

[Deerfold]

PACE or no PACE, the best thing to do in any circumstance, without a legal observer/solicitor available, is to keep silent.

Under the old caution I'd agree with you.

However as it now includes

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

then I'm not sure I'd agree.

 

[jb]

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Despite the wording of this caution (and not really knowing personally) I would nonetheless be very very surprised if, in practice, "do not mention when questioned" effectively covers not saying anything at all.

I suppose it "really" refers to changing ones' story, leaving things out etc.

 

[Deerfold]

Despite the wording of this caution (and not really knowing personally) I would nonetheless be very very surprised if, in practice, "do not mention when questioned" effectively covers not saying anything at all.

I suppose it "really" refers to changing ones' story, leaving things out etc.

I would say it casts suspicion on you having given yourself time to concoct any story at your leisure (whether true or not).

(IANAL)

 

[stevefreestone]

Under the old caution I'd agree with you.

However as it now includes



then I'm not sure I'd agree.

True, which it is why it is better to have an interview, under caution, with a legal observer. Why bother saying anything that potentially could self incriminate? You could also explain to a court that your right is to have a legal representative and you were not going to say anything until you took up that right. The court cannot take any inference from that whatsoever.

What, if in my case, if I'd accidentally said I got on at a station which was a penalty fare zone and not the one that I did get on at? You see how these things can be taken wrongly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Despite the wording of this caution (and not really knowing personally) I would nonetheless be very very surprised if, in practice, "do not mention when questioned" effectively covers not saying anything at all.

I suppose it "really" refers to changing ones' story, leaving things out etc.

Absolutely. You have a fundamental right of silence in these cases which legislation has not been able to take away.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would say it casts suspicion on you having given yourself time to concoct any story at your leisure (whether true or not).

(IANAL)

Why would it? Right of silence is at the heart of our legal system. It is not you to proof your innocence, it is they to prove your guilt.

 

[Deerfold]

What, if in my case, if I'd accidentally said I got on at a station which was a penalty fare zone and not the one that I did get on at? You see how these things can be taken wrongly.

Accidentally? Really?

Why would it? Right of silence is at the heart of our legal system.

It used to be. I don't believe it has been since the 90s - there's all sorts juries are now allowed to consider is sugested by silence that they didn't used to be able to.

It is not you to proof your innocence, it is they to prove your guilt.

There seem to be a few words missing here.

 

[Llanigraham]

Despite the wording of this caution (and not really knowing personally) I would nonetheless be very very surprised if, in practice, "do not mention when questioned" effectively covers not saying anything at all.

I suppose it "really" refers to changing ones' story, leaving things out etc.

Having had to use the Caution I can confirm that not replying to a question, or "no comment" can indeed count against you later.