You do not have to say anything but...

[martybabes]

This will annoy certain members I'm sure but the simple answer when being questioned/interviewed/casual chat by an official over anything not just railway related give your identity, dob then shut up! Police are pretty poor at catching actual hardened criminals because they're (sic) automatic response is "no comment till I see my brief", only idiots or people who genuinely feel they have done nothing wrong sit and spill the beans to an interviewer making it much easier to "get them for something". Sad but true, act like a criminal/professional "no comment" to everything and seek legal advice.

Whilst I don't agree with what you've said, it certainly doesn't annoy me if (as a Prosecutor) someone is prepared to give a "no comment" interview. What it doesn't do is help them later on in court as the court is entitled to draw an appropriate inference from someone electing to remain silent. That assists the Prosecution more than it aids the Defence.

As a Defence advisor, I would always invite my client to give a frank account at an early stage. That way, when you go to court, you are not acting with one hand tied behind your back. That assists the Defence and doesn't allow the court to draw an inference. There's no benefit in gifting points to the Prosecution!

Ultimately, I can only advise. The client is entitled to accept or reject that advice, and it matters not to me what he (Interpretation Act applies) chooses to do. Only a fool will reject the guidance from a properly qualified and experienced professional. Taking advice from a bloke in the pub who knows someone's brother who's been to court is probably not the best...

 

[glasgowguy1984]

Sorry always forget that English law allows interpretation from a no comment, I personally still would keep quiet till having taken legal advice from someone like yourself. Basic rule of Scots law regarding anything is no comment as inference isn't relevant.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There need be no reason for silence when some simple factual replies may conclude the interview by dispelling any suspicion (e.g. providing an explanation or evidence).

On the other hand, there are some incriminating or antagonistic things which passengers do tend to say without much prompting (is the most obvious "I don't know what's wrong, I do this every day" or "I don't see why I should pay because . . . <irrelevant excuse> ? )

 

[glasgowguy1984]

Just to add I have a very experienced defence lawyer in my close immediate family, his advice is always keep your mouth shut till you speak to a lawyer in regards to anything most questioning takes place due to a lack of evidence and so is a fishing expedition. Obviously they can't act for someone who tells them they're guilty but wants to plead innocence but if your pleading not guilty (weather or not you are is irrelevant) always give over your details then shut up! Your asking for authorities to find something otherwise.

 

[Deerfold]

Just to add I have a very experienced defence lawyer in my close immediate family, his advice is always keep your mouth shut till you speak to a lawyer in regards to anything most questioning takes place due to a lack of evidence and so is a fishing expedition. Obviously they can't act for someone who tells them they're guilty but wants to plead innocence but if your pleading not guilty (weather or not you are is irrelevant) always give over your details then shut up! Your asking for authorities to find something otherwise.

Whilst I'm not a lawyer, I'd suggest this advice is good in Scotland and the US where courts are not allowed to infer anything from refusing to answer questions. Since the law in England changed I'd be less sure it was a good idea.

 

[londiscape]

My understanding of the arrest matter is that someone being interviewed by an RPI is not under arrest. However, should the person wish to leave before giving their name and address, they can then be arrested by any officer of the railway company, per the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889 s 5(2):

If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

Hypothetically how would s5.2 apply to passengers failing to produce a ticket, but offering to pay the fare (which may be a penalty fare). If the offer is refused by RPI and details are demanded, could the passenger refuse without being 'detained'?

The way I read the section suggests that two conditions are created: a) failing to produce a ticket; b) refusing to pay fare. Once both are satisfied, only then must passenger give details or be detained.

Would I be wrong in this interpretation?

 

[Flamingo]

To complete the offence, as far as I have been told, the passenger has to not have a valid ticket, not purchase a valid ticket and refuse to give a name and address to allow for follow up.

First thing certain BTP ask when they turn up is "Did you ask for their name and address?". (The look of disappointment on their face when I say "Yes, they refused to give it" is worth seeing, as they then have no excuse for not getting involved...)

 

[londiscape]

The penalty fare is a fare.

Understood. I was referring to a situation in which a passenger offers to pay the fare but the offer is refused because, for example, the RPI believed that the reason for failing to produce a valid ticket was deliberate evasion and therefore denied the passenger the option of paying up anonymously in favour of taking details for potential prosecution. I had got the impression from reading this forum that this does happen a fair bit.

 

[Flamingo]

Understood. I was referring to a situation in which a passenger offers pay the fare but the offer is refused because, for example, the RPI believed that the reason for failing to produce a valid ticket was deliberate evasion and therefore denied the passenger the option of paying up anonymously in favour of taking details for potential prosecution. I had got the impression from reading this forum that this does happen a fair bit.

Sorry, I edited that after I realised you'd already said that.

Some of the RPI's on here might be able to correct me, but I believe the "Catch 22" is if the passenger has already passed an opportunity to buy. If they have, they have already committed a Bylaw 18 offence, and how it is dealt with after that is discretionary.

Some TOC's wish their staff to be more discretionary than others...

 

[Fare-Cop]

Hypothetically how would s5.2 apply to passengers failing to produce a ticket, but offering to pay the fare (which may be a penalty fare). If the offer is refused by RPI and details are demanded, could the passenger refuse without being 'detained'?

The way I read the section suggests that two conditions are created: a) failing to produce a ticket; b) refusing to pay fare. Once both are satisfied, only then must passenger give details or be detained.

Would I be wrong in this interpretation?

I think the matter of arrest, although available to rail staff under 5.2 can easily be discounted in the circumstances outlined in the original post here..

To be liable to arrest by rail staff under this legislation the passenger must have 'failed' on three counts.

1) When asked, must have failed to present a valid ticket showing that their fare had been previously paid

2) When asked, must have failed or refused to pay the fare requested for the journey made or being made

3) When asked, must have failed or refused to give their correct name and address

If any one of the above requirements has been complied with, there are no grounds for arrest under Section 5 RoRA.

 

[maniacmartin]

But that doesn't stop them calling the BTP, who, if they turn up in time, could demand your name and address and then hand it over.

 

[Stigy]

Just to add I have a very experienced defence lawyer in my close immediate family, his advice is always keep your mouth shut till you speak to a lawyer in regards to anything most questioning takes place due to a lack of evidence and so is a fishing expedition. Obviously they can't act for someone who tells them they're guilty but wants to plead innocence but if your pleading not guilty (weather or not you are is irrelevant) always give over your details then shut up! Your asking for authorities to find something otherwise.

And why do you think a lawyer might say that? Maybe not relevant in your case, but the reason Lawyers want people to speak to them is because they charge by the hour.

I have read this thread with interest. I could see what Fare-Cop was saying from the word Go. for the record. A Police Officer could be cautioning somebody for the purpose of reporting them, much the same as an RPI would be. If he is arresting somebody, he'll place the suspect under arrest and immediately caution them.

Police have to use what's known as Caution+3 now I believe...Unless it's since changed again! This means they are obliged to offer the suspect the chance to obtain free and independent legal advice at the time, and the Officer has to arrange this is the suspect can't. This, in my eyes defeats the object, as they're not under arrest so the Police shouldn't have to adhere to the same soft and fluffy custody rules etc.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Just to add I have a very experienced defence lawyer in my close immediate family, his advice is always keep your mouth shut till you speak to a lawyer . . . . .

And why do you think a lawyer might say that?

Surely you are not suggesting . . . . . .


I must repeat a point which I tried to make earlier in this thread, as I believe it may be of assistance to very many passengers. That was the point that many of the questions an Inspector may ask are likely to result in the passenger being permitted to continue on their way without any further inconvenience. But that will require the passenger answering the questions!

The crucial distinction lies between, on one hand, a civil Police Officer taking evidence from a suspect in a enquiry while attempting to detect and prevent crime and disorder, and on the other hand, a Railway Inspector checking tickets while attempting to protect revenue. The purpose of each activity is different, and so it shouldn't surprise us that the interviewee's response should be appropriate to each.
Consequently, I urge passengers to consider offering the simple explanation for any apparent ticket irregularity when asked.

Let me illustrate this point.
We have regular newcomers on this forum talking of the difficulties they find themselves in following : 1) having travelled to (e.g.) Manchester without a valid ticket, 2) being questioned by an Inspector on arrival, 3) being interviewed for suspected fare evasion, 4) having lied about the station of origin and naming a station which was issuing 'vouchers' to all passengers which the passenger couldn't produce.

What about all the passengers who, every weekday, arrive in Manchester to whom the first 3 of these conditions apply but who honestly explain which at station they boarded, and consequently are permitted to carry on? They don't join this forum because they don't need to - when questioned, they answered the questions.
Why is that advice to passengers a problem?

 

[glasgowguy1984]

Firstly lawyers who work in deprived areas work off legal aid, apparently with changes to the legal aid system in 2002 roughly means its really not financially worth it. So that point is irrelevant. Also I if I was to be done for something don't need to pay for a lawyer I get a very committed one for free but the advice is still the same, no comment! P.S I have never had the requirement of free legal services for anyone who is concerned I may be dodgy.

The second and main point of this thread is about answering questions of an RPI, I think it should be pointed out that some people who do make an unintentional mistake or no mistake at all will open their mouth and get themselves into more trouble because they believe life's fair and they've got nothing to hide. Train companies know the rules inside out and in effect hold all the cards hence why I am very cautious when dealing with officials in regard to anything.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I hope that he will not mind if I try to simplify Dave's excellent post further still, so let's again look at the reality of life:

If an inspector has cause to stop and ask a passenger some question in relation to an apparently invalid or non-existent ticket and that inspector suspects (at that point) that an offence may be evident, he will caution the traveller and ask his question/s

If the passenger says in response to those questions "Well, the reason is....(insert whatever is relevant), there is a reasonable chance that the matter might be resolved and the traveller may be able to do one of three things:

a) be allowed to go on his way without further hindrance,
b) be allowed to pay the fare due,
c) may be reported

However if that passenger is asked the same questions and replies "No Comment", he will be reported.

Why, in these circumstances, should everyone be so keen to be reported?

 

[Tibbs]

I hope that he will not mind if I try to simplify Dave's excellent post further still, so let's again look at the reality of life:

If an inspector has cause to stop and ask a passenger some question in relation to an apparently invalid or non-existent ticket and that inspector suspects (at that point) that an offence may be evident, he will caution the traveller and ask his question/s

If the passenger says in response to those questions "Well, the reason is....(insert whatever is relevant), there is a reasonable chance that the matter might be resolved and the traveller may be able to do one of three things:

a) be allowed to go on his way without further hindrance,
b) be allowed to pay the fare due,
c) may be reported

However if that passenger is asked the same questions and replies "No Comment", he will be reported.

Why, in these circumstances, should everyone be so keen to be reported?

Because whilst being questioned you may inadvertantly say something that changes what you get reported for from a Byelaw S.18 to an RoRA S. 5.

I've posted this before (and it is American) but this sums it up way better than I could - warning, it's loong.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc‎

One of the few things that I am envious of the USA for is the lack of inference able to be drawn from silence.

If I were stopped for using the ticket I used yesterday, I would have given my name and address, and maintained that my ticket was valid. Would I have accepted a PF? Absolutely, I'm not that much of an idiot. However, there's no way I'd have said anything that could be twisted or contrued to be used against me.

 

[sheff1]

If I were stopped for using the ticket I used yesterday, I would have given my name and address, and maintained that my ticket was valid. Would I have accepted a PF? Absolutely, I'm not that much of an idiot. However, there's no way I'd have said anything that could be twisted or contrued to be used against me.

Although I agree with most of this, I do not understand why declining an inappropriate PF is the action of an idiot. I am about to use a ticket on EMT which has caused problems for others in the past. It is 100% valid, even under the latest 'requirement' to check routings on NRES. If an incompetent RPI trys to charge me a PF why should I accept it ?

 

[Tibbs]

Although I agree with most of this, I do not understand why declining an inappropriate PF is the action of an idiot. I am about to use a ticket on EMT which has caused problems for others in the past. It is 100% valid, even under the latest 'requirement' to check routings on NRES. If an incompetent RPI trys to charge me a PF why should I accept it ?

It's about your own circumstances.

Whilst people on here that I trust have said that my ticket is valid, I haven't sat down and looked at the detail and pulled together the physical evidence that my ticket is valid. Once I've done so, and I have the evidence (and the confidence) that I'm completely in the right I will decline any PF they try to levy.

I can also easily afford a single PF, and claim it back. Should they mount up, I'm sure my view will be different!

 

[sheff1]

Thanks. That makes sense.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Because whilst being questioned you may inadvertantly say something that changes what you get reported for from a Byelaw S.18 to an RoRA S. 5.

Possibly, but those who always answer any question by responding 'No Comment' guarantee to get reported whilst those who answer questions with explanation may well avoid a report altogether and if the prosecution move to S.5 RoRA they have to prove intent, whereas if they are pursuing Byelaw 18, they do not.

 

[Tibbs]

Possibly, but those who always answer any question by responding 'No Comment' guarantee to get reported whilst those who answer questions with explanation may well avoid a report altogether and if the prosecution move to S.5 RoRA they have to prove intent, whereas if they are pursuing Byelaw 18, they do not.

It's a value judgement, risk paying more money by shutting your mouth, risk a criminal record by opening it.

It depends on the situation of course, but overall it's that simple.

 

[glasgowguy1984]

Hate to say this but if it goes as far as a lawyer they specialise in taking apart prosecution witness's, some idiot RPI will get eaten by a defence lawyer. Defence lawyers take apart witness's especially police officers, social workers etc an RPI will be a lamb to the slaughter and any train company will know this and magically drop the case. It matters little once you fight fire with fire bully's like train company's will back off because it risks exposing their dodgy practices ( see northern's £80 questionable practices, add ppi charged by banks before they were exposed ) ultimately large companies bully sheep if u stand up having given them zero extra info for their fishing expedition then they'll back down.

 

[martybabes]

It's a value judgement, risk paying more money by shutting your mouth, risk a criminal record by opening it.

It depends on the situation of course, but overall it's that simple.

Well, no it isn't.

It depends on whether you have a valid ticket or not.

If you have, then answer the questions and all will be well.

If you haven't, you take a big chance on being prosecuted. The likelihood of a more lenient disposal fades very quickly if you are unhelpful during the interview/investigation process. A successful prosecution can leave you liable to pay a fine, a victim surcharge and prosecution costs. I'd say around a monkey* would be a good bet in total (though it could be more or it could be less).

So, how much is it worth to you to give a "no comment" interview?






* that's £500

 

[Fare-Cop]

an RPI will be a lamb to the slaughter and any train company will know this and magically drop the case. .

Russian Roulette thinking in action.

 

[martybabes]

Hate to say this but if it goes as far as a lawyer they specialise in taking apart prosecution witness's, some idiot RPI will get eaten by a defence lawyer. Defence lawyers take apart witness's especially police officers, social workers etc an RPI will be a lamb to the slaughter and any train company will know this and magically drop the case. It matters little once you fight fire with fire bully's like train company's will back off because it risks exposing their dodgy practices ( see northern's £80 questionable practices, add ppi charged by banks before they were exposed ) ultimately large companies bully sheep if u stand up having given them zero extra info for their fishing expedition then they'll back down.

Utter tosh.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Despite trying to make the distinction between the purposes of a civil Police Officer's interview and a Railway Revenue Inspector's interview (which Fare-Cop very helpfully summarised) we are still reading these mis-informed opinions.

I guess glasgowguy1984 and Tibbs aren't about to be persuaded to change their views, but I am concerned that others on here will take away the advice to reply 'no comment' and use that advice, if, in the future, they are questioned during travel.

I can assure glasgowguy1984 and Tibbs that there is a massive omission in your theories, and that is the high volume of suspected irregularities which do not lead to Prosecution, not to mention a Conviction. And why so many? Because the passenger has provided a satisfactory, simple explanation to a simple question.
I also get the impression that glasgowguy1984 thinks that most interviews lead to a decision whether or not to Prosecute. That would be incorrect, though those that are not taken forward for Prosecution are dropped because of the evidence, and that would include the passenger's explanation - their 'story' if you like.

There's also a worrying suggestion in glasgowguy1984's presumption that Railway Companies prosecutions are likely to fall away if contested. That is simply not supported by the facts; some have been abandoned or negotiated, and several will see reduced sentences attributable to Defence work in mitigation, and nothing to do with "dodgy practices", but Railway Companies regularly appear in Courts to prosecute fare evasion which is contested by the passenger's legal advocate.

 

[Tibbs]

You also need to make the distinction between the prelim conversation and when the RPI feels the need to read you your rights. At which point, he's going to be reasonably sure (in his opinion) you did something wrong.

Someone with a valid ticket isn't going to make it past the prelim stage, unless you have something contentious or obscure, at which point a rational explanation is unlikely to be effective. As we know, the TOC is going to write to you and ask you for your version of events which is a much better place to set out why your ticket is valid.

 

[Fare-Cop]

You also need to make the distinction between the prelim conversation and when the RPI feels the need to read you your rights.

Can we please at least use the correct phraseology, the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) requires that the investigating officer 'cautions' the 'suspect'.

The phrase 'read you your rights' is American jargon that doesn't appear in this UK legislation.

As we know, the TOC is going to write to you and ask you for your version of events which is a much better place to set out why your ticket is valid.

As you rightly point out, the RPI will have cautioned the 'suspect' once s/he suspects that an offence is evident. This is a requirement of the P.A.C.E. Codes of Practice, which states the caution will be in the following terms:

"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 that you do say may be given in evidence."

The person speaking the caution will also ask, "Do you understand?" There can be no doubt what that phrase explains.

That spoken caution has then already advised the person being questioned that the correct time to give an explanation there and then. That is, 'when questioned' whilst under caution, which also advises that not to do so, may be damaging to their defence.

Of course the person being questioned may choose to answer 'no comment' as some suggest, but cannot then be certain that his/her action in doing so will not prove damaging to any defence offered later.

DaveNewcastle is right of course, Tibbs and others may persist with their own flawed logic, but the caution is very clear in its' meaning and all that we can do is hope that anyone who has read this thread and who might be stopped and questioned under caution in the future does understand exactly what that means for them.

 

[Tibbs]

Can we please at least use the correct phraseology, the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) requires that the investigating officer 'cautions' the 'suspect'.

The phrase 'read you your rights' is American jargon that doesn't appear in this UK legislation.




As you rightly point out, the RPI will have cautioned the 'suspect' once s/he suspects that an offence is evident. This is a requirement of the P.A.C.E. Codes of Practice, which states the caution will be in the following terms:

"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 that you do say may be given in evidence."

The person speaking the caution will also ask, "Do you understand?" There can be no doubt what that phrase explains.

That spoken caution has then already advised the person being questioned that the correct time to give an explanation there and then. That is, 'when questioned' whilst under caution, which also advises that not to do so, may be damaging to their defence.

Of course the person being questioned may choose to answer 'no comment' as some suggest, but cannot then be certain that his/her action in doing so will not prove damaging to any defence offered later.

DaveNewcastle is right of course, Tibbs and others may persist with their own flawed logic, but the caution is very clear in its' meaning and all that we can do is hope that anyone who has read this thread and who might be stopped and questioned under caution in the future does understand exactly what that means for them.

But neither can they be sure that what they say won't damage them later either, whether guilty or not.

There is ample evidence that questions are deliberately asked in a way to get the respondant to incrimminate themselves. I would certainly refuse to answer that absurd "What would you have done had I not stopped you?". Or I'd answer it with 'I don't know'.

I've had one encouter with an RPI, and looking back on the way she phrased questions and the style of questioning, it was clear she was trying very hard to engineer my answers so I incrimminated myself.

If I were absolutely sure I was in the right, I'd answer questions, but I'd be very very careful about how I did it. If I had any doubt over the validity of the ticket I had or what I'd done, I'd keep my mouth shut. Would I actually stand mute? Possibly not, but I'd try to answer the questions as vague a way as possible.

This is different to 'no comment' which I have never suggested as a good thing to say.

 

[Fare-Cop]

The likelihood of a more lenient disposal fades very quickly if you are unhelpful during the interview/investigation process.

I don't think there's any point in adding anything other that the above good advice from a solicitor so far as I can see.