Threatened with prosecution

[England]

Last week I boarded an SWR service from station A which was manned and had barriers. I was intending to purchase an eticket towards station d but mistakenly bought for station B as I was in a rush and couldn’t see well due to not having glasses. I also had the 16 -25 railcard option automatically selected but it was a week out of date and I didn’t realise. While on the train I saw my ticket had the wrong destination and I attempted to change it but couldn’t due to Network disruptions as my network provider is making improvements in my local area. When reached station D, i had forgotten about not having a ticket and I tried to quickly buy one but I bought a ticket from station c to d which was the previous stop. I was stopped by an rpi or an rpa just before the station exit and I was asked to produce my ticket. Whilst checking he asked for my railcard and I told him I have forgotten it. He then asked for my name and I gave it to him and he also asked for id and I said I don’t have any and he saw my bank card in my wallet and asked for it. I thought I was going to pay the excess fare and he didn’t make clear what he was doing and I gave it to him. He started to note down account number and sort code to which I was confused and surprised by. He then said he can check if I had a railcard and at that moment I realised it was out of date and I replied with I can pay the excess and there's no problem since I was late for work. He then said asked for my address and said if I give him the wrong one I can be prosecuted at that point I realised I was being under the suspicion of committing an offence because of his stern tone. I then gave my correct address to which he checked out on the phone to an office and the address was correct He then asked why I lived far from station c if I got on there as I told him that I came from station c when he asked me as I didn't want to get in trouble. He then said he can check cctv at station c to see if I was there. He then called to check my account number and sort code on the phone and he saw I had an e ticket from station a to b. and I then told him I came from station a. He then said that I will be prosecuted or he will refer me to the prosecutions department, I can't remember which. I was never informed that I had a right to silence and he only had a right to ask for my name and address. I basically self incriminated myself and I didn't know that I was free to leave at any time. He didn't give me a caution or an mg11 or a TIR. Can this information that I gave be used to prosecute me under RoRA?

 

[6Gman]

Last week I boarded an SWR service from station A which was manned and had barriers. I was intending to purchase an eticket towards station d but mistakenly bought for station B as I was in a rush and couldn’t see well due to not having glasses. I also had the 16 -25 railcard option automatically selected but it was a week out of date and I didn’t realise. While on the train I saw my ticket had the wrong destination and I attempted to change it but couldn’t due to Network disruptions as my network provider is making improvements in my local area. When reached station D, i had forgotten about not having a ticket and I tried to quickly buy one but I bought a ticket from station c to d which was the previous stop. I was stopped by an rpi or an rpa just before the station exit and I was asked to produce my ticket. Whilst checking he asked for my railcard and I told him I have forgotten it. He then asked for my name and I gave it to him and he also asked for id and I said I don’t have any and he saw my bank card in my wallet and asked for it. I thought I was going to pay the excess fare and he didn’t make clear what he was doing and I gave it to him. He started to note down account number and sort code to which I was confused and surprised by. He then said he can check if I had a railcard and at that moment I realised it was out of date and I replied with I can pay the excess and there's no problem since I was late for work. He then said asked for my address and said if I give him the wrong one I can be prosecuted at that point I realised I was being under the suspicion of committing an offence because of his stern tone. I then gave my correct address to which he checked out on the phone to an office and the address was correct He then asked why I lived far from station c if I got on there as I told him that I came from station c when he asked me as I didn't want to get in trouble. He then said he can check cctv at station c to see if I was there. He then called to check my account number and sort code on the phone and he saw I had an e ticket from station a to b. and I then told him I came from station a. He then said that I will be prosecuted or he will refer me to the prosecutions department, I can't remember which. I was never informed that I had a right to silence and he only had a right to ask for my name and address. I basically self incriminated myself and I didn't know that I was free to leave at any time. He didn't give me a caution or an mg11 or a TIR. Can this information that I gave be used to prosecute me under RoRA?

Can we assume that the sequence of stations (geographically) was A - B - C - D ?

And at the time you were stopped you held tickets from A to B and from C to D ?

 

[Haywain]

Last week I boarded an SWR service from station A which was manned and had barriers. I was intending to purchase an eticket towards station d but mistakenly bought for station B as I was in a rush and couldn’t see well due to not having glasses. I also had the 16 -25 railcard option automatically selected but it was a week out of date and I didn’t realise. While on the train I saw my ticket had the wrong destination and I attempted to change it but couldn’t due to Network disruptions as my network provider is making improvements in my local area. When reached station D, i had forgotten about not having a ticket and I tried to quickly buy one but I bought a ticket from station c to d which was the previous stop. I was stopped by an rpi or an rpa just before the station exit and I was asked to produce my ticket. Whilst checking he asked for my railcard and I told him I have forgotten it. He then asked for my name and I gave it to him and he also asked for id and I said I don’t have any and he saw my bank card in my wallet and asked for it. I thought I was going to pay the excess fare and he didn’t make clear what he was doing and I gave it to him. He started to note down account number and sort code to which I was confused and surprised by. He then said he can check if I had a railcard and at that moment I realised it was out of date and I replied with I can pay the excess and there's no problem since I was late for work. He then said asked for my address and said if I give him the wrong one I can be prosecuted at that point I realised I was being under the suspicion of committing an offence because of his stern tone. I then gave my correct address to which he checked out on the phone to an office and the address was correct He then asked why I lived far from station c if I got on there as I told him that I came from station c when he asked me as I didn't want to get in trouble. He then said he can check cctv at station c to see if I was there. He then called to check my account number and sort code on the phone and he saw I had an e ticket from station a to b. and I then told him I came from station a. He then said that I will be prosecuted or he will refer me to the prosecutions department, I can't remember which. I was never informed that I had a right to silence and he only had a right to ask for my name and address. I basically self incriminated myself and I didn't know that I was free to leave at any time. He didn't give me a caution or an mg11 or a TIR. Can this information that I gave be used to prosecute me under RoRA?

In short, yes, you can be prosecuted. You did not hold a valid ticket for your whole journey and that constitutes an offence. What you said at the time may not be admissible in court if you were not cautioned first, but the railway company will have sufficient evidence to bring a charge against you. However, they will almost certainly write to you to ask for your version of events before taking court action, and that will provide an opportunity for you to ask if they will settle the matter without going to court. You can find plenty of threads on this forum that will provide more information about that.

 

[England]

Will this be prosecuted under RoRA or byelaws?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

Can we assume that the sequence of stations (geographically) was A - B - C - D ?

And at the time you were stopped you held tickets from A to B and from C to D ?

Yes but I only held a ticket from c to d at the time but he found out that i had an e ticket from a to b by looking up my account number and sort code and my name on the phone to swr office.

 

[SargeNpton]

There's a whole catalogue of problems there which, if taken together, could suggest a deliberate attempt to evade paying the fare for the whole journey. If the TOC offers you the chance to make a payment without going no court take the opportunity.

 

[Haywain]

There's a whole catalogue of problems there which, if taken together, could suggest a deliberate attempt to evade paying the fare for the whole journey. If the TOC offers you the chance to make a payment without going no court take the opportunity.

As there was no ticket at all from B to C, I think it's a touch more than a suggestion and from the train company's point of view it's really neither here nor there that there were some tickets involved for parts of the journey.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The OP needs to think about what this will look like to the railway. It appears that they had tickets from A to B and from C to D, with nothing from B to C. This will look to the railway as if the OP got the A to B ticket to get them through the barriers and on to the train in the first place, and the ticket from C to D so that they could get out at the other end through the barriers at D, and save on the cost of the full fare from A to D. This is quite a widespread way of fare-dodging, so popular that it has a nickname of 'doughnutting' (because, like a doughnut, it has a hole in the middle).

But the OP has told us all about the unfortunate chapter of accidents that led them to make this mistake. What they now need to do is convince the railway that there really was a whole series of accidents, in that the railways' initial assumption will be that this wasn't accidental but deliberate. Should the matter end up in court, it is of course for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened, and not for the defence (the OP) to have to prove their story - but it seems to me very likely that the prosecution will start from the assumption that this was doughnutting, and the magistrates might also start from that position, in that it is an explanation of the facts that they will have seen more frequently than the unfortunate accidents that happened to the OP.

 

[England]

The OP needs to think about what this will look like to the railway. It appears that they had tickets from A to B and from C to D, with nothing from B to C. This will look to the railway as if the OP got the A to B ticket to get them through the barriers and on to the train in the first place, and the ticket from C to D so that they could get out at the other end through the barriers at D, and save on the cost of the full fare from A to D. This is quite a widespread way of fare-dodging, so popular that it has a nickname of 'doughnutting' (because, like a doughnut, it has a hole in the middle).

But the OP has told us all about the unfortunate chapter of accidents that led them to make this mistake. What they now need to do is convince the railway that there really was a whole series of accidents, in that the railways' initial assumption will be that this wasn't accidental but deliberate. Should the matter end up in court, it is of course for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened, and not for the defence (the OP) to have to prove their story - but it seems to me very likely that the prosecution will start from the assumption that this was doughnutting, and the magistrates might also start from that position, in that it is an explanation of the facts that they will have seen more frequently than the unfortunate accidents that happened to the OP.

I don’t understand why he didn’t caution me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

As there was no ticket at all from B to C, I think it's a touch more than a suggestion and from the train company's point of view it's really neither here nor there that there were some tickets involved for parts of the journey.

Is the evidence he took valid in court

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

There's a whole catalogue of problems there which, if taken together, could suggest a deliberate attempt to evade paying the fare for the whole journey. If the TOC offers you the chance to make a payment without going no court take the opportunity.

I thought that the rpi must clearly state which offence I have done to warrant my name and address

 

[bb21]

Will this be prosecuted under RoRA or byelaws?

Very likely to be the RoRA if the caseworker were efficient.

There are too many coincidences in your case for this to be read as anything other than a deliberate attempt. If it went to the court, obviously the magistrate will form their own opinion but you need to read your account again and see just how unconvincing it is to an outsider you ended up where you were wholly unintentionally. There are too many coincidences, and too many alarm bells ringing with all the hallmarks of a typical doughnutting case. Out of interest, are you able to disclose how much you underpaid on the day due to these mistakes? (Obviously the bigger the amount, the more suspicions it would arouse.)

You also need to think hard at whether this is genuinely a one-off. Not saying you were lying but there are various ways things can be checked and if there were a pattern of such behaviour, it can get much worse. Also think hard about some of the things you are claiming and whether you can substantiate them, eg. poor eyesight. The more you can prove, the more likely you will be able to keep it private.

To think that the company would not have discovered you were doughnutting with your purchases would be naive, so I think you can probably leave the self-incrimination line alone.

I can only second the advice that if you get an opportunity to settle, do it. Even if you don't manage it initially and the case goes to court, you can still try settling it on the day before the hearing. Several people have reported success at the last minute before on the forum.

Apart from that, I can only stress that it is not the end of the world having a criminal record as some people may think, should it get that far. The damage is already done. Face up to it and make sure you don't do it again.

 

[WesternLancer]

I don’t understand why he didn’t caution me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==


Is the evidence he took valid in court

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==


I thought that the too must clearly state which offence I have done to warrant my name and address

If you want to debate their processes in a court room scenario feel free, but you might need to pay for legal help, and you will probably still lose on the pertinent issue, ie not having a valid ticket.

Given the circs you outline you could end up in court - but may well not do and your focus should be on avoiding that at this stage IMHO. Your story of what happened looks like a classic fare evasion case even as posted here (read it back to yourself, and imagine your job is to find fare evaders - some of the things sound pretty implausible to me eg that you remembered to get a ticket but then when you did you got one that wasn't for the right stations but just happened to cost you less than had you got the correct one....). At this stage about the only thing in your favour is giving the correct address details.

BUT - at this stage, don't focus too much on the court issues (come back for further advice on that if it gets to that), think about the nature of the apology you need to give to them, and your offer to resolve the matter and their costs, when they write to you.

Other recent threads have good examples you can draw on. eg as @Hadders recently posted which I have copied here:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

Make sure your reply is short and concise, don't give a sob story - they've heard it all before. Most train companies are usually prepared to offer an administrative (commonly known as an out of court settlement) for people who engage with the process and who haven't come to their attention before.

You can even post a draft of what you wish to write here if you would like people to feedback on it, which might help.

 

[England]

1. the authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

Why didn’t he do this?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

Very likely to be the RoRA if the caseworker were efficient.

There are too many coincidences in your case for this to be read as anything other than a deliberate attempt. If it went to the court, obviously the magistrate will form their own opinion but you need to read your account again and see just how unconvincing it is to an outsider you ended up where you were wholly unintentionally. There are too many coincidences, and too many alarm bells ringing with all the hallmarks of a typical doughnutting case. Out of interest, are you able to disclose how much you underpaid on the day due to these mistakes? (Obviously the bigger the amount, the more suspicions it would arouse.)

You also need to think hard at whether this is genuinely a one-off. Not saying you were lying but there are various ways things can be checked and if there were a pattern of such behaviour, it can get much worse. Also think hard about some of the things you are claiming and whether you can substantiate them, eg. poor eyesight. The more you can prove, the more likely you will be able to keep it private.

To think that the company would not have discovered you were doughnutting with your purchases would be naive, so I think you can probably leave the self-incrimination line alone.

I can only second the advice that if you get an opportunity to settle, do it. Even if you don't manage it initially and the case goes to court, you can still try settling it on the day before the hearing. Several people have reported success at the last minute before on the forum.

Apart from that, I can only stress that it is not the end of the world having a criminal record as some people may think, should it get that far. The damage is already done. Face up to it and make sure you don't do it again.

It was 3.20

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

Very likely to be the RoRA if the caseworker were efficient.

There are too many coincidences in your case for this to be read as anything other than a deliberate attempt. If it went to the court, obviously the magistrate will form their own opinion but you need to read your account again and see just how unconvincing it is to an outsider you ended up where you were wholly unintentionally. There are too many coincidences, and too many alarm bells ringing with all the hallmarks of a typical doughnutting case. Out of interest, are you able to disclose how much you underpaid on the day due to these mistakes? (Obviously the bigger the amount, the more suspicions it would arouse.)

You also need to think hard at whether this is genuinely a one-off. Not saying you were lying but there are various ways things can be checked and if there were a pattern of such behaviour, it can get much worse. Also think hard about some of the things you are claiming and whether you can substantiate them, eg. poor eyesight. The more you can prove, the more likely you will be able to keep it private.

To think that the company would not have discovered you were doughnutting with your purchases would be naive, so I think you can probably leave the self-incrimination line alone.

I can only second the advice that if you get an opportunity to settle, do it. Even if you don't manage it initially and the case goes to court, you can still try settling it on the day before the hearing. Several people have reported success at the last minute before on the forum.

Apart from that, I can only stress that it is not the end of the world having a criminal record as some people may think, should it get that far. The damage is already done. Face up to it and make sure you don't do it again.

why didn’t he issue me an mg 11 I don’t understand the procedure.

 

[bb21]

1. the authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

Why didn’t he do this?

Did he not do it, or did you not hear it because your mind were elsewhere?

Of course he may have got something wrong and there may be a small possibility those mistakes could invalidate the case (although I doubt it especially if it were your word against theirs). Should it come to that, and a judge rules in your favour, then congratulations. Equally a judge may rule that the evidence, eg. tickets purchased, incorrect application of discount entitlement, time of purchase, etc, sufficiently demonstrating intent to underpay. You can make your case should it get that far. But are you happy to let it get that far to start with?

 

[Darandio]

why didn’t he issue me an mg 11 I don’t understand the procedure.

I'm sensing this isn't your first run-in with the railway, am I right? First time offenders aren't normally so familiar with many of the railway acronyms you have been using. It's just that it could completely change what advice is given/needed.

 

[bb21]

why didn’t he issue me an mg 11 I don’t understand the procedure.

He doesn't need to issue you an MG11 or a TIR. He doesn't even need you to sign anything.

 

[England]

Did he not do it, or did you not hear it because your mind were elsewhere?

Of course he may have got something wrong and there may be a small possibility those mistakes could invalidate the case (although I doubt it especially if it were your word against theirs). Should it come to that, and a judge rules in your favour, then congratulations. Equally a judge may rule that the evidence, eg. tickets purchased, incorrect application of discount entitlement, time of purchase, etc, sufficiently demonstrating intent to underpay. You can make your case should it get that far. But are you happy to let it get that far to start with?

he asked for name and Id after I told him I don’t have my railcard. He then said we can make a check if I had railcard i then said I can pay the excess fare he then said if I don’t provide my Correct address I can be prosecuted at that point I knew he was suspicious

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

No I learnt this from browsing this forum

I'm sensing this isn't your first run-in with the railway, am I right? It's just that it could completely change what and which advice is given.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

Why didn’t he Give me a caution

 

[Haywain]

It is suggested above that the prosecution has to prove, in court, beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. Their evidence is that you did not hold a valid ticket for the whole journey undertaken - how are you going to throw reasonable doubt on this? But you don't want it to get that far, you want to achieve a settlement and to get to that point you need to accept that you were in the wrong and were caught fair and square and that trivial errors on the part of the person who apprehended you do not change that - unless you want to pay more for a silver-tongued lawyer than you will pay the train company for a settlement.

 

[bb21]

he asked for name and Id after I told him I don’t have my railcard. He then said we can make a check if I had railcard i then said I can pay the excess fare he then said if I don’t provide my Correct address I can be prosecuted at that point I knew he was suspicious

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

No I learnt this from browsing this forum

Yes I get your version of the events. Excuse me if I read you wrong, I think you are getting your priorities all wrong. Fair enough if you want to challenge the case should it get to court, everyone would fight hard in those situations, but consider the evidence they have (as described yourself in the first post), and remember that relying on a technicality is a very risky strategy. You may as well do it as a last resort in court when all else fails, usually with professional legal representation (which costs £££), but I would suggest your current priority should be seeking to keep it out of court.

Of course you may decide otherwise, and I respect your choice if so. There really isn't much else I can suggest.

Why didn’t he Give me a caution

He doesn't need to. If he were to rely on a conversation he had with you and your words as evidence, it is to make you aware of your legal rights. In your case, there is plenty of evidence otherwise to charge you with an offence from your description, he doesn't need to rely on any verbal conversation.

MG11 is simply a witness statement. It is to be prepared by the RPI, and he can submit all the other relevant evidence in the MG11 without including anything you said. I provide MG11 for the police all the time. There is no need to involve anyone other than myself (the witness) if I am using objective evidence.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Why didn’t he Give me a caution

If SWR work in a similar way to my TOC, a Caution is only required when completing an MG11 Witness Statement. It's not needed for a Travel Irregularity Report, even though the paperwork they complete for both is virtually identical.

As for specifically why, it could be the case that the member of staff hasn't had the required training to give an interview under Caution, or they didn't feel it was necessary when they first approached you, amongst other reasons.

 

[England]

Yes I get your version of the events. Excuse me if I read you wrong, I think you are getting your priorities all wrong. Fair enough if you want to challenge the case should it get to court, everyone would fight hard in those situations, but consider the evidence they have (as described yourself in the first post), and remember that relying on a technicality is a very risky strategy. You may as well do it as a last resort in court when all else fails, usually with professional legal representation (which costs £££), but I would suggest your current priority should be seeking to keep it out of court.

Of course you may decide otherwise, and I respect your choice if so. There really isn't much else I can suggest.



He doesn't need to. If he were to rely on a conversation he had with you and your words as evidence, it is to make you aware of your legal rights. In your case, there is plenty of evidence otherwise to charge you with an offence from your description, he doesn't need to rely on any verbal conversation.

MG11 is simply a witness statement. It is to be prepared by the RPI, and he can submit all the other relevant evidence in the MG11 without including anything you said. I provide MG11 for the police all the time. There is no need to involve anyone other than myself (the witness) if I am using objective evidence.

I gave him my account number and sort code which isn’t required by law can this be used in the mg11

 

[MotCO]

Do you regularly make this journey? If so, do you have evidence that you normally pay for the whole journey A - D. This may help to convince them that this was a one-off or error, rather than a regular attempt at doughnutting.

 

[6Gman]

1. the authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

Why didn’t he do this?

"If you can't produce your railcard I'll need your details" might well be considered to indicate "the nature of the breach ... in general terms".

But if you disagree you could have your day in court.

As others have said, you can cling to potential technical breaches if you want but given evidence of doughnuting and claiming a discount to which you had no entitlement you probably need to turn your attention to the substantive issue.

 

[England]

Not really but I was making regular journeys Guildford paying the full fares for months on end

 

[6Gman]

I gave him my account number and sort code which isn’t required by law can this be used in the mg11

Not sure what you mean by "can this be used in the mg11 ?"

 

[England]

"If you can't produce your railcard I'll need your details" might well be considered to indicate "the nature of the breach ... in general terms".

But if you disagree you could have your day in court.

As others have said, you can cling to potential technical breaches if you want but given evidence of doughnuting and claiming a discount to which you had no entitlement you probably need to turn your attention to the substantive issue.

He didn’t say that I thought he needed I’d to prove I was a student

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

Not sure what you mean by "can this be used in the mg11 ?"

Can he use my bank details as evidence against me in court

 

[6Gman]

He didn’t say that I thought he needed I’d to prove I was a student

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==


Can he use my bank details as evidence against me in court

Evidence of what?

He will complete an MG11 witness statement. Presumably it will say that you:

produced a discounted ticket, but failed to provide the necessary railcard
confirmed your identity via your bank card
held a ticket from A to B which, associated with the C-D ticket, led the RPI to conclude that you might have travelled beyond the validity of the tickets held

The prosecutions team will review the evidence and take a view on what action, if any, to take. At that stage they may well write to you asking you for your version of events. Not sure that arguing about procedure will be productive.

They have what is often termed a "slam dunk" for a byelaws offence; you were using an invalid ticket. But they may choose to go further by seeking to prove intent to avoid the appropriate fare i.e. claiming a discount to which you were not entitled plus the "doughnuting".

 

[WesternLancer]

Can he use my bank details as evidence against me in court

Evidence of what? All it proves is you have a bank account - or did on that day, you can close your bank account tomorrow if you want.

I doubt bank details have any relevance in court or of any interest to anyone (at this stage). I doubt they can use your bank details to just take money from you without your permission, or probably without a court permitting it. He might have used it to see if the name matched the name you gave (maybe), and potentially they may be able to see what tickets you buy with that bank account in the past from their records of ticket sales via on line or ticket machines etc. That is evidence they could use in court I would expect.

But isn't the offence simply being unable to show a valid ticket for the journey - which you appear to be guilty of on at least 2 levels (wrong ticket, no railcard) so I doubt they will bother with a lengthy investigation in to the rest of it, unless as others have said they suspect you are a habitual fare evader.

But the one thing that might make them do that would be arguing over minor technicalities, as they might think "hmm, I wonder what this person has got to hide, lets take a look at any other records we have access to"

 

[England]

Evidence of what?

He will complete an MG11 witness statement. Presumably it will say that you:

produced a discounted ticket, but failed to provide the necessary railcard
confirmed your identity via your bank card
held a ticket from A to B which, associated with the C-D ticket, led the RPI to conclude that you might have travelled beyond the validity of the tickets held

The prosecutions team will review the evidence and take a view on what action, if any, to take. At that stage they may well write to you asking you for your version of events. Not sure that arguing about procedure will be productive.

They have what is often termed a "slam dunk" for a byelaws offence; you were using an invalid ticket. But they may choose to go further by seeking to prove intent to avoid the appropriate fare i.e. claiming a discount to which you were not entitled plus the "doughnuting".

He used my bank details to check if I had another ticket but when he took them He didn’t make clear what he was doing I thought He was going to make me pay an excess fare but he called up an office to check with them. He made me self incriminate myself

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

Evidence of what? All it proves is you have a bank account - or did on that day, you can close your bank account tomorrow if you want.

I doubt bank details have any relevance in court or of any interest to anyone (at this stage). I doubt they can use your bank details to just take money from you without your permission, or probably without a court permitting it. He might have used it to see if the name matched the name you gave (maybe), and potentially they may be able to see what tickets you buy with that bank account in the past from their records of ticket sales via on line or ticket machines etc. That is evidence they could use in court I would expect.

But isn't the offence simply being unable to show a valid ticket for the journey - which you appear to be guilty of on at least 2 levels (wrong ticket, no railcard) so I doubt they will bother with a lengthy investigation in to the rest of it, unless as others have said they suspect you are a habitual fare evader.

But the one thing that might make them do that would be arguing over minor technicalities, as they might think "hmm, I wonder what this person has got to hide, lets take a look at any other records we have access to"

He used my details and saw I had a ticket for a to b can this be used as evidence of doughnutting

 

[WesternLancer]

He used my bank details to check if I had another ticket but when he took them He didn’t make clear what he was doing I thought He was going to make me pay an excess fare but he called up an office to check with them. He made me self incriminate myself

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==


He used my details and saw I had a ticket for a to b can this be used as evidence of doughnutting

I would think so yes. Same as if they checked CCTV in some respects, at your station of origin. Station A

 

[England]

I would think so yes. Same as if they checked CCTV in some respects, at your station of origin. Station A

But I’m wearing face covering how can they prove it

 

[Fawkes Cat]

With all due respect to the OP, they need to take on board the advice that has been given: the best option is to keep the matter out of court: relying on loopholes once you are in court is a much riskier strategy.

We can advise on how you should try to settle matters out of court. But we can be less helpful on loopholes in court. If nothing else, anyone planning to go down that road should remember that while the letter of the law isn't designed to convict innocent people, neither is it intended to let the guilty walk away. Broadly, if the magistrates think you are guilty, they won't read the law to your advantage. So if you are guilty and want to rely on loopholes, in practice you will need a clever (and expensive) lawyer.

We can't really help on loopholes. You will need a lawyer for that - and your lawyer probably won't welcome us telling them their job.