Fare Evasion Legal Position

[JFarris]

This situation happened to a mate of mine and I said I'd help her out in researching legal stuff etc.

Basically, she was travelling without ticket, due to being late (no excuses for it I know) and was caught by an out-of-uniform ticket inspector who reports on fare evaders and provides the information back to the train companies.

She cooperated with the inspector and gave her name, details, admitted what she had done and signed.

My question is whether this would be sufficient evidence in isolation to achieve a successful prosecution in court as they have no idea what she looks like and anyone could have given her details to that guard and provided some sort of attempt at a signature.

Would the company need more than this in order to have a successful case ?

Thank you for any help. And please understand that I am not talking about morality here, i don't condone what she did. I am simply finding out where she stands from a legal perspective.

 

[DownSouth]

My question is whether this would be sufficient evidence in isolation to achieve a successful prosecution in court as they have no idea what she looks like and anyone could have given her details to that guard and provided some sort of attempt at a signature.

If she pleads not guilty and contests it in court, the prosecution would be able to call the guard as a witness to positively identify her.

When the majority of people do the right thing, it's those who don't that stick in the memory of a person doing a job such as revenue enforcement. It's the same with people in just about all customer-facing jobs - in a previous job I sold hundreds of computers and accessories to lots of people I wouldn't recognise now, but those who brought in the more 'interesting' service jobs (like the bloke who wanted us to transfer all his pirated music onto his replacement iPod, or the girl with the Dell laptop which self-immolated) that I still remember years later.


It would be best to do whatever is needed to get the matter settled before it escalates to a court case.

 

[bb21]

How do you know they have no idea what she looked like? The RPI may well have submitted a detailed description of her appearance for all we know.

If she really wants some help, she needs to come here herself and provide some details of the incident so people can provide advice more suited to her particular encounter.

 

[Class377]

Challenging a prosecution on the basis the RPI made it up? I fear this way madness lies.

 

[Greenback]

I think it's more a case of challenging a prosecution by saying it wasn't her, so it must have been someone else. Though I agree it's not a very wise thing to do.

 

[Kristofferson]

The Shaggy Defence (it wasn't me)? Good luck...

 

[Murph]

If she gave her true name and address, chances are she will be successfully prosecuted for it. Unless she was travelling between 2 desolate outposts, there's a very high chance that she'll be on CCTV to provide additional evidence that she was at least around the railway at the right time (and the journey itself if they find CCTV footage for both ends of it). The train itself may even have CCTV.

If she said enough to demonstrate intent to avoid payment, she could be hit with §5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Intent is judged by the words and actions, and not by the actual internal thoughts of the accused. If intent is lacking, just being on the train ticketless without the correct reason (being late doesn't count), it's strict liability under the Railway Byelaws. Both are criminal matters, with RoRA being the more serious one extending up to prison time for more serious or repeat offenders. People have been failing to find ways to avoid prosecution for railway ticket fraud for over 100 years!

If she has any sense, she will try to settle the matter prior to court, without any further dishonesty. Pleading not-guilty and giving false evidence in court can only make the end result worse for her. Settling pre-court or a full mea culpa guilty plea is the way to minimise the consequences.

She could, alternatively, move to somewhere well beyond the reach of the UK legal system for an extended period of time, that seems to work for even much more serious stuff. She had best check how they handle ticket fraud in those foreign parts, in case she gets flogged or a finger chopped off for trying to beat the system after being caught red handed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_holes

 

[JFarris]

It would be best to do whatever is needed to get the matter settled before it escalates to a court case.

Does anyone know how easy it is to negotiate a settlement... and what the procedure is? Do you just call the company up?

She doesn't mind spending a couple of hundred quid to make this go away!

 

[Agent_c]

This situation happened to a mate of mine and I said I'd help her out in researching legal stuff etc.

Basically, she was travelling without ticket, due to being late (no excuses for it I know) and was caught by an out-of-uniform ticket inspector who reports on fare evaders and provides the information back to the train companies.

She cooperated with the inspector and gave her name, details, admitted what she had done and signed.

My question is whether this would be sufficient evidence in isolation to achieve a successful prosecution in court as they have no idea what she looks like and anyone could have given her details to that guard and provided some sort of attempt at a signature.

That would be a very brave gamble to take. She's taken what is a relatively minor offence, and instead decided to "Play for the showcase" by commiting perjury (or would should she maintain the lie when hauled into court).

Not only would it be inethical to advise such an action, you'd be risking making a bad situation a lot lot worse

 

[najaB]

This situation happened to a mate of mine and I said I'd help her out in researching legal stuff etc.

My question is whether this would be sufficient evidence in isolation to achieve a successful prosecution in court as they have no idea what she looks like and anyone could have given her details to that guard and provided some sort of attempt at a signature.

So, you want to know the legal consequences of lying in response to a court summons. I would have thought they were self-evident.... :roll:

 

[bb21]

Does anyone know how easy it is to negotiate a settlement... and what the procedure is? Do you just call the company up?

She doesn't mind spending a couple of hundred quid to make this go away!

No one can even guess how easy it is because we have no idea what actually happened, what facilities were available at her origin station, what the circumstances were on the day in question, what conversation took place, what communication she has had so far, which train company it was, what history she has had with said train company, etc.

You cannot expect appropriate advice without providing details of the incident.

 

[JFarris]

No one can even guess how easy it is because we have no idea what actually happened, what facilities were available at her origin station, what the circumstances were on the day in question, what conversation took place, what communication she has had so far, which train company it was, what history she has had with said train company, etc.

You cannot expect appropriate advice without providing details of the incident.

Facilities at her origin station: working fine. Decision not to purchase ticket not influenced by this.

Circumstances: just running late and made a rash/panicked decision

Conversation: was essentially a standardised interview. Eg why don't you have a ticket, are you aware that it is illegal, what is your name, address etc

No history of doing anything like this whatsoever. Obviously she would rather not disclose which train company it is

 

[455driver]

What letters has she received from the 'company with no name'?
What reply did she send?

 

[JFarris]

What letters has she received from the 'company with no name'?
What reply did she send?

Got a letter asking for confirmation that it was her travelling and personal details including any mitigating circumstances.

She is yet to reply.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Got a letter asking for confirmation that it was her travelling and personal details including any mitigating circumstances.

She is yet to reply.

She should fill in all details and be completely honest.

She should also offer to pay the full fare plus any reasonable costs incurred in pursuing their claim.

The earlier she does this, the better. It'll probably save her money to get this over with quickly

 

[timbo58]

Agree with Murph and Agent C here.

I have to add -how do you know the inspector didn't corroborate her identity at the time of the interview?

Normally an inspector will try to do this -even if it's just checking the name matches one on a credit/debit card.
In an inspectors notebook if he did this he will probably have noted some details from the supporting document.

Those details alone would be enough to prove the person interviewed was the same as that who is in court/refused to appear.
CCTV is another angle nowadays, and let's just suppose no details were checked and no CCTV was there -do you suppose the inspector when told 'person interviewed has denied being there' will forget this person?

No chance, I had this happen once to me in my 3 years as an RPI (manager) and remembered the scrote very well indeed the next time they crossed my path.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with all previous posts which advise against attempting to convince the Prosecutor that the ticketless passenger was someone else when it was not.
What I will add is the mysterious question of what instruction she might be giving to a Solicitor to assist in this deception, and where she thinks that she might find such a deceptive Solicitor.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I agree with all previous posts which advise against attempting to convince the Prosecutor that the ticketless passenger was someone else when it was not.
What I will add is the mysterious question of what instruction she might be giving to a Solicitor to assist in this deception, and where she thinks that she might find such a deceptive Solicitor.

One also has to think that it would be cheaper to settle out of court than pay a solicitor and go for trying to deceive the prosecutor, and possibly landing in jail for doing so.

 

[Flamingo]

I agree with all previous posts which advise against attempting to convince the Prosecutor that the ticketless passenger was someone else when it was not.
What I will add is the mysterious question of what instruction she might be giving to a Solicitor to assist in this deception, and where she thinks that she might find such a deceptive Solicitor.

We take it you don't want the gig then?

 

[Fare-Cop]

That would be a very brave gamble to take.

As everyone else has already said, for brave read BARMY!

 

[jon0844]

If anyone wants to try standing in court to use the Shaggy defence, please make sure to post the court date on here beforehand.

I am sure a few members wouldn't want to miss out!

 

[Haywain]

If anyone wants to try standing in court to use the Shaggy defence, please make sure to post the court date on here beforehand.

I am sure a few members wouldn't want to miss out!

I believe Flamingo will bring the popcorn!

 

[Flamingo]

I believe Flamingo will bring the popcorn!

I've been told I'm not allowed to

 

[jon0844]

Won't need too much popcorn anyway. I doubt the case would go on for long enough to ge through it. Maybe a muesli bar would suffice.

Or a peanut.

 

[JFarris]

Ok so just to clarify... this will definitely go to court if not dealt with?

 

[455driver]

I've been told I'm not allowed to

And I cant bring the (diet) coke either!:cry:

There are quite a few threads where 'those comments' would be quite appropriate!

 

[Flamingo]

Ok so just to clarify... this will definitely go to court if not dealt with?

Nothing in life is certain, but there seems no reason for it not to, so far.