fare evasion multiple times

[rob02]

I've been caught evading my fare. First time I have been caught but I've been doing it for about a month Would I be treated as a persistent evader or a first time offender? I am assuming the worse and that is criminal prosecution.


A conviction would also certainly mean the end of my career and losing my home and would impact my family. Would this be taken into account? I am desperate for an out of court settlement. I didn't realise how stupid I have been to risk everything. I am at my wits end and I am struggling to keep things together. Its been 3 weeks so I am expecting a letter in day now but I seriously don't know what to do. I know I am in the wrong and I have no excuses to offer whatsoever, I feel ashamed and I've let my family and children down very badly. I cannot even look at them.

I am in the process of hiring a solicitor but I am getting conflicting advice with some solicitors suggesting that I will have a good chance of an out of court settlement whilst some suggesting that there is no hope of an out of court settlement and that I will be facing criminal prosecution. If anyone knows of a good fare evasion solicitor please let me know or private message me


Any advise about what I should do would be welcome. I don't care what happens to me but its my family I am concerned about.

 

[6Gman]

I've been caught evading my fare. First time I have been caught but I've been doing it for about a month Would I be treated as a persistent evader or a first time offender? I am assuming the worse and that is criminal prosecution.


A conviction would also certainly mean the end of my career and losing my home and would impact my family. Would this be taken into account? I am desperate for an out of court settlement. I didn't realise how stupid I have been to risk everything. I am at my wits end and I am struggling to keep things together. Its been 3 weeks so I am expecting a letter in day now but I seriously don't know what to do. I know I am in the wrong and I have no excuses to offer whatsoever, I feel ashamed and I've let my family and children down very badly. I cannot even look at them.

I am in the process of hiring a solicitor but I am getting conflicting advice with some solicitors suggesting that I will have a good chance of an out of court settlement whilst some suggesting that there is no hope of an out of court settlement and that I will be facing criminal prosecution. If anyone knows of a good fare evasion solicitor please let me know or private message me


Any advise about what I should do would be welcome. I don't care what happens to me but its my family I am concerned about.

Be very wary of providing explicit detail on this - public - forum, or you may incriminate yourself further.

Is the fact that you've "been doing it for about a month" something only known to you or does the railway know this?

 

[gray1404]

We would normally recommend that you provide the full details on the forum. HOWEVER, in your case it is best you don't. Although you say you have been doing it for about a month, does the train company know about this or would they think that it was your first time?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If the Inspector who took notes of your conversation (which will be used as a 'Witness Statement' ,WS) had knowledge of those other occasions of ticketless travel, or you gave him/her enough of a reason to believe that there were other occasions, then it is more probable that the Investigating Officer will put the matter forward for a Prosecution. That is not to imply that an Out of Court (OOC) settlement will not be achieveable, just that the risk of failure in that negotiation will carry a more severe outcome.

On the oter hand, if the Inspector has been given no reason to beliee that there is evidence of other occasions, and you made no reference to other occasions, then the only evidence available for the Investigating Officer will be the WS concerning the single incident. And no more. While the Officer might think that the WS is persuasive there is merit in a Prosecution, it is more probable that an OOC settlement will be readily accepted.

As for the inconsistent advice, it is not surprising. The world of Private Criminal Prosecutions is something of an unknown territory for those whose experience is solely with Criminal Prosecutions investigated by the Police and considered for Prosecution by the CPS. And those who do have some knowledge and/or experience in Private Prosecutions may be struggling to keep up with the changes of custom and practice over the past two or three years, which have seen a much higher frequency of OOC settlements and much higher proportion of incidents which are dealt with by an offer of an administrative disposal amounting to a round sum payment.

I strongly suspect that your fears of ruining your career and the impact on your family may be out of proportion to the actual risk you face ; though if you did inform that Inspector that you have a habit of fare evasion, then it will be a hard struggle to keep it out of court and solicitor with experience in negotiating a settlement with a Prosecutor over a Criminal matter will be highly advantageous.

 

[jax4154]

when the officer says, you do not have to say anything ect ect, its usually best to not say anything

 

[mikeg]

when the officer says, you do not have to say anything ect ect, its usually best to not say anything

Not necessarily true! Remember they also say it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned anything which you later rely on in court.

Poor advice.

 

[najaB]

when the officer says, you do not have to say anything ect ect, its usually best to not say anything

As mikeg correctly points out, you need to carefully consider if what you say will help or hurt your case - it's not true that it's always the best case to say nothing.

By way of an example - if you are stopped at the station and accused of arriving on a train sans-ticket, it would be a better idea to say "I'm actually here to meet someone who just got off that train, that's them over there." rather than to say nothing.

 

[FenMan]

in passing, I notice the OP has not responded since their original post, so any advice may be nugatory.

 

[TheEdge]

when the officer says, you do not have to say anything ect ect, its usually best to not say anything

To you and anyone else reading this this is really poor advice.

Unlike the US system where most armchair experts seem to take their knowledge from under the UK system it is possible for an adverse inference to be made from a defendants silence.

 

[jax4154]

I don't believe this is poor advice, the original post had said he been doing it for a month, never own up to anything more then just the day your caught, I mean come on what's seriously ganna happen if you say nothing at all? Your being issued an MG11 over a ticket not up on a murder charge. For someone who had attended court as a revenue officer this is certainly not poor advice.

 

[Antman]

Not necessarily true! Remember they also say it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned anything which you later rely on in court.

Poor advice.

No it isn't poor advice, there is no right or wrong way, people have to make their own decisions.

 

[AlterEgo]

No it isn't poor advice, there is no right or wrong way, people have to make their own decisions.

Indeed. You do not have to say anything. It will only potentially harm your defence if you don't say something when questioned which you later rely on in court.

If you are confused or unsure about a question or an interview you should not answer it. I would not answer questions put to me without a solicitor present.

It is the job of the RPI or police officer to find the evidence to decide whether to prosecute you. Don't give it to them for free. If you say nothing and no evidence is found, it won't get to court.

This isn't advice to "never talk" but people should be mindful of incriminating themselves unintentionally. "What do you mean this is wrong? I do this all the time??"

 

[jax4154]

Talking about a ticket irregularity here, nothing too serious l, don't say anything your not ganna get locked up. Your get the fine you would have got plus the day you was caught plus costs. Own up to a month worth, your get fine, back dated travel for month plus costs. And that's a fact.

Regarding tickets I wouldn't say bad advice, if it was a serious offence then that would be poor advice but it's a ticket :-/

 

[najaB]

Regarding tickets I wouldn't say bad advice, if it was a serious offence then that would be poor advice but it's a ticket :-/

Ticketing offences can potentially result in a recorded criminal conviction, a fine of up to £1000 and a custodial sentence of up to three months

 

[TheEdge]

Talking about a ticket irregularity here, nothing too serious l, don't say anything your not ganna get locked up.

RPI: Have you done this before?
Pax: Silence.
RPI: Sir, did you hear me?
Pax: Silence.

Do you not think that can set off alarm bells? In UK law that can be used against you.

 

[Antman]

RPI: Have you done this before?
Pax: Silence.
RPI: Sir, did you hear me?
Pax: Silence.

Do you not think that can set off alarm bells? In UK law that can be used against you.

Not really, all it means is IF it ever went to court and you mentioned something you would be asked why you didn't mention it at the time. Silence should never be taken as a sign of guilt, ask any police officer.

 

[AlterEgo]

RPI: Have you done this before?
Pax: Silence.
RPI: Sir, did you hear me?
Pax: Silence.

Do you not think that can set off alarm bells? In UK law that can be used against you.

It can only be used against you in court. If they actually have no evidence and are relying on your speaking your way into trouble then it is sensible to give them NO EVIDENCE. None.

If the RPI is unable to collect sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution then it won't go to court.

The onus is on the prosecuting team to prove you guilty, not the other way around.

It's not good advice, suggesting someone questioned should respond all the time. It will be entirely down to the circumstances at the time.

I do not fare evade. If ever I was stopped, I would refuse to answer any and all questions put to me. It would be up to the RPI to prove my intent and my crime, which he would be unable to do, because, as previously stated, I don't fare evade. If I decided to talk, I could inadvertently and wrongly incriminate myself by saying something which appeared benign at the time.

An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt, and the mags/jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. This is a well-established legal position.

If ever unsure, you should shut up and say nothing whatsoever until you have talked to a solicitor.

 

[najaB]

It's not good advice, suggesting someone questioned should respond all the time. It will be entirely down to the circumstances at the time.

Exactly. In the same way as it is not good advice to suggest remaining silent in every case. Every situation needs to be judged on its own merits.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I thought it was the "rely on in court" bit that was crucial. So, you don't have to say anything that might incriminate you, but that's fine as you are not going to be able to rely on that in court anyway to defend your case, but you should disclose anything that is going to form the basis of your defence, which presumably isn't going to get you in trouble, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a defence. If something is unclear or you are not certain it will be something to rely on then keep quiet.

 

[Agent_c]

My understanding of the silence is that it's supposed to cover if you come up with a wild story alibi later. My understanding also is that one should say nothing without consulting a solicitor.

Totally not legal advice but I'd suggest maybe "although I maintain my innocence I am unable to answer questions until I have recieved legal counsel"

It is not your job to prove you are innocent. It is their job to prove you are not.

 

[Southwest]

We would normally recommend that you provide the full details on the forum. HOWEVER, in your case it is best you don't.

There is nothing in the OP that shows where the offence(s) took place or who the TOC was so I can't see a big problem in this post.

 

[najaB]

It is not your job to prove you are innocent. It is their job to prove you are not.

This is true. However, if there is obvious proof that you are innocent why would you not point it out?

 

[sheff1]

I do not fare evade. If ever I was stopped, I would refuse to answer any and all questions put to me.

My experience is that the clowns who claim that someone is evading a fare when they actually have a valid ticket do not actually ask questions. They prefer to make false statements such as "this ticket is not valid", "you can't use that ticket here", "this is a peak train" etc etc.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . My understanding also is that one should say nothing without consulting a solicitor. . . .

and at what point in an interaction do you adopt this policy? Bear in mind that failure to give your name and address when there is reasonable grounds to suspect that there might be an instance of fare evasion would, in itself, constitute evidence of a recordable offence.

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "hold on, I'm sure I've got the ticket somewhere - I had it a few minutes ago" ?
Just think through the consequences of both options.

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "That can't be right. I've been making this journey every day (slight exaggeration) for years [with this ticket]".

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "Oh, I knew it (Railcard) was expiring soon, but honestly hadn't noticed that it had just expired, sorry"?

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "Never! Pull the other one. That cost me a hard earned five grand" when your forged season ticket is met with curiousity : "this looks a bit odd, it's not a counterfeit ticket is it madam? I haven't seen one just like this before."?

[other scenarios are available]

If you follow the potential outcomes from these lines of thinking, then you should agree with me that a response of 'silence' is only going to assist a passenger in a limited range of situations, and these are in situations where a response has to be calculated to anticipate the avoidance of severe consequences. Against this, a rational and factual response will assist in a wide range of situations, where that response satisfies the essential requirements of travel by rail (possible with a bit of discretion thrown in to the mix - discretion which is likely to come from honest engagement, and never from a barrier of "I won't speak without legal representation".

You really should be able to learn a lot by yourself, if you just think logicaly through all of the outcomes of a response of 'silence'.

 

[Agent_c]

and at what point in an interaction do you adopt this policy? Bear in mind that failure to give your name and address when there is reasonable grounds to suspect that there might be an instance of fare evasion would, in itself, constitute evidence of a recordable offence.

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "hold on, I'm sure I've got the ticket somewhere - I had it a few minutes ago" ?
Just think through the consequences of both options.

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "That can't be right. I've been making this journey every day (slight exaggeration) for years [with this ticket]".

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "Oh, I knew it (Railcard) was expiring soon, but honestly hadn't noticed that it had just expired, sorry"?

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "Never! Pull the other one. That cost me a hard earned five grand" when your forged season ticket is met with curiousity : "this looks a bit odd, it's not a counterfeit ticket is it madam? I haven't seen one just like this before."?

[other scenarios are available]

If you follow the potential outcomes from these lines of thinking, then you should agree with me that a response of 'silence' is only going to assist a passenger in a limited range of situations, and these are in situations where a response has to be calculated to anticipate the avoidance of severe consequences. Against this, a rational and factual response will assist in a wide range of situations, where that response satisfies the essential requirements of travel by rail (possible with a bit of discretion thrown in to the mix - discretion which is likely to come from honest engagement, and never from a barrier of "I won't speak without legal representation".

You really should be able to learn a lot by yourself, if you just think logicaly through all of the outcomes of a response of 'silence'.

I have a lot of respect for you Dave, but in this case I think you've fallen into a reductio ad absurdum argument. I thought it was clear from the situation that we're talking about being in a PACE like situation where the person is being accused of something, and absolutely shouldn't be taken as to meaning that someone should not speak to allow themselves to be identified, and that identity verified.

 

[b0b]

This is true. However, if there is obvious proof that you are innocent why would you not point it out?

because you have no way of knowing that it proves innocence. even if it proves innocence, you do not know if the person interviewing you will believe it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "hold on, I'm sure I've got the ticket somewhere - I had it a few minutes ago" ?
Just think through the consequences of both options.

Would you advise adopting a policy of silence before, or after, saying "Oh, I knew it (Railcard) was expiring soon, but honestly hadn't noticed that it had just expired, sorry"?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the two of those are basically admitting guilt to a criminal act - it doesn't seem smart to admit that, at least before consulting someone like you...

i'd argue the real problem with those two examples though - is that they are criminal acts - when lacking evidence of intent, but thats for another thread.

 

[jax4154]

Ticketing offences can potentially result in a recorded criminal conviction, a fine of up to £1000 and a custodial sentence of up to three months

Yep they tell you that but please, when have you ever heard of that happening, also states penalty for crossing the track £1000 and never heard of anyone being fined £100 let alone £1000. I was an RPI for 5 years, have been to court more times then I count so I know what they dish out.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yep they tell you that but please, when have you ever heard of that happening, also states penalty for crossing the track £1000 and never heard of anyone being fined £100 let alone £1000. I was an RPI for 5 years, have been to court more times then I count so I know what they dish out.

You should have a read of this forum then. It happens. A lot. That's why the disputes and prosecutions area exists!

 

[najaB]

Yep they tell you that...

I think you'll find it's the law.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Yep they tell you that but please, when have you ever heard of that happening, also states penalty for crossing the track £1000 and never heard of anyone being fined £100 let alone £1000. I was an RPI for 5 years, have been to court more times then I count so I know what they dish out.

You should have a read of this forum then. It happens. A lot. That's why the disputes and prosecutions area exists!

I think you'll find it's the law.

I think the point that jax4154 is making is that no-one ever receives the maximum penalty nor has he seen anyone sent to prison for a railway ticketing offence.

That is also my experience in 15 years in the Magistrate's Court.

Fines are always calculated on income, and for most offences, the maximum fine is academic. Prison would only come into play after all non-custodial disposals had been tried. You would be more likely to end up in prison for non-payment of fines than as a sentencing option.