Letter from SWT Prosecution Department

[glinda14]

Hi All

Looking for some advice / guidance please.

Yesterday I received a letter from SWT Prosecution Department to attend an interview at Richmond Station next month under caution in accordance to the police and criminal evidence act 1984 in relation to use of my weekly rail ticket back in June.

Bit of background.

I have ben travelling from Shepperton to Wimbledon every week day. I had always paid the correct ticket. Sometimes daily ticket sometimes weekly or monthly depending on cash flow. My partner gave birth to twins, at this point money became an issue so I was looking at trying to save pennies. I stumbled on the fact that Hampton which is only 2 stops and 7 mins from Shepperton on average was around £20 per week cheaper than travelling from Shepperton.£80 per month is a hell of a difference when you have two extra mouths to feed!! Shepperton did not and does still not have barriers. So when money was particularly tight I decided to purchase a weekly ticket from Hampton to Wimbledon. As money was getting tighter and tighter this became more frequent and I was never challenged on the train or at Shepperton. There was a couple of times when the revenue team turned up en mase at Shepperton and I would either just buy a single from Shepperton to Hampton or on some occasions just show them my weekly and they don’t even read the properly and just let me through.

I knew this was wrong but it just became the normal thing to do , buy a weekly ticket every week.

So on to the day in question.

I was traveling from Shepperton to Wimbledon as previously mentioned, there are no ticket barriers at Shepperton so I boarded the train as normal. Just as the train departed the station a revenue protection office came through the carriage asking to see tickets. I opened my railcard which she looked at quickly then moved on slightly. She then back tracked and asked to look again more closely. At this point she noticed that the ticket was for travel between Wimbledon and Hampton. She asked what station I joined the train. As we had only just departed Shepperton ( this is the start of the line) I could hardly say anything other than Shepperton. She asked why did I not have ticket for travel between Shepperton and Hampton. I said I normally start my journey at Hampton and just forgot to pay for the difference. She was just about to let me pay for the difference when her college came through asked what was going on. Once explained he took over and started asking for ID and personal details, The lady officer said to him are you sure you want to do this and he just carried on and started to call someone to get ID verification. Once verification had been established he said I was now under caution and would now write down in his black book questions and my responses. He asked me to clarify thing like where did I get on today, where I was going. Did I have a ticket for the correct journey etc etc. The final question he asked and before he asked this he reminded me that I was under caution was “how long have you been traveling on this journey with this ticket type”. As for some reason I still had all my tickets up to November last year in my ticket wallet which he was holding I said “about a year”. He then re read all the questions and answers and made me sign his book, gave me a card with his badge number , advised that I may be contacted by the revenue team in the future and let me carry on with my journey.

Since that day I have now stopped buying tickets from Hampton and have purchased weekly and monthly tickets from Shepperton.

I deeply regret my actions, I have never been in any trouble in the past. The last 3 months have been hell for my family and myself waiting to see if the SWT were going to pursue this matter.

Now the letter has arrived I need some advice on how I should proceed with this interview. Do I just come clean? Do you think SWT have a history of my previous tickets? Do I need a Solicitor ? Can I offer to pay back the difference and or fine and costs at the interview or am I destined to end up in court.

As I have mention I have a young family and the thought of ending up in court and possibly prison is scary.

Many Thanks

 

[455driver]

You can carry on lying and end up with some serious fraud convictions to your name, or you can come clean and probably end up with one much smaller conviction.
The choice is yours.

What you have have done is fraud, pure and simple, the fact that you have another mouth to feed is irrelevant to paying for your fare, if you cant afford the train then catch the bus.
This will come across as rather blunt but it is all factual and wishy washing you wont help you at all.

 

[Merseysider]

SWT will likely ask for the difference between what you've paid and what you should have paid, for the period you've admitted travelling, as a minimum.

Honesty may well pay off in this case and there is a possibility you'll avoid going to jail, by means of an out of court settlement with the company. However, if we knew what else exactly (besides the police interview) was contained in the letter that would be helpful.

Are you sorry for your actions, or sorry that you've been caught?

 

[455driver]

Buying the correct tickets since being caught wont have any effect on their actions.

Oh there is virtually zero chance of you going to prison so I wouldnt worry about that.
Likely outcomes are (worst to best)-
1/ you are done under the RoRA which will mean you will be fined and have a criminal record (if found guilty, which you are).
2/ you are done under the railway bylaws which will mean you will be fined and not have a criminal record (if found guilty, which you are).
3/ they offer you an out of court settlement (for about £a lot) which means you wont even go to Court.
4/ they drop the action and that is the end of it.

My money is on number 2/ with a slim chance of number 3/ if you say all the right things in your letter, either way it will be expensive so I would start saving now.

Edit-
It isnt a letter it is an interview.

 

[glinda14]

SWT will likely ask for the difference between what you've paid and what you should have paid, for the period you've admitted travelling, as a minimum.

Honesty may well pay off in this case and there is a possibility you'll avoid going to jail, by means of an out of court settlement with the company. However, if we knew what else exactly (besides the police interview) was contained in the letter that would be helpful.

Are you sorry for your actions, or sorry that you've been caught?

Buying the correct tickets since being caught wont have any effect on their actions.

Oh there is virtually zero chance of you going to prison so I wouldnt worry about that.
Likely outcomes are (worst to best)-
1/ you are done under the RoRA which will mean you will be fined and have a criminal record (if found guilty, which you are).
2/ you are done under the railway bylaws which will mean you will be fined and not have a criminal record (if found guilty, which you are).
3/ they offer you an out of court settlement (for about £a lot) which means you wont even go to Court.
4/ they drop the action and that is the end of it.

My money is on number 2/ with a slim chance of number 3/ if you say all the right things in your letter, either way it will be expensive so I would start saving now.

Thanks for your replies.The letter states that they have arranged a interview to gather all the facts before coming to a decision and any future prosecution via a magistrates Court.

The interview will be recorded and under caution. I will have to read and sign the notes at the end. I may bring a legal rep or family /friend if I wish.

If I fail to respond or attend the interview, this matter will proceed to court for formal proceedings.

I have to contact them to confirm if I am going to attend.

Should I write to them before hand apologies and offer to settle or should I just attend the interview , see how it goes and then perhaps try and settle?

Should I take a lawyer with me , I don't really have the cash for one though?

Sorry for all the questions , so much is going through my mind right now

Thanks

 

[455driver]

The interview is basically the same as them writing to you asking you for your version of events but it means they will be able to get the full facts quicker.

They basically think you have been committing fraud for a number of years (which would be right) and want to get your full explanation as to the reasons why.
Okay it isnt done in many cases (just the serious ones) but isnt anything sinister as long as you are truthful.

You can take somebody with you if you wish but unless there is something you are not telling us I wouldnt bother with a solicitor, the choice is yours though.

It is in your own best interest to be honest (and genuinely apologetic etc) because they are probably looking at a RoRa prosecution and SWT prosecutions have a very good success rate so keeping this out of Court is in your best interest.
If you have any recent tickets from Shepperton (or anything else to show you in a good light re paying) then take that with you. You will get uncomfortable in there and the questioning will be intense but it will be your only chance to stay out of Court so you must remain calm and truthful.

This wont go away and it needs to be sorted to the satisfaction of both sides, the main thing for you is to avoid a criminal record (it is going to cost a fair bit of cash either way) and the two best things for them is 1/ that you have learned your lesson and 2/ to maximise their revenue whether that will be an out of Court settlement (guaranteed cash) or a conviction in Court where they may be awarded damages. There is a risk if they go to Court that they will only be awarded the costs of bringing the case to Court and they will then be out of pocket compared to the out of Court settlement.

If you give the impression that you dont give a sh+t then they wont care about the money side of it and will go straight to Court.

 

[Flamingo]

I would bring a solicitor for anything that is under caution. Always. Regardless.

 

[glinda14]

The interview is basically the same as them writing to you asking you for your version of events but it means they will be able to get the full facts quicker.

They basically think you have been committing fraud for a number of years (which would be right) and want to get your full explanation as to the reasons why.
Okay it isnt done in many cases (just the serious ones) but isnt anything sinister as long as you are truthful.

You can take somebody with you if you wish but unless there is something you are not telling us I wouldnt bother with a solicitor, the choice is yours though.

It is in your own best interest to be honest (and genuinely apologetic etc) because they are probably looking at a RoRa prosecution and SWT prosecutions have a very good success rate so keeping this out of Court is in your best interest.
If you have any recent tickets from Shepperton (or anything else to show you in a good light re paying) then take that with you. You will get uncomfortable in there and the questioning will be intense but it will be your only chance to stay out of Court so you must remain calm and truthful.

This wont go away and it needs to be sorted to the satisfaction of both sides, the main thing for you is to avoid a criminal record (it is going to cost a fair bit of cash either way) and the two best things for them is 1/ that you have learned your lesson and 2/ to maximise their revenue whether that will be an out of Court settlement (guaranteed cash) or a conviction in Court where they may be awarded damages. There is a risk if they go to Court that they will only be awarded the costs of bringing the case to Court and they will then be out of pocket compared to the out of Court settlement.

If you give the impression that you dont give a sh+t then they wont care about the money side of it and will go straight to Court.

Thanks. I do regret this and will cooperate fully with SWT and will be honest with them.

I do have tickets from the last 3 months showing from shepperton so will take them with me.

I also still have some of the other tickets that show from hampton . should I take these ?

Do you know who attends the interview is it just SWT staff or is there police involved aswell?

If they don't take this to court and agree a settlement do you have to pay it in one lump some or can you agree a payment plan so to speak ?

Thanks again

 

[island]

Get a solicitor.

Interviews are normally done with only Train company staff.

A payment plan may be agreed for the settlement but don't count on it or treat it as an entitlement.

 

[Greenback]

I agree with island and Flamingo. A solicitor would be a good idea.

 

[LateThanNever]

There's a touching faith in the legal profession on here!
May I suggest if taking (and paying) a solicitor you choose very, very carefully. The good ones are in a distinct minority in my experience. And few of them will have experience of your unusual interview, under caution from staff whose company have a pecuniary interest in the outcome - but no Police.
Consult the CAB who will give you additional advice. Personally I'd also take time to look at Halsbury's Laws of England (available at major libraries) and gain as much specific legal knowledge as you can - whether or not you employ a solicitor. If you don't, definitely bring a friend!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As 455driver, flamingo and island have advised, you would be assisted by a solicitor who is experienced in Criminal Defence work. They will be familiar with the procedures of an interview under caution and how to apply the appropriate degree of pressure on the prosecution's evidence.

Ii don't agree that you will benefit from studying law beforehand, though it will explain the procedure a little if you wanted to read about the pre-trial duties and responsibilities of solicitors on both sides in a criminal investigation. But the solicitor will be happy to explain all this if you ask.
I also can't agree that the Company will be satisfied with the repayment of the accumulated unpaid fares, though they will definitely calculate this as the damages element of a settlement.

 

[LateThanNever]

As 455driver, flamingo and island have advised, you would be assisted by a solicitor who is experienced in Criminal Defence work. They will be familiar with the procedures of an interview under caution and how to apply the appropriate degree of pressure on the prosecution's evidence.

Ii don't agree that you will benefit from studying law beforehand, though it will explain the procedure a little if you wanted to read about the pre-trial duties and responsibilities of solicitors on both sides in a criminal investigation. But the solicitor will be happy to explain all this if you ask.
I also can't agree that the Company will be satisfied with the repayment of the accumulated unpaid fares, though they will definitely calculate this as the damages element of a settlement.

If ignorance is no defence, then we are all presumed to have knowledge of the law beforehand - so studying it should of course, only serve to refresh our forgetful natures.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I hesitate to respond to this post as it is not in accord with this forum's rules; these require my response to be relevant to the question asked.
However, in the hope that it might in some way benefit glinda14, I will comment on this:

If ignorance is no defence, then we are all presumed to have knowledge of the law beforehand -.

No. That is a non sequitor.

 

[glinda14]

I called the number on the letter to confirm my attendance. The gentleman I spoke to seem surprised that I called. Is it common for people not to attend these types of interviews?

I also asked do I need to bring anything else along with me. He said as I had stated that I had been traveling on this type of ticket for about a year, bring along any tickets to prove this. Is he trying doing this to prove that I have travelled falsely ? Surely its their job to provide evidence, I know I’m guilty and will openly admit that in the interview but surely its not for me to give it to them ?

Also he said it would be a good idea to have a sum in mind that I believe I owe SWT for the difference in fares. I said is this so a settlement can be agreed. He said that they wouldn’t settle on the day but pass any offer onto the prosecution manager to consider .

 

[LateThanNever]

If ignorance is no defence, then we are all presumed to have knowledge of the law beforehand No. That is a non sequitor.

Only a non sequitur if the law is some glorified system of entrapment - which in strict liability I suppose it often is.

I also asked do I need to bring anything else along with me. He said as I had stated that I had been traveling on this type of ticket for about a year, bring along any tickets to prove this. Is he trying doing this to prove that I have travelled falsely ? Surely its their job to provide evidence, I know I’m guilty and will openly admit that in the interview but surely its not for me to give it to them ?

Agree. As you have already admitted buying short I'd suggest it would be better (if possible) to bring along any tickets that prove that you paid the full distance fare - you don't want them to try to accuse you of buying short for a longer period. And you do not want to give them the physical evidence they currently lack. If they request it, you can then quite reasonably ask why as you've already admitted the offence and use the opportunity to say that you thought you'd come to reimburse their loss. Which it is to be hoped will sound simpler, quicker and more appealing to their management than dragging you through courts.

 

[island]

Only a non sequitur if the law is some glorified system of entrapment - which in strict liability I suppose it often is.

This paragraph suffers from the twin issues of being neither correct not relevant.

 

[LateThanNever]

This paragraph suffers from the twin issues of being neither correct not relevant.

Talking of Non Sequiturs, it may not be STRICTLY relevant as Dave Newcastle insinuates, but "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio" etc, so you've obviously never had a 'test purchase' - which is designed for entrapment, but 'justified' by strict liability - and because it is administered by the police it is rather better administered than railway law and less publicly opposed.