Please find below the allegations of false statements being made which were contained in my letter. It is obvious - to me anyway, that once the inconsistencies were pointed out it would have been wrong to proceed without getting them corrected. Otherwise the witnesses would have had to explain them in court. Which may have been something thought best avoided. Each would either have to stand by their statements or not - either way it seems to me that would have been at the very least problematical. Direct questions would have to answered, and that may have caused dilemmas. The attendance of the witness acting as administrator may have presented more difficulty than that of the RPO, as they wouldn't, I would have thought, usually go to court. Basically the truth was at odds with the statements and going to court with false information, particularly after being shown evidence that it was false, isn't really on.
Edit: Thought I included in the letter a rebuttal that no response or mitigation had been made. In any event that's another untruth which would have to be corrected.
'The witness X has in her Statement of Witness stated that I "signed the notice". This is untrue. The notice referred to was not signed by me, which fact is clearly evidenced on the notice where X wrote in the space for 'Passenger's signature' the words, 'X refused to sign'. Therefore X has knowingly made a false statement and so is liable for prosecution. She has committed the offence of perjury, which carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment upon conviction. She has also committed the offence of perverting the course of justice, which carries further and seperate penalties.
The witness Y has also provided false statements in her Statement of Witness wherein she says that "I submit in evidence a copy of the notice...showing the fare avoided". The "fare avoided" is stated in the Statement of Facts as being £3.40, whereas the amount on the notice submitted by X is stated as being £20. No mention of the sum of £3.40 is mentioned on the notice and therefore for her to say that the notice showed the "fare avoided" is untruthful. Y has made a statement which she knew to be false and so has also committed perjury and is therefore liable to prosecution for this offence. Her statement that an outstanding fare was avoided is also untruthful and is a further offence in itself.
In light of the above information it should be noted that further repetion of or reliance on these false statements will exacerbate the offences already committed and likely result in a higher sentence should the offenders be found guilty of perjury or perverting the course of justice or any other offences arising from deliberately and knowingly making false statements.
In addition to the false statement of X referred to above she has made other statements which she also knows to be untrue, each of which is a seperate offence and are as follows:
She states that she asked my name and address and that I verbally reponded with these details. This is untrue as it did not happen and I can provide evidence to show it to be a false statement.
She states that she isued a notice to me, which is also a false statement, as no notice or complete copy of a notice has ever been issued to me and I have evidence to support this fact.
She states that I "checked the details were correct", which is yet another false statement from X. I did not check any details as I was never shown any details and in any event would not have agreed the correctness of them, as can be shown from the evidence which I will, if necessary, provide to the court.
She states that "I gave Mr Z a copy of the notice", which is untrue. I have never, as stated above, received a copy of the notice in question, and therefore X has again made a false statement.'
. But its dying to get out