Prosecuted but no contact

[-Colly405-]

Hi,

My step-daughter has applied for a DBS for a new job, which has returned showing a conviction on 7/10/2020 at Gloucester Magistrates Court for 'Travelling on Railway without paying fare' on 11/3/2020. A fine is showing of £427 including compensation, victim surcharge and costs.

She is adamant that this is not her, and I believe her.

The details given on her DBS certificate for the person prosecuted have the:
- same first name, surname, gender, year of birth and month of birth
- different date of birth in the month, and no middle name (which she always uses).

She has submitted a dispute from to the DBS in line with their procedures. The DBS response is as follows:
The police say your certificate was correct. They believe the information should stay on there. We are not able to uphold your dispute.
with the DBS then quoting the Police...
I can confirm the PNC entry in relation to the nominal and offence details are correct in accordance with source information provided to us by Great Western Railway. If the subject seeks to Dispute the conviction then this must be taken up with the prosecutor Great Western Railway.

However, she has received no previous contact about this from GWR or the Police.

She has now today emailed GWRProsecutions@gwr.com (in line with their published Revenue Protection and Prosecutions Policy) and received an automated reply saying they will respond within 3-4 weeks.

Can she do anything else to speed this up, as she has a job offer riding on this, and it has already been going on for a good few weeks.

Or is there any other approach she can take?

Thanks in anticipation.

 

[mittyb2]

What type of check was carried out? If it’s a Basic check, this offence should only show if a compensation order is showing as unpaid, if it’s paid off the offence should be removed.

I would suggest that she contacts Gloucester Magistrates Court and asks for further information. If this is genuinely the first thing she knows of the case, then she will be able to make a statutory declaration to the court which resets all proceedings and the conviction, but another hearing will take place, and she may be found guilty again. She needs to think back at the time, did she give any details to anyone regarding any irregularity in a train journey etc, even if she didn’t necessarily get told she would be prosecuted.

I stress this last point because if she was aware of the case being summoned to court previously, it’s a criminal offence to make the statutory declaration and will cause more trouble. But contacting the court for further information seems to be the best/quickest option currently.

 

[Gloster]

If it is possible, find out what address was given. It could be a genuine case which she has forgotten about and, due to her moving address, the correspondence failed to follow her and the matter proceeded in her absence. Alternatively, somebody else gave her name and address when stopped, possibly knowing that she had recently or would soon move. (Please note that I am not one of this forum’s experts.)

 

[-Colly405-]

What type of check was carried out? If it’s a Basic check, this offence should only show if a compensation order is showing as unpaid, if it’s paid off the offence should be removed.

I would suggest that she contacts Gloucester Magistrates Court and asks for further information. If this is genuinely the first thing she knows of the case, then she will be able to make a statutory declaration to the court which resets all proceedings and the conviction, but another hearing will take place, and she may be found guilty again. She needs to think back at the time, did she give any details to anyone regarding any irregularity in a train journey etc, even if she didn’t necessarily get told she would be prosecuted.

I stress this last point because if she was aware of the case being summoned to court previously, it’s a criminal offence to make the statutory declaration and will cause more trouble. But contacting the court for further information seems to be the best/quickest option currently.

Thanks - it was an Enhanced check.
I've passed on to her re contactign the court and the statutory declaration

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 May 2022 ==

If it is possible, find out what address was given. It could be a genuine case which she has forgotten about and, due to her moving address, the correspondence failed to follow her and the matter proceeded in her absence. Alternatively, somebody else gave her name and address when stopped, possibly knowing that she had recently or would soon move. (Please note that I am not one of this forum’s experts.)

Thanks - she's not moved since 2017/8 so I don't think that would be the case.
And she is adamant that it isn't/wasn't her...

 

[Ediswan]

Is it possible that the prosecution was of another person with genuinely very simillar details, but has been attached to the wrong person in the database used for DBS checks ?

 

[-Colly405-]

Is it possible that the prosecution was of another person with genuinely very simillar details, but has been attached to the wrong person in the database used for DBS checks ?

Could well be. Although it's not too common a name!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it possible that the prosecution was of another person with genuinely very simillar details, but has been attached to the wrong person in the database used for DBS checks ?

You do get that. A friend (genuinely, not me!) has a very common name and someone with the same name and date of birth committed what I believe is a very serious offence. He is a Scout leader and thus is DBSed every 5 years, and I believe every time has to go and be fingerprinted to prove that that other person isn't him.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi,

My step-daughter has applied for a DBS for a new job, which has returned showing a conviction on 7/10/2020 at Gloucester Magistrates Court for 'Travelling on Railway without paying fare' on 11/3/2020. A fine is showing of £427 including compensation, victim surcharge and costs.

She is adamant that this is not her, and I believe her.

The details given on her DBS certificate for the person prosecuted have the:
- same first name, surname, gender, year of birth and month of birth
- different date of birth in the month, and no middle name (which she always uses).

She has submitted a dispute from to the DBS in line with their procedures. The DBS response is as follows:
The police say your certificate was correct. They believe the information should stay on there. We are not able to uphold your dispute.
with the DBS then quoting the Police...
I can confirm the PNC entry in relation to the nominal and offence details are correct in accordance with source information provided to us by Great Western Railway. If the subject seeks to Dispute the conviction then this must be taken up with the prosecutor Great Western Railway.

However, she has received no previous contact about this from GWR or the Police.

She has now today emailed GWRProsecutions@gwr.com (in line with their published Revenue Protection and Prosecutions Policy) and received an automated reply saying they will respond within 3-4 weeks.

Can she do anything else to speed this up, as she has a job offer riding on this, and it has already been going on for a good few weeks.

Or is there any other approach she can take?

Thanks in anticipation.

I've no great expertise on this but a couple of thoughts:
presumably important to check if the fine you mention was ever paid (as if not presumably sooner or later someone will come looking for your step daughter for the c£427 ). If the fine was paid then maybe that is a clue to the person who did not pay a fare being known to be someone else, and it is the DBS database records that are erroneous.

EDIT - I would guess the Statutory Declaration route as detailed in the helpful posts below would make the issue of the fine previously levied by the court not relevant.

 

[gray1404]

It is important that she contact Gloucester Magistrates Court as a matter of urgency to fill out a Statutory Declaration confirming that she had no knowledge of the proceedings being taken against her. This can also be done by a Solicitor but there will be a charge for the latter. There is a time limit however of 21 days from when she first became aware of the conviction against her in which to fill out the Statutory Declaration so this must be done as a matter of urgency. This has the effect of restarting everything so it wipes away the conviction and GWR will have to bring their case before the court again. In that time she will be able to contact them and advise them and the Court that she was not the person who committed the offence. Hopefully they will accept this and then withdraw the case.

 

[some bloke]

Hi Colly - info on statutory declarations, and the form, are here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-declaration-of-ignorance-of-proceedings


Solicitor

Instead of making an appointment at court, your stepdaughter can call a solicitor's office, say she would like to make the declaration in front of (witnessed by) a solicitor, do that, and deliver it to court. She can ask on the phone how much they would charge - perhaps something like £5 or £10 - and avoid the risk that anyone thinks she's wanting to pay for help. It's been said that there can be a risk, by doing it at court, that the magistrates can start trying to deal with the case.


Delay

Magistrates have no choice but to void the conviction if the declaration is made/delivered properly within the 21 days. If it's after 21 days since your stepdaughter found out about the conviction, then as the form says, she needs to include an explanation for the delay. It sounds like she probably has a reasonable explanation - it may be worth spending some time getting it right including the timeline (people on here can help if you post a draft).


DBS and GWR

It seems she may have an unusually good excuse for delay if DBS [edit: and/or the police] misled her, though of course it's best to be diplomatic and simply mention what they wrote [edit: should read "quoted from the police"]. Part of her explanation may include their response [which included the answer from the police]:
"If the subject seeks to Dispute the conviction then this must be taken up with the prosecutor Great Western Railway."
If they haven't said anything else about disputing the conviction, it's misleading, and surprising in view of what they [and the police] might be expected to know about the deadline. If misleading her may have had a role in causing the delay, she can quote it to the court while making sure not to put any undue emphasis on it.


Single justice procedure notice?

She may need to ask the court whether the case began with a single justice procedure notice, so that she can respond to it with a not-guilty plea if necessary with the declaration.


Getting relevant details of the alleged offence

She can ask the court for details of the alleged offence if she doesn't already have them, so that she can make her case to GWR.


What can GWR do?

She can try to phone GWR's prosecution department, by asking customer services for a phone number, explaining the (urgent?) need to set aside a conviction based on error. She could let GWR know that she is making the declaration so they are prepared for the news that the conviction is void. It's reasonable for them to wait till the conviction is void before they do much investigation. However, perhaps it's worth telling GWR that the job is riding on it, in the hope that they will look into it and then drop the case swiftly. She can get help from members here on what to say, and perhaps GWR will co-operate.

If there's a delay in getting the conviction set aside maybe GWR could be persuaded to write a letter saying that they will drop it if that happens, in case that's useful for the prospective employer.

If GWR don't write back soon saying they will drop the case if the conviction is set aside, it might be worth paying a solicitor to put her case to them, if that's worth it for the sake of making things easier about the new job.

 

[John Palmer]

Your step-daughter needs to take immediate action to deal with this. This is because any statutory declaration to the effect that she had no notice of being prosecuted needs to reach the relevant court (Gloucester Magistrates Court) within 21 days of the date on which she discovered that she had been convicted. Although it's possible for that 21-day time limit to be extended, any such extension is at the discretion of the court and may be refused. Better to get the declaration to the court before the 21 day time limit expires.

The necessary form of statutory declaration can be obtained from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-declaration-of-ignorance-of-proceedings. To complete it, your step-daughter will need to get the case number from Gloucester Magistrates Court. She can complete paragraph 2 of the declaration by inserting 7th October 2020 – the date of conviction. In paragraph 3 she will need to insert the date on which she first received a communication from the DBS informing her of the conviction, and she will need to complete paragraph 3 by explaining that it was on that date that she first became aware of the conviction as a result of receiving that communication from the DBS – she can choose the exact wording of her explanation according to the circumstances of her case.

When contacting the court office your step-daughter should establish whether the proceedings against her were commenced by the prosecutor laying an information under Section 1 Magistrates Court Act 1980, or under the Single Justice Procedure. If the former, the tickbox near the top of the declaration for Section 14 is the one to tick. If the latter then she should instead tick the box for Section 16E.

If she needs to tick the Section 16E tickbox because the Single Justice Procedure was used to start the case then she will need to notify the court of her intended plea to the charge at the same time as she sends to it her completed staturtrory declaration. On the basis that she is quite clear that she is not guilty of the offence for which she has been convicted, I suggest that she send a short notification on the following lines:

“To the Clerk to the Gloucester Justices
“Case Reference XXXXX
“In accordance with Section 16E(3)(d) Magistrates Courts Act 1980, I, (step-daughter's name), hereby give notice that I intend to plead not guilty to the offence of 'Travelling on Railway without paying fare' of which I am informed I was convicted on 7th October 2020.
“Signed (step-daughter's signature)”

So far as I can see no form is prescribed for giving the court such a notification, so a notice in the suggested form should suffice to meet the requirements of Section 16E(3)(d) Magistrates Courts Act 1980, which states that proceedings subsequent to a single justice procedure notice are void providing certain procedural requirements are met. Foremost in these is the filing with the court of the statutory declaration, but in addition, where the Single Justice Procedure is used, a notification of intended plea along the lines suggested is necessary to ensure that the original conviction is duly set aside.

As described by others, before sending it to the court your step-daughter will need to make a formal declaration of the truth of the contents of her statutory declaration before a qualified person, which includes a solicitor/commissioner for oaths, who will make a charge of a few pounds for completing the document with an attestation that it has been made in the proper form.

Slightly confusingly, it appears that the Cheltenham Magistrates are the Gloucester Magistrates (though the paperwork should still refer to 'Gloucester Magistrates' if that is the name of the court that recorded the conviction). Further details can be found at https://www.thelawpages.com/magistr...er-Magistrates-Court-See.-Cheltenham-208.html.

 

[Snow1964]

If there is a job offer pending, was it the new employer who ran the DBS check. It is worth pointing out to them that it appears they have been sent a certificate for someone with same name and a different date of birth.

They will be paying for the check, so really need to be receiving a certificate for the person they are intending to employ. I am assuming this is a case of mistaken identity, not someone who has actually committed an offence but trying to hide it.

As for GWR they should have a named data controller, and if the organisation have misused data and informed an outside body wrongly, then they have a duty to fix the error, and they should expedite a correction to all those who have used their data. So I suggest you sent info about same name, wrong date of birth to them and ask for what they hold by return (not in a few weeks time when they get around to it). Hopefully someone here can supply details of GWRs data controller.

Whilst the Data Controller will not be directly responsible, they will almost certainly have a back door into GWR prosecutions to get it looked at as soon as possible, because if there is a problem (mixed up identity etc) they need to be know quickly if they need to start sorting an error

 

[30907]

If there is a job offer pending, was it the new employer who ran the DBS check. It is worth pointing out to them that it appears they have been sent a certificate for someone with same name and a different date of birth.

They will be paying for the check, so really need to be receiving a certificate for the person they are intending to employ.

She should also, as a matter of urgency, tell her future employer her version of the story, and explain that she is in the process of contesting the conviction.

Depending on the nature of the employment, the conviction itself may not be a bar, but the discrepancy between the DBS and her own self-declaration or job application (in which she will presumably have denied having such a conviction) may be. It may also arouse their suspicions more widely.

 

[jupiter]

Haven’t the DBS service just sent a DBS for a different person?

 

[Snow1964]

Haven’t the DBS service just sent a DBS for a different person?

Possibly if two people have same name and approx date of birth

Similarly a Court could have made same mistake, especially if they were attempting to trace someone, and found someone with similar details.

The travel date (about one week before lockdown in March 2020) wasn’t the most reliable period for administration in many businesses

 

[island]

Your step-daughter needs to take immediate action to deal with this. This is because any statutory declaration to the effect that she had no notice of being prosecuted needs to reach the relevant court (Gloucester Magistrates Court) within 21 days of the date on which she discovered that she had been convicted. Although it's possible for that 21-day time limit to be extended, any such extension is at the discretion of the court and may be refused. Better to get the declaration to the court before the 21 day time limit expires.

The necessary form of statutory declaration can be obtained from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-declaration-of-ignorance-of-proceedings. To complete it, your step-daughter will need to get the case number from Gloucester Magistrates Court. She can complete paragraph 2 of the declaration by inserting 7th October 2020 – the date of conviction. In paragraph 3 she will need to insert the date on which she first received a communication from the DBS informing her of the conviction, and she will need to complete paragraph 3 by explaining that it was on that date that she first became aware of the conviction as a result of receiving that communication from the DBS – she can choose the exact wording of her explanation according to the circumstances of her case.

When contacting the court office your step-daughter should establish whether the proceedings against her were commenced by the prosecutor laying an information under Section 1 Magistrates Court Act 1980, or under the Single Justice Procedure. If the former, the tickbox near the top of the declaration for Section 14 is the one to tick. If the latter then she should instead tick the box for Section 16E.

If she needs to tick the Section 16E tickbox because the Single Justice Procedure was used to start the case then she will need to notify the court of her intended plea to the charge at the same time as she sends to it her completed staturtrory declaration. On the basis that she is quite clear that she is not guilty of the offence for which she has been convicted, I suggest that she send a short notification on the following lines:

“To the Clerk to the Gloucester Justices
“Case Reference XXXXX
“In accordance with Section 16E(3)(d) Magistrates Courts Act 1980, I, (step-daughter's name), hereby give notice that I intend to plead not guilty to the offence of 'Travelling on Railway without paying fare' of which I am informed I was convicted on 7th October 2020.
“Signed (step-daughter's signature)”

So far as I can see no form is prescribed for giving the court such a notification, so a notice in the suggested form should suffice to meet the requirements of Section 16E(3)(d) Magistrates Courts Act 1980, which states that proceedings subsequent to a single justice procedure notice are void providing certain procedural requirements are met. Foremost in these is the filing with the court of the statutory declaration, but in addition, where the Single Justice Procedure is used, a notification of intended plea along the lines suggested is necessary to ensure that the original conviction is duly set aside.

As described by others, before sending it to the court your step-daughter will need to make a formal declaration of the truth of the contents of her statutory declaration before a qualified person, which includes a solicitor/commissioner for oaths, who will make a charge of a few pounds for completing the document with an attestation that it has been made in the proper form.

Slightly confusingly, it appears that the Cheltenham Magistrates are the Gloucester Magistrates (though the paperwork should still refer to 'Gloucester Magistrates' if that is the name of the court that recorded the conviction). Further details can be found at https://www.thelawpages.com/magistr...er-Magistrates-Court-See.-Cheltenham-208.html.

Surely if the person prosecuted has a different date of birth that means it was not the OP's step daughter who was convicted, in which case a statutory declaration is irrelevant and she actually needs the DBS to fix their data?

 

[some bloke]

The declaration form says,

"I do solemnly and sincerely declare that:
1. I am the defendant named above."

If she isn't sure of that, she needs to engage in further discussions with the court staff.

Where appropriate, if a discussion is verbal, she could email saying "I understand from our discussions that ...please confirm that this is the case."

The "How to use this form" section says "You can ask for help at any magistrates’ court office".

 

[island]

Having read through everything I think all the advice about statutory declarations is premature or even irrelevant.

A statutory declaration is made if the person wishes to confirm that they are the person who was convicted in their absence. As some bloke says, completing it acknowledges that "I am the defendant named above".

If the OP's step daughter is not the person in question and plans to claim that the DBS entry relates to a different person, this would not be the correct route to follow.

Also, I note that the OP says...

it has already been going on for a good few weeks.

so it may well be out of time for a statutory declaration anyway.

 

[6Gman]

Could well be. Although it's not too common a name!

My name is uncommon (certainly outside North Wales). It didn't stop the Crewe Job Centre asking me about my army service. I have never been in the army, but somebody with a sufficiently similar name (and date of birth) clearly had!

I think the route to clear this up is indeed via the prosecutor, the court involved and - perhaps, in light of the preceding post - the statutory declaration route.

 

[-Colly405-]

Thank you everyone for your responses. There's a lot to digest, so I'll have a good read tonight and work out possible next steps.

I'm sure I'll be back

 

[SussexMan]

It is worth pointing out to them that it appears they have been sent a certificate for someone with same name and a different date of birth.

If I remember correctly, the employer is not sent a copy of the certificate. They used to be but it was recognised that there are errors on the Police National Computer (and/or whatever other databases are used) and to inform an employer about a conviction which is not linked to the DBS applicant cause issues, i.e. withdrawn job offers and data protection issues. Instead, employers are told either that the DBS is clear or to ask the applicant to provide a copy of the one they have received.

 

[-Colly405-]

I've had a read and is does seem as though the Statutoryt Declaration may not be appropriate as she cannot solemnly declare that she is the defendant named above, as the defendant's date of birth being different to her own by 12 days means that would become obvious, and of course, she isn't the defendent because, well, she categorically says she didn't do it, and I do believe her (not least as she finds it very difficult to lie with her ADHD!!!).

Additionally, she is outside the 21 days, but part of that delay is because the DBS received her dispute form, said they'd sent it to the police for comment, but hadn't until she chased them a week later.

The DBS is definitely hers - it has all her (real) details on it (including first name, middle name, surname, address and DOB). In a lower section it then lists the conviction, including the different DOB.

As an (important) aside, she has kept her prospective employer in the loop throughout, and they had kept her vacancy open until this was resolved. She contacted them this afternoon with today's news; they invited her in for a risk assessment and she starts in role on Monday.

Any thoughts on possible next steps welcome, considering it is now not urgent from an employment perspective, but still clearly needs sorting.
- Should she go straight to their data controller as Snow1964 suggests?
- Or just wait for GWR's prosecution team to reply to her email?
- Or try to get the Prosecution department's phone number from custome rservice, as suggested by Some Bloke?

 

[NorthWestRover]

If you go for option 1 (Snow1964's suggestion), go to gwr.com and the Privacy Policy link tells you your rights (Section 11) and who to contact (Section 13). They'll only give the personal data held to your stepdaughter (possibly to you if she gives written authority to deal with you) and they will only correct it (rectification in the jargon) at her request.

EDIT: I've just noticed you've said she will do it so all good

 

[Nottingham59]

I can confirm the PNC entry in relation to the nominal and offence details are correct in accordance with source information provided to us by Great Western Railway.

Is it possible that the prosecution was of another person with genuinely very simillar details, but has been attached to the wrong person in the database used for DBS checks ?

The DBS is definitely hers - it has all her (real) details on it (including first name, middle name, surname, address and DOB). In a lower section it then lists the conviction, including the different DOB.

If the convicted person had a different date of birth, then it was not your step-daughter.

I would suggest contacting the Magistrates Court and getting all public (and any other) information you can about the case on 7/10/20. Was the fine paid? Can they confirm the date of birth of the person convicted? What address did they have for this person? (They may not tell you, but might confirm that it was not your step-daughter's address. or give you at least the county or the town.) Did this person attend, or were they convicted in their absence? What other information can they tell you? Is there any information at all about the case which could link this person to your step-daughter other than the same first and last name?

Also, do a search on Facebook etc. and see how many other people on FB in the UK have the same first and last name as your step-daugther. How many people of that name appear on the electoral rolls? (Unless she was 16 or less in 2020.) 192.com would be a good place to start for this information.

HTH

 

[Jason12]

If the convicted person had a different date of birth, then it was not your step-daughter.

That is not how the police see it.

To be fair to them, it would be a pretty poor safeguarding process which allowed a simple transcription error of 1 or 2 digits to fail to make a genuine match against a conviction in the PNC. They have already looked into it and despite the mismatch of part of the DOB, because the rest of the data matches and there is nothing else to show that the subject of this thread is not the person convicted, the DBS Certificate stands.

Ordinarily, with people investigated by the police, prosecuted by the CPS and convicted, the person's identity will have been confirmed by investigation and fingerprints and DNA taken. This can provide anyone whose identity is mistaken for someone with a conviction a means to provide incontrovertible proof that they are not the convict.

 

[Nottingham59]

because the rest of the data matches

As far as I can see, the only data that matches is the first name and the last name. Is there any other data point that matches between these two people?

 

[WesternLancer]

I've had a read and is does seem as though the Statutoryt Declaration may not be appropriate as she cannot solemnly declare that she is the defendant named above, as the defendant's date of birth being different to her own by 12 days means that would become obvious, and of course, she isn't the defendent because, well, she categorically says she didn't do it, and I do believe her (not least as she finds it very difficult to lie with her ADHD!!!).

Additionally, she is outside the 21 days, but part of that delay is because the DBS received her dispute form, said they'd sent it to the police for comment, but hadn't until she chased them a week later.

The DBS is definitely hers - it has all her (real) details on it (including first name, middle name, surname, address and DOB). In a lower section it then lists the conviction, including the different DOB.

As an (important) aside, she has kept her prospective employer in the loop throughout, and they had kept her vacancy open until this was resolved. She contacted them this afternoon with today's news; they invited her in for a risk assessment and she starts in role on Monday.

Any thoughts on possible next steps welcome, considering it is now not urgent from an employment perspective, but still clearly needs sorting.
- Should she go straight to their data controller as Snow1964 suggests?
- Or just wait for GWR's prosecution team to reply to her email?
- Or try to get the Prosecution department's phone number from custome rservice, as suggested by Some Bloke?

One thing to try to get from GWR (if they have retained it) would be details of the case from their records - I think they keep info of people stopped for fare evasion and check their details with ID if they have it on them, and / or take a description of the person stopped. Now they won't share that info with you - but presumably if your step daughter sent her pic / details to GWR prosecutions they might be persuaded to check if the details / image match the records they have for that case or not. If they don't then that is info relevant to the advice in post #24 about what info the court has or will share (court cases, inc fare evasion cases, are often reported in the local press, so the info about people convicted can not be totally confidential).

 

[Jason12]

As far as I can see, the only data that matches is the first name and the last name. Is there any other data point that matches between these two people?

Year and month of birth.

Although it is a fair point to say this is not much data at all. And can we even be sure that any of the data attached to the conviction belongs to another real person? It was presumably given to GWR, but what lengths did they go to confirm it belonged to the person they apprehended?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ordinarily, with people investigated by the police, prosecuted by the CPS and convicted, the person's identity will have been confirmed by investigation and fingerprints and DNA taken. This can provide anyone whose identity is mistaken for someone with a conviction a means to provide incontrovertible proof that they are not the convict.

As noted above I know someone in exactly that position. Every time he's DBSed for Scouting he gets re-fingerprinted to prove the criminal wasn't him.

It's interesting that private prosecutions don't have this burden of proof. One of the many reasons they are a bad thing.

 

[Jason12]

It's interesting that private prosecutions don't have this burden of proof.

There is a burden of proof. It's one element of the case against the defendant - that they are the person who committed the offence. It's not so much that it's a private prosecution, but the fact that when a defendant doesn't show up, the prosecution's claim to their identity - the details that eventually find their way onto the PNC - goes through, on the nod.