Prosecution help

[Bobby1234]

I used work as a ticket inspectors. I left work continued traveling Using my works train pass, I got caught on the Train and the conductor took the pass off me, He made me buy a ticket but didn't take any of My details down, can they still prosecute me?

Even tho g4s has my personal details, it would be my word against theirs? Not received anything throu post yet, by law they have to take my details Down to prove it was me traveling?

How much would I get fined if I'm on JSA and no convictions
Can't be over £400? Only move serious offenders receive a criminal record ?

 

[jon0844]

Ha.. an ex-ticket inspector caught for ticket fraud!

Surely if the pass was taken, they can follow it up? And someone will surely ask you how they got hold of it? Will you risk further problems by saying you lost it or it was stolen?

And what if there's CCTV?

Seems to me they already have everything they need now.

 

[34D]

I think you'll just have to wait the 6 months (plus a few weeks for court paperwork) that they have to prosecute.

It does seem though that the guard has regarded it as the end of the matter.

 

[Bobby1234]

Cos they not take any details I can say I left my pass on train n ticket guy
Picked it up, I still have the ticket he sold me. I can deny all, they do need
To take details and write up a report?

 

[island]

I'm afraid you will just have to wait and see. G4S certainly still has your details and there is no requirement to "take your details down at the time". You may hear about it, or you may not.

Needless to say if they are taking it further then it is likely to be a matter of a fraud prosecution.

 

[Haywain]

If I hadn't read this before the OP edited it and removed anything that makes any sense, I might wonder what it is all about.

However, I think I read that the OP is a G4S employee who was caught misusing a G4S pass for travel, and the pass was confiscated. As such, I think that there is not much chance of prosecution, but there is a fairly strong chance of disciplinary action and the outcome of that could be much worse than a prosecution.

 

[talltim]

Is half this thread missing?

 

[swt_passenger]

If I hadn't read this before the OP edited it and removed anything that makes any sense, I might wonder what it is all about.

However, I think I read that the OP is a G4S employee who was caught misusing a G4S pass for travel...

A former G4S employee. So G4S don't have systems in place to recover passes people are no longer entitled to when they leave employment. Just what you'd expect from a security firm eh?

 

[Bobby1234]

Just making sure they can't prosecute

Anyways don't be fooled by the ticket guards at the barriers, they have no power they can't touch or detain you, hands off policy

If anyone's does get stopped without a ticket just smile and walk off, unless the Transport police are there

I was working at Leeds got sacked just didn't bother giving my pass back
G4s can't prosecute me, if the train company sold me a ticket that should be the end

g4s can not disclose my details anyway, if they wanted my details then they should have asked me at the time.

 

[yorkie]

They can prosecute you, though whether or not they can obtain your contact details through G4S I do not know.

As for the description matter, the guard may have written down a description once he got back to his cab. Also he would probably recognise you.

And if there's a photo on your pass, he would likely have been able to determine at the time if the photo on the pass was of the same person who was travelling.

If I hadn't read this before the OP edited it and removed anything that makes any sense,....

The post was edited to add additional info, but the original text got deleted, so I have restored it, along with retaining the additional info.

Anyways don't be fooled by the ticket guards at the barriers, they have no power they can't touch or detain you, hands off policy.

I think we already knew that, and I don't think any of the gateline assistants would say otherwise.

If anyone's does get stopped without a ticket just smile and walk off.....

....would not be a good idea!

 

[ainsworth74]

Is half this thread missing?

No there had been an edit to the opening post (which has been fixed) but the rest of the thread is as you see it.

 

[Haywain]

A former G4S employee. So G4S don't have systems in place to recover passes people are no longer entitled to when they leave employment. Just what you'd expect from a security firm eh?

Yep, that bit was definitely missing when I wrote my post!

 

[Bobby1234]

What would I receive if they prosecute

 

[yorkie]

What would I receive if they prosecute

Before that, a letter asking for your version of events (if they are able to determine your address, that is). Think very carefully before responding to it, and I would advise you consider taking legal advice.

It may be helpful for you to read RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide - Section 10 - Disputes, specifically Prosecutions.

Were you employed in a capacity where you had to check tickets? If so you may already be familiar with railway legislation?

It's not possible for us to state which legislation they could use against you, that may depend on their policies, what evidence they have, etc...

 

[Bobby1234]

Thanks for the advise
I may have been within timescale to appeal the dismissal
Therefore still a g4s employee there for not broke any law?

 

[Greenback]

As far as I am aware, once dismissed you cease to be an employee regardless of any appeal. If an appeal is made, and is successful, the former employee will be reinstated, and this will usually result in service being regarded as unbroken.

Simialrly, Employment Tribunals can order reinstatement where it has been ruled that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, but the claimant is not regarded as an employee by the tribunal during the hearing.

So, no, I don't believe you remain a G4S employee once dismissed.

 

[bb21]

Thanks for the advise
I may have been within timescale to appeal the dismissal
Therefore still a g4s employee there for not broke any law?

Have you appealed? If not, I can't see how you can possibly claim that you still regard yourself as a G4S employee.

Even if you were unfairly dismissed (for argument's sake) last time, if you are reported, you would almost certainly be dismissed this time for gross misconduct.

 

[34D]

As far as I am aware, once dismissed you cease to be an employee regardless of any appeal. If an appeal is made, and is successful, the former employee will be reinstated, and this will usually result in service being regarded as unbroken.

Simialrly, Employment Tribunals can order reinstatement where it has been ruled that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, but the claimant is not regarded as an employee by the tribunal during the hearing.

So, no, I don't believe you remain a G4S employee once dismissed.

This is my understanding of employment law too

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I may have been within timescale to appeal the dismissal
Therefore still a g4s employee . . . .

There appears to be a contradiction here.
A person dismissed from an employment is no longer an employee at that employment. That's what 'dismissal' means.
The contract has terminated - the worker is released from their obligations (such as attending at a place of work and fulfilling obligations ranging from wearing uniforms to accepting responsibility for corporate commitments, etc.) and the employer is released from their obligations, (such as paying a salary, providing welfare, managing pension funds, insuring risks, etc.).

What has an appeal against dismissal got to do with those obligations?
How can it reinstate a terminated contract?
And more to the point, how can it reinstate the obligations on one party but not the other?

 

[Fare-Cop]

This reminds me of a remarkably similar case that I learned of in a midlands Court last year

The reporting inspector retained the duty travel pass that had been issued to a former contractor to a TOC and who, after his dismissal had continued using it for several months until detected. Complete name and address details were not recorded by the inspector at the time.

The TOC prosecution office asked the contractor data controller to provide the relevant details citing S29 DPA, but initially they were unhelpful.

It was suggested that the matter might be passed to Police to consider whether there was a case to examine whether there was evidence of aiding & abetting an offender.

( I suppose that contractors might always have to consider how their actions and those of their employees might affect their contractual obligations as a supplier of a service to the TOC and their future in that capacity.)

The upshot was that the offending traveller was identified, summonsed & prosecuted and now has a criminal conviction and had to pay a very substantial financial penalty to remind him of his actions.

 

[34D]

This reminds me of a remarkably similar case that I learned of in a midlands Court last year

The reporting inspector retained the duty travel pass that had been issued to a former contractor to a TOC and who, after his dismissal had continued using it for several months until detected. Complete name and address details were not recorded by the inspector at the time.

The TOC prosecution office asked the contractor data controller to provide the relevant details citing S29 DPA, but initially they were unhelpful.

It was suggested that the matter might be passed to Police to consider whether there was a case to examine whether there was evidence of aiding & abetting an offender.

( I suppose that contractors might always have to consider how their actions and those of their employees might affect their contractual obligations as a supplier of a service to the TOC and their future in that capacity.)

The upshot was that the offending traveller was identified, summonsed & prosecuted and now has a criminal conviction and had to pay a very substantial financial penalty to remind him of his actions.

Which sounds like a violation of the DPA to me.

If you are saying that a private company could obtain my name and address from my employer purely by suggesting that I may have committed a crime that they want to undertake a private prosecution for, and by hinting at a case against the employer if they refuse, then that is very wrong indeed

 

[maniacmartin]

Section 29(3)(a) of the DPA states that data that is disclosed for "the apprehension or prosecution of offenders" is exempt from protection

 

[Deerfold]

Section 29(3)(a) of the DPA states that data that is disclosed for "the apprehension or prosecution of offenders" is exempt from protection

Indeed. However my previous employer (a bank) insisted on this only being provided to police with a warrant for the information to ensure that this really was what the information was required for.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Indeed. However my previous employer (a bank) insisted on this only being provided to police with a warrant for the information to ensure that this really was what the information was required for.

That was your employers', i.e; that particular banks' decision. Not binding on any other party.

Sorry to say, I don't think we can consider the banks practices as a particularly good example of always upholding legal niceties.

Provided that the data controller receiving the S.29 request is satisfied that the information is properly requested and is requested in relation to the apprehension or prosecution of an offender by an authorised person, it is their call.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I was in need of something to make me smile.
And then along came Fare-Cop to my assistance !

I don't think we can consider the banks practices as a particularly good example of always upholding legal niceties.

When we have to compare the ethics of some of our banks, our security groups, (and other sector of your choice such as media, telecoms, utilities, pub cos, supermarkets), then I struggle to choose 'banks' as the paradigm of good practice.

Thank you!

 

[Deerfold]

I was in need of something to make me smile.
And then along came Fare-Cop to my assistance !

When we have to compare the ethics of some of our banks, our security groups, (and other sector of your choice such as media, telecoms, utilities, pub cos, supermarkets), then I struggle to choose 'banks' as the paradigm of good practice.

Thank you!

I'm not upholding their ethics, but they were quite good at ensuring they weren't going to be prosecuted for anything such as releasing information they shouldn't.

I'm sure that if referred upwards there may have been other people the information could have been relased to, but it was amazing how many calls we got asking for information wrt a prosecution but with no evidence that that was what it was for.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I'm not upholding their ethics, but they were quite good at ensuring they weren't going to be prosecuted for anything such as releasing information they shouldn't.

I'm sure that if referred upwards there may have been other people the information could have been relased to, but it was amazing how many calls we got asking for information wrt a prosecution but with no evidence that that was what it was for.

What 'evidence' would they expect.

If a properly made out request is received, that request does not need to give details of the alleged offence, that is confidential to the alleged offender, his or her legal advisor and the prosecutor until such time as it reaches Court.

The data controller merely needs to be satisfied that the request is properly made by an authorised person who is investigating a crime. That formal declaration is made in the request and is signed as a true statement at that time.

It cannot be done by a simple telephone call.

 

[Deerfold]

It cannot be done by a simple telephone call.

You'd be surprised how many times it is attempted - with calls reaching people who have access to the information - including requests from the police for whom it would be far quicker than going through the correct channels.

 

[Fare-Cop]

You'd be surprised how many times it is attempted - with calls reaching people who have access to the information - including requests from the police for whom it would be far quicker than going through the correct channels.

No, I'm not surprised at all, I often think that far too many try to cut too many corners in all walks of life these days.

However in the case I was referring to, which resulted in a good conviction, the correct procedure was followed and therefore there was no breach of DPA.