Revenue staff and the BTP

[RJ]

I read the case studies on this site every now and again.

The latest was an interesting read. I had an episode not so long ago where a Southeastern employee at Stratford International made an uneducated guess that my ticket wasn't valid and decided her revenue protection colleagues weren't worth calling, instead calling the BTP and making a completely false accusation relating to my ticket. She instructed them to pursue the matter.

The first case - what do you make of the statement about revenue staff and the BTP?

BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE ( INSTRUCTED BY FIRST CAPITAL CONNECT ) and KILBRIDE.

June/ July 2014

A most interesting instruction, whereupon a female professional, who it was alleged falsified carnet tickets, be it they were not validated with the day of travel, but only the month and year, was alleged as being in possession of articles for use in Fraud.!!!! This Inspector, without the knowledge of the prosecution department reported the allegation directly to British Transport Police. The police informed that should the client not attend an invitation to attend a police interview an arrest may follow. This matter being dealt with by the fraud Squad.

Mr Edel was instructed. The Professional client was in deep anxiety.

Mr Edel attended the date set by Police for interview, but insisted on full disclosure before hand, and provided detailed legal argument as to the series of breaches of PACE by this inspector, the behaviour exhibited, and acting beyond his authority at best. The client suffice it to say was not interviewed.

RESULT:

First Capital Connect were apologetic and after enquiries did the right thing and withdrew the matter, and British Transport Police dismissed the allegation, and realised the predicament that they were unwittingly placed in by this Revenue Inspector.

As a direct result of this case, Revenue Inspectors no longer have the authority to instruct British Transport Police, and measures have been put in place to ensure such actions do not occur again.

 

[TheEdge]

Well, no doubt you already have you opinions but...

In that situation the BTP are the right people to call. If it is something "simple", refusal to pay, wrong ticket or something then an RPI or revenue is the right way to proceed.

If there is a belief there is a fraudulent activity going on (false carnet, modified warrant, fake details) then the BTP are the right way.

 

[EM2]

They need a decent proofreader...

 

[the sniper]

Rail staff reports suspected criminal activity to BTP, BTP investigate. Happens all the time. You can't really take much from that poorly written piece as there's so little detail. I imagine the main point here is the conduct of the RPI regarding PACE and attitude rather than the RPI reporting suspected criminal activity to BTP.

 

[Tibbs]

I's imagine that FCC were furious as it deprived them an oppotunity for a nice big 'out of court' settlement...

 

[Tetchytyke]

They need a decent proofreader...

That's pretty much what I was thinking. A promotional case study that's fundamentally illiterate isn't quite what I'd expect from my lawyers.

 

[cuccir]

Post deleted - posted in wrong thread!

 

[Wolfie]

Well, no doubt you already have you opinions but...

In that situation the BTP are the right people to call. If it is something "simple", refusal to pay, wrong ticket or something then an RPI or revenue is the right way to proceed.

If there is a belief there is a fraudulent activity going on (false carnet, modified warrant, fake details) then the BTP are the right way.

Fine no worries (even though it was apparently contrary to company policy!) just as long as FCC pick up ALL of the solicitors bills arising from the false allegation. I'm sure a court claim for those costs, with FCC having to disclose the failure of their agent to abide by their policy, would go well for the company...

I am also surprised that BTP did not, in the circumstances pursue a charge of wasting police time against the FCC employee.

Oh, and if there is even the slightest hint that the employee did this because the individual failed the "attitude" test so beloved of some on here a claim for exemplary damages against FCC also... if that ultimately leads to the dismissal of the FCC employee then all the better!

It is about time that certain railway industry employees realised that ALL of the laws of the land apply in their case also.

 

[Flamingo]

In the vast majority of cases on that site, there was an out-of-court settlement negotiated, which, let's face it, is what happens with the majority of fare evaders who appear on these pages. The others seem to have got off over poor preparation by the prosecution, which is meat and drink to any decent Defence solicitor.

In the case that is highlighted, it sounds like BTP couldn't be bothered with the hassle of going to court, and I would seriously doubt that FCC (or any TOC) has instructed it's staff not to call BTP if they think it's appropriate.

I'd be interested to see what Dave has to say about the site in general.

 

[6Gman]

I read the case studies on this site every now and again.

The latest was an interesting read. I had an episode not so long ago where a Southeastern employee at Stratford International made an uneducated guess that my ticket wasn't valid and decided her revenue protection colleagues weren't worth calling, instead calling the BTP and making a completely false accusation relating to my ticket. She instructed them to pursue the matter.

The first case - what do you make of the statement about revenue staff and the BTP?

What point are they trying to make by the repeated use of "professional"? That some passengers merit better treatment/ greater respect than others?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What a poorly written article, and one that has no substance to it anyway. Anyone is entitled to report what they perceive to be crime to the police, who then decide whether or not to investigate.

I wouldn't want a solicitor who didn't seem to have any more than a basic grasp of English.

 

[Jonny]

What point are they trying to make by the repeated use of "professional"? That some passengers merit better treatment/ greater respect than others?

That they have more to lose?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'd be interested to see what Dave has to say about the site in general.

It is a rather depressing bit of promotional 'puff' by the firm. Depressing because it's all boast but with little fact and very poorly written. And as is usual from law firms it is utterly unbalanced (i.e. there's no indication of how many cases they contest on behalf of a client and 'loose') and even some of these alleged 'successes' look like quite costly losses to me.

I read it with much the same amount of credibility as I would read the testimonials for washing powder.

I guess we can assume that some of these serial evaders have been properly detected by rail staff and deserve little assistance from that firm or indeed from anyone else, but as we've noted on here often enough, when someone has done wrong, there is still always the opportunity for a seasoned Criminal Defence to introduce the protocols of various mitigating circumstances, in an attempt to reduce the penalty for their client. The same protocol for fare evaders as it is for petty theft, drunkeness, and vilolence.

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks for the legal view!

As ever Dave, you have nailed it!

(Time to lock the thread...)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What point are they trying to make by the repeated use of "professional"? That some passengers merit better treatment/ greater respect than others?

Remember that such websites are to be viewed as commercial advertising. The word 'professional' can be decoded as 'money' and in several contexts.

Firstly, its use here will let employed people know that their local criminal defence law firm isn't exclusively interested in representing the unwaged who are arrested at night for a variety of offences, and conduct conferences with drunks in Police cells; it will remind the (alleged) fare evader that this firm will be equally happy to charge a three figure sum per hour to represent an employed person.

Secondly, if that employed person is anxious about the consequences of a conviction for a scam that they have been perpetrating for some time, then the word 'professional' will be an effective hook in attracting clients with the means to pay.

Whilst the figure of Justice holding the scales above the Old Bailey may be blindfolded, we would hope that the receptionist at a Criminal Defence Law Firm has their eyes wide open.

. . . (Time to lock the thread...)

I'm finished here too! Thanks. (though the forum staff seem less keen to lock threads).

[I acknowledge and indeed welcome the different interpretations which my learned 'professionals', whether connected to the firm referred to, or practicing law elsewhere, may wish to express. My critique of the 'advertising' 'puff' on the website refered to impunes no criticism of any person nor their professional ability, conduct or probity, but only the impression gleaned from its words as they appear to me today. Indeed I admire greatly the tenacity, ability and endurance of all and any Criminal Defence practitioner.]

 

[RJ]

What point are they trying to make by the repeated use of "professional"? That some passengers merit better treatment/ greater respect than others?

I wouldn't have thought so - I suspect it's nothing more sinister than promoting the career saving element of his work. Given a lot of people don't even turn up to court to defend themselves in fare evasion cases, I'd say it presses the right buttons for the panicked types who need their help.

 

[Deerfold]

Whilst the figure of Justice holding the scales above the Old Bailey may be blindfolded, we would hope that the receptionist at a Criminal Defence Law Firm has their eyes wide open.

That's a common myth.

http://www.speel.me.uk/gppic/iconiclondonsculpt/oldbaileyjustice2.jpg

There are other statues of Justice which are blindfolded.

Seems even you are not infallible

 

[TheEdge]

That's a common myth.

http://www.speel.me.uk/gppic/iconiclondonsculpt/oldbaileyjustice2.jpg

There are other statues of Justice which are blindfolded.

Seems even you are not infallible

Well, on matter of law you have got one on DaveNewcastle and have therefore broken the universe.

I hope your happy now...

 

[Flamingo]

[I acknowledge and indeed welcome the different interpretations which my learned 'professionals', whether connected to the firm referred to, or practicing law elsewhere, may wish to express. My critique of the 'advertising' 'puff' on the website refered to impunes no criticism of any person nor their professional ability, conduct or probity, but only the impression gleaned from its words as they appear to me today. Indeed I admire greatly the tenacity, ability and endurance of all and any Criminal Defence practitioner.]

Good disclaimer - but you forgot to add " May contain nuts"!