Stopped by a Transport Officer

[AZZAT]

As you can probably tell I am new here and have a big question. Basically earlier this week I was traveling from Moston Station to Manchester Victoria, as Moston is an unmanned station with no ticket machine or other means to by tickets I was unable to get a ticket before I got on the train.

I am not really familiar with the layout of Victoria station as I have hardly ever been there before and have never used these platforms so I did explain to the guy that I was looking for somewhere to pay just after he stopped me, as I had no intention of not paying. Once he had taken my details I then went straight back into the station and headed to the barriers as this guy had directed me, there I purchased a full ticket for the journey that I made. The total cost of the ticket was £2.10. I have never done anything like this before but now I am getting really worried about being taken to court and getting a criminal record, that will affect my future career (I am still at uni).
So far I have not heard anything from Northern Rail but I have already drafted my version of events whilst they were fresh in my memory.
Does anyone have any advice on this/ how to draft the letter? Should I try to plead with them to settle out of court straight away or wait? Because I really do not want this to go to court, since it has happened I have been worrying about it constantly. Apologies if I have wasted anybody's time as I know it is very early days at the moment.

Please Note I have read other threads, these are what caused me to become really nervous about this whole thing in the first place.

 

[MikeWh]

Can you clarify, did the RPI suggest (or even instruct) you go back and get a ticket? If he did then it would seem strange for them to take it any further because you have remedied the problem apart from the technical matter of not showing a ticket when first asked.

 

[AZZAT]

He didn't actually ask me to go and get a ticket, he just said that there were ticket barriers on the other side of the station, however after I got my ticket I did not go back to show him it, I just left via the nearest exit. After you buy a ticket you cannot get back through to where I was previously speaking to the guy without showing a valid outgoing ticket (from Victoria, I only had a ticket to Victoria after I purchased one)

 

[yorkie]

It was at the end when he asked "If you had left the station you would not have paid?" I then stupidly said "Yes" ...

Then that's pretty much a closed case....

...I did explain to the guy that I was looking for somewhere to pay just after he stopped me, as I had no intention of not paying.

... but this contradicts your answer above.

I recommend seeking legal advice.

 

[Urban Gateline]

Also the fact that you went to the "back" car park exit as a first choice sets alarm bells ringing in my view, it does make it seem like you showed intent to avoid the fare (as well as admitting it!) If you had wanted to buy a ticket for the Journey then surely you would have gone to the main exit where you could purchase a ticket

 

[yorkie]

Also the fact that you went to the "back" car park exit as a first choice sets alarm bells ringing in my view, it does make it seem like you showed intent to avoid the fare (as well as admitting it!) If you had wanted to buy a ticket for the Journey then surely you would have gone to the main exit where you could purchase a ticket

Is it a requirement to familiarise yourself with stations before a journey?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

However if the OP doesn't know the layout how was he meant to know? Ex-platform 5 at Man Vic, there are no signs for a booking office (or 'main exit' IIRC), and the car park is far and away the most obvious exit, and doesn't resemble a car park or secondary exit until you're inside it.

 

[AZZAT]

I did not know there was no ticket barriers there, after I got to the footbridge I just went towards the nearest exit, at the time I did not realize how serious it was so I did not push it any further. However when I was stopped I did try to make it clear that I was looking for somewhere to pay. As I said one transport officer approached me from behind before, just as I reached the doors at the end of the footbridge, handing me over to another colleague who took my details, this colleague was on the other side of the doors so probably did not see me approach. The car park exit is the nearest one to that platform, that is why I used it I did not walk away from the main exit.

 

[MikeWh]

He didn't actually ask me to go and get a ticket, he just said that there were ticket barriers on the other side of the station, however after I got my ticket I did not go back to show him it, I just left via the nearest exit. After you buy a ticket you cannot get back through to where I was previously speaking to the guy without showing a valid outgoing ticket (from Victoria, I only had a ticket to Victoria after I purchased one)

Well that's an interesting development. Presumably this ticket will have a time printed on it which will be just after the time noted by the inspector on his paperwork. I suggest you look after that ticket very carefully.

When you get the letter from Northern (which could be a few weeks hence) then you can use it as part of your defence. I would almost have expected the RPI to stop you going off to buy a ticket because once they've filled in their paperwork the matter is passed to their revenue department. In other cases I've heard about people have asked if they can buy a ticket and been told no, it's too late, or it's not necessary now.

 

[Urban Gateline]

Is it a requirement to familiarise yourself with stations before a journey?

I never once said that, however I'd expect most normal passengers look for the main exit or indeed ask where it is, most of the time it is obvious where the main exit is.

 

[MikeWh]

Is it a requirement to familiarise yourself with stations before a journey?

I hope not!

So my Australian uncle should familiarise himself with Victoria before landing at Gatwick and taking the train into London?

 

[AZZAT]

I think I have already said this but I shall repeat it, as I approached the doors I did see a guy checking tickets, but I assumed he was a Northern Rail employee (whom I could get a ticket from), but before I could get through the doors I was stopped by a guy who had been behind me (I did not know he was there checking tickets so I did not try to avoid him or anything like that). Also once I got to the top of the steps there were no staff around until I got stopped.

 

[yorkie]

I never once said that, however I'd expect most normal passengers look for the main exit or indeed ask where it is, most of the time it is obvious where the main exit is.

Is this a requirement, if so is the procedure documented anywhere as to how you go about looking, who you ask, etc?

 

[Urban Gateline]

Is this a requirement, if so is the procedure documented anywhere as to how you go about looking, who you ask, etc?

It's called logical thinking and using common sense, last documented in the "Bible"

 

[yorkie]

It's called logical thinking and using common sense, last documented in the "Bible"

To me, common sense says that there is no such requirement.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As I'm sure most of the regular contributors on here are fully aware, there isn't a reference in Law which concerns itself with the layout of each individal station in the UK; but there is the very frequently used reference to the case of Corbyn, in which he passed an opportunity to pay, and in which it wasn't necessary to demonstrate any long-term intention to avoid payment.
Just that one fleeting moment of passing by an opportunity to pay was tested in Corby and established as a sound basis for the detection of nearly all incidences of fare evasion in the UK since then.
It is enough to secure a Prosecution and is the test which is applied every week to alleged fare evaders across the UK.
That is the Law, as invoked by all UK Rail Operators.

 

[Ferret]

Further to that Dave, it sounds like the OP answered the killer question, I suspect *under caution* in the affirmative. Yes he wouldn't have paid for his journey if he hadn't been stopped. Evidence of intent to avoid the rail fare, and therefore a s.5 RoR Act prosecution with a criminal record would seem to be the likely outcome here.

 

[AZZAT]

Ferret, at no point did the rail officer state that I was under caution in fact he seemed quite relaxed about it only saying that he would give my details to Northern Rail and they would contact me to hear my side of the story, if I failed to respond to the correspondence it would then become a criminal matter. I understand that I am now to blame for putting myself in this mess, but I would rather pay a hefty fine than have it dragged through the courts

 

[maniacmartin]

Yes he wouldn't have paid for his journey if he hadn't been stopped

My reading of the OP's post was that he would have paid had he not been stopped, as he would then have been able to buy from the staff member at the doors who he was originally heading to to buy a ticket, but if he then was unable to buy a ticket from the other staff member at the doors, he would have exited the station without paying.

I'm not convinced that the OP admitting this is the same as admitting intent to avoid the fare, as he was heading to the first person he saw who he thought was able to issue a ticket. By the OP's account he had not passed any opportunity to pay, so I don't think DaveNewcastle's example is fully applies. Had the RPI stopped him after this point, at the exit of the station then I think the TOC would have a much stronger case.

 

[yorkie]

It sounds like AZZAT has contradicted himself, possibly misunderstanding the first question, I'm not sure.

...but I would rather pay a hefty fine than have it dragged through the courts

I think there's a misunderstanding here. A fine can only be imposed by a Court (either in the event of you pleading guilty or being found guilty).

If you want to pay some money to Northern to avoid the matter going to court, that is an Out of Court Settlement.

(You say you have read other threads - it sounds like you may not have read them in detail)

Northern may write to you asking for a written Statement. This could take some time. Then, depending on your response and the evidence they have gathered, they will make a decision on how to proceed.

It would be worth considering seeking legal advice if Northern ask you for a written Statement.

 

[Ferret]

My reading of the OP's post was that he would have paid had he not been stopped, as he would then have been able to buy from the staff member at the doors who he was originally heading to to buy a ticket, but if he then was unable to buy a ticket from the other staff member at the doors, he would have exited the station without paying.

I'm not convinced that the OP admitting this is the same as admitting intent to avoid the fare, as he was heading to the first person he saw who he thought was able to issue a ticket. By the OP's account he had not passed any opportunity to pay, so I don't think DaveNewcastle's example is fully applies. Had the RPI stopped him after this point, at the exit of the station then I think the TOC would have a much stronger case.

The reason the revenue inspector asks that question is so that he can demonstrate intent to avoid the fare. If the OP answered 'yes', then that could well be seen as evidence of intent to avoid the fare due by the Court. Interesting that the OP says that wasn't asked under caution though - I find that a tad surprising.

 

[maniacmartin]

"Had you left the station without buying a ticket, would you have paid?" is not equivalent in my mind to "Will you exit the station without trying to buy a ticket?". In the former, one could make all reasonable attempts to buy a ticket, then give up and leave, but in the latter it is clear that the intent is to leave without attempting to buy a ticket. A court's interpretation may of course be different.

 

[Ferret]

"Had you left the station without buying a ticket, would you have paid?" is not equivalent in my mind to "Will you exit the station without trying to buy a ticket?". In the former, one could make all reasonable attempts to buy a ticket, then give up and leave, but in the latter it is clear that the intent is to leave without attempting to buy a ticket. A court's interpretation may of course be different.

And it's theirs that counts, not ours! I'm not sure if the lack of interview under caution is relevant - perhaps Dave can advise here. I presume that the Inspector has submitted a TIR, and that mention of that question and the unfortunate response has been included in that report.

 

[AZZAT]

It sounds like AZZAT has contradicted himself, possibly misunderstanding the first question, I'm not sure.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. A fine can only be imposed by a Court (either in the event of you pleading guilty or being found guilty).

If you want to pay some money to Northern to avoid the matter going to court, that is an Out of Court Settlement.

(You say you have read other threads - it sounds like you may not have read them in detail)

Northern may write to you asking for a written Statement. This could take some time. Then, depending on your response and the evidence they have gathered, they will make a decision on how to proceed.

It would be worth considering seeking legal advice if Northern ask you for a written Statement.

Apologies for this I did mean an out of court settlement (A payment outside of court), I understand that Northern cannot impose a fine. It does seem that the best action I could take is to seek legal advice on this as I said before this is really worrying me so I think somebody in more the know might be able to help me further. Thank you for the advice/feedback you have all giving me (both good and bad), anymore advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[wintonian]

"Had you left the station without buying a ticket, would you have paid?" is not equivalent in my mind to "Will you exit the station without trying to buy a ticket?". In the former, one could make all reasonable attempts to buy a ticket, then give up and leave, but in the latter it is clear that the intent is to leave without attempting to buy a ticket. A court's interpretation may of course be different.

This is kind of why I believe there are times when 'the question' does not have a yes or no answer, and I wonder if any refusal to answer in yes or no terms might be seen a being obstructive by some RPI's?

 

[Ferret]

This is kind of why I believe there are times when 'the question' does not have a yes or no answer, and I wonder if any refusal to answer in yes or no terms might be seen a being obstructive by some RPI's?

Hypothetically speaking, in an interview under caution, you can respond how you like, but a record is made in the RPI's notebook. And of course, part of the caution is that it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, anything you later rely on in Court. You can answer how you like, but then further questions will follow to ascertain what your actions would have been, and whether your responses can therefore demonstrate to a Court that there was intent to avoid the fare.

 

[sheff1]

... I'd expect most normal passengers look for the main exit or indeed ask where it is, most of the time it is obvious where the main exit is.

'most' possibly, but certainly not at Platform 5 @ Victora, nor at Platforms 6/8 @ Sheffield, another rather large station. Many I time I have seen unsuspecting alighting passengers go up the steps at the Supertram exit and then look around in bafflement expecting to at a major exit. There are, of course, no facilities to purchase tickets on the Supertram side of the station.

 

[AZZAT]

Ferret, however I was never told I was under caution, surely they must make it clear that you are under caution and that anything you say could be used against you?
Also as I am expecting to have to write a witness statement to give me side of the story, would it not just be best (considering how I seem to have incriminated myself already) to ask them to settle outside of court (for a substantial amount), or would it be best to give my side of the story wait and see and then try to settle? (if it gets that far), I understand that this might be best asked to somebody from a legal body for advice.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

And it's theirs that counts, not ours! I'm not sure if the lack of interview under caution is relevant - perhaps Dave can advise here. I presume that the Inspector has submitted a TIR, and that mention of that question and the unfortunate response has been included in that report.

It would be easier to challenge Evidence (such as the 'unfortunate response') if it had not been gathered in the proscribed manner, a manner that is adopted not because it must be gathered that way, but because those procedures have withstood challenges in the past. However, these are challenges for expensive Counsel to argue in more serious matters, and not for the local prosecutor and defence to argue in front of the local Magistrates.

The point here is not the manner in which the admission was obtained, but that the passenger did not hold a ticket and the passenger was moving towards the exit.

It would be odd, in light of these 2 simple facts, to start disputing the admission now, particularly as a change of statement would attract more doubt as to the passenger's honesty and would increase costs on both sides.

Ferret, however I was never told I was under caution, surely they must make it clear that you are under caution and that anything you say could be used against you?
Also as I am expecting to have to write a witness statement to give me side of the story, would it not just be best (considering how I seem to have incriminated myself already) to ask them to settle outside of court . . . . .

I'll guess that an out of Court settlement is achievable in this matter if there is no prior record or incident. The time for making that offer will be after making a written response to a request for a Statement. I would not advise challenging the facts or the Prosecution Statements if they are, in fact, true, which is the understandng that I've drawn from here.

 

[AZZAT]

So it is best just to stick to what I said at the time? And just offer my apologies initially, and then see where it goes from there? Before trying to do anything else.