Stopped by a Transport Officer

[island]

"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.

The precise question would matter. If it were, for example, "would you have left the station without paying had I not spoken to you?" then a positive answer is very good evidence of intent to avoid the fare due.

 

[Ferret]

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?

Yes, that's correct. Just like PC Plod would do, so can a suitably trained Revenue Protection Inspector. And if you were being interviewed under caution, he'd have said so, and asked if you understood. I'm just surprised, because that question you were asked is almost always asked by an inspector during an interview under caution. But, even if you weren't cautioned, he is still entitled to ask that question, and can include it in a Travel Irregularity Report. Which is what I think has happened.

 

[AZZAT]

Yes, that's correct. Just like PC Plod would do, so can a suitably trained Revenue Protection Inspector. And if you were being interviewed under caution, he'd have said so, and asked if you understood. I'm just surprised, because that question you were asked is almost always asked by an inspector during an interview under caution. But, even if you weren't cautioned, he is still entitled to ask that question, and can include it in a Travel Irregularity Report. Which is what I think has happened.

Ok, thanks for that I just wanted clarification on this, that is all. I think we have now established that it is most likely that the train company are going to try to prosecute for intent to evade payment, looking at some older threads it seems that it has been recommended that an attempt at an out of court settlement straight away, I know this contradicts what DaveNewcastle said earlier but I just wanted to know what other people's thoughts are on this? I just want to see this whole (self-inflicted) mess sorted as soon as possible

 

[AZZAT]

Ok, Firstly thanks to the moderators for re-opening this thread.
Today i received the letter that I have been expecting from Northern Rail, basically it is similar to the other generic letters that others have been receiving over the past few weeks on here. (Therefore I shall not post it here)
I should also point out that over the past few months I have been keeping an eye on posts/threads on this forum as well.
I have now also drafted a response out.
I now have a number of questions that I hope some people will be able to help me with:
-Firstly, as it has taken a while for this letter to arrive would this have any bearing on the case against me? For example would northern used this time to gain more evidence against me. Or is it just that it has taken a while for them to process it?
-Would anybody here be willing to proof read my response? I do not wish to incriminate myself any more than I already have.
-In the letter there is no indication of how long I have to reply, what would be a suitable time frame (Although I am looking to do it as soon as possible)?
-Based on earlier responses from others I am now also considering legal advice, does anybody know if in this situation the CAB would be able to help?

Any help/assistance would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I now have a number of questions that I hope some people will be able to help me with:
-Firstly, as it has taken a while for this letter to arrive would this have any bearing on the case against me? For example would northern used this time to gain more evidence against me. Or is it just that it has taken a while for them to process it?
-Would anybody here be willing to proof read my response? I do not wish to incriminate myself any more than I already have.
-In the letter there is no indication of how long I have to reply, what would be a suitable time frame (Although I am looking to do it as soon as possible)?
-Based on earlier responses from others I am now also considering legal advice, does anybody know if in this situation the CAB would be able to help?

Any help/assistance would be greatly appreciated.

No, this delay probably indicates that the office is pretty busy and cases are normally dealt with in the order that they are received for action. The TOC has six months from the date the alleged offence was commissioned in which to put their allegation before a Court for issue of a Summons.

In reality, your reply should be as soon as practicable, but given your description of the incident and your recollection of what you said in answer to the inspector's questions, I suggest that you will be well advised to seek legal advice, especially if the TOC reject any offer / request that you might make in asking them if they are prepared to allow an administrative settlement

The CAB may offer general assistance in ensuring that you understand the situation, but it isn't their role to represent you at Court and in these cases they rarely offer much help in my experience unless there is evidence that the TOC or the inspector have acted wrongly in some way.

In my opinion, you would be better advised to seek a short initial consultation with a solicitor specialising in criminal law. Most will give sound advice for a small fee in a half hour visit.

 

[AZZAT]

Ok thanks for the response, whilst I wait for legal advice this is the draft that I have written of the statement, I have missed off the opening and closing paragraphs but in these I have just basically apologized for my mistake and the incident. Could somebody give me their opinion on this, at the moment I think it might be too long.


Any help that anybody can provide will be greatly appreciated.

 

[maniacmartin]

Some of your commas are actually where full stops should be. Also, it is hard to read as its a big wall of text in one big paragraph.

 

[142094]

Still contradicts what you said early when asked if you would have walked away from the station without buying a ticket. Remember all of this will have been written down and recorded at the time.

What you should be writing is that you would like to settle out of court for a sum agreeable to Northern, otherwise it could end up a lot worse.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Still contradicts what you said early when asked if you would have walked away from the station without buying a ticket. Remember all of this will have been written down and recorded at the time.

What you should be writing is that you would like to settle out of court for a sum agreeable to Northern, otherwise it could end up a lot worse.

Iirc the OP has already stated that he would have done this to reach the person selling tickets outside the door.

 

[142094]

It was at the end when he asked "If you had left the station you would not have paid?" I then stupidly said "Yes" to this and I think he made a note of this (I don't why I said this but I was panicking at this point a bit). He also made a note of everything else I said about not being able to get a ticket yet.

Seems quite clear cut to me.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Seems quite clear cut to me.

Well it depends on whether we want to believe what the OP states or not. He does say he said that but what he meant was what I said.

If we choose not to believe a poster then there is little point in any of this.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Well it depends on whether we want to believe what the OP states or not. He does say he said that but what he meant was what I said.

If we choose not to believe a poster then there is little point in any of this.

As in all of these threads, what we are being asked to believe is the story from one perspective only.

What is also absolutely clear is that there are always two sides to an argument. The TOC will probably see this from another viewpoint

I agree that we can only believe what we see, but we only see half a story. If that is sufficient for the reader then there is no difficulty in making up our mind as to what you believe happened

Where the problem lies is that if a case is not settled out of Court, posters rarely come back and tell us the outcome, so we can rarely be sure that we were right.

 

[AZZAT]

Still contradicts what you said early when asked if you would have walked away from the station without buying a ticket. Remember all of this will have been written down and recorded at the time.

What you should be writing is that you would like to settle out of court for a sum agreeable to Northern, otherwise it could end up a lot worse.

I have actually apologized and stated that I will be happy to pay administrative costs to northern in the first/last paragraph (not posted here).

So would it just be best in this case to just repeat what was said at the time? Its just that i do not wish to incriminate myself further by repeating any admissions.
Would it not also be better to explain that if I had reached the exit I would have returned and purchased before carrying on with my day. As I have already stated. (To explain the contradiction I gave at the time)

Also a final question regarding this, is having read elsewhere on the internet I have heard that if you have not signed against the points in the notebook then the statement can be considered inaccurate. Is this the case?
I ask this because in this case the officer did not give me a chance to sign against all the points in the notebook (only two out of four)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . having read elsewhere on the internet I have heard that if you have not signed against the points in the notebook then the statement can be considered inaccurate. Is this the case?
I ask this because in this case the officer did not give me a chance to sign against all the points in the notebook (only two out of four)

If you have not been asked to sign the notebook, then the statement will not be presented as your statement but as the statement of the person who wrote it (and who presumably has signed it).

It might be difficult for you to convince a Court that you did not mean something which was written in a Statement signed by yourself. It might also be difficult, but not as difficult, to persuade a Court that the Officer's statement was incorrect.
As for the Officer's Statement being "considered innacurate", that rather suggests that you expect to be taking the argument to a Court and having the Officer present to give Evidence in person so that a Solicitor can cross-examine them to challenge its "accuracy" (and that you will give Evidence in person and allow yourself the humiliation of cross-examination). That's an expensive way to do business.

 

[AZZAT]

Ok, thats probably not the best way to do things. I just wanted clarification of things I have read on other websites from people more in the know.
I have updated the draft letter based on peoples comments, here it is:



Again I have left off the first and last paragraphs, any feedback would be appreciated