Threatened with prosecution

[Fawkes Cat]

So, the OP is aware of cautions, MG11s, TIRs, the RoRA (with a correct lower case "o") and doughnutting

This isn’t quite fair. I’m pretty sure the first mention of doughnutting (by that title) was in my post 7, and the OP tells us they have done a fair amount of reading up on this forum. As I understand it, we are meant to assume honesty on the part of the poster in that unlikely events do happen.

So it’s possible that the OP did have dreadful problems with buying the right ticket and getting off at the right station on the day, and if so they are entitled to explain this to the railway in the hope that the railway will be sympathetic and overlook the (undoubted) breach of the law in doughnutting. And I think it’s legitimate for us to comment on the OP’s strategy of going straight for looking for courtroom loopholes. But to do that we don’t have to doubt their honesty.

 

[England]

I am impressed by the OP's knowledge of railway industry acronyms and railway slang.

Their first post ...
He didn't give me a caution or an mg11 or a TIR. Can this information that I gave be used to prosecute me under RoRA?

... and ...
I don’t think the rpi cared about the railcard he just wanted to see if I was doughnut if that’s what’s it’s called

So, the OP is aware of cautions, MG11s, TIRs, the RoRA (with a correct lower case "o") and doughnutting. All this despite the Disputes section of the Fares & Ticketing Guide not being accessible at the moment (it asks me for an admin login).

Now I'm not the quickest off the mark, but .....

I was browsing this forum for almost a week before posting to find out what to do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2020 ==

What strikes me here is the level of info provided in post 1 - most of which needs to be extracted on other threads like this. Post #57 is the salient one here for my outside observations - what does the OP really want here?
Feels like a bit of a phishing trip to my unseasoned eye but if I'm wrong I really look forward to where this goes.

All I want to find out was that the evidence he took from me such as my account number and sort code that I gave, thinking that I had to answer all his questions and I didn’t know that I had a right to silence. All I want to ask can this evidence that he obtained from me warrant a prosecution under RoRA

 

[island]

It can.

 

[6Gman]

I was browsing this forum for almost a week before posting to find out what to do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2020 ==


All I want to find out was that the evidence he took from me such as my account number and sort code that I gave, thinking that I had to answer all his questions and I didn’t know that I had a right to silence. All I want to ask can this evidence that he obtained from me warrant a prosecution under RoRA

Do you actually mean "warrant" or do you mean "would it be admissible" in any prosecution?

I have no idea what access the TOC would have to past transactions tied to that account. But if, as you suggest in your opening post, this was a one-off arising from a particular set of circumstances on that specific date any past record of buying tickets from A to D would surely strengthen your position?

On the other hand if there's a record of tickets from A to B, and from C to D, being bought on the same day it could suggest something darker.

If you're suggesting that the bank details were improperly obtained that is another matter which might, or might not, make any evidence inadmissible. But the implication from your first post is that you handed the card over.

 

[30907]

All I want to find out was that the evidence he took from me such as my account number and sort code that I gave, thinking that I had to answer all his questions and I didn’t know that I had a right to silence. All I want to ask can this evidence that he obtained from me warrant a prosecution under RoRA

1. I am not sure what you mean by a right to silence - IIRC this applies in the context of a formal police (etc) interview.
2. You could, I suppose, have refused to provide your bank details. However, I can't see that the operator can gain any useful information from them other than confirming your identity. They already, presumably, have access to your app-based transaction history.
3. As others have said, on the basis of the tickets you held and the journey you made, the operator has sufficient evidence for a prosecution under the Byelaws or RoRA.

 

[eoff]

Evidence of what? All it proves is you have a bank account - or did on that day, you can close your bank account tomorrow if you want.

I doubt bank details have any relevance in court or of any interest to anyone (at this stage). I doubt they can use your bank details to just take money from you without your permission, or probably without a court permitting it. He might have used it to see if the name matched the name you gave (maybe), and potentially they may be able to see what tickets you buy with that bank account in the past from their records of ticket sales via on line or ticket machines etc. That is evidence they could use in court I would expect.

This would be my assumption. Any revenue inspection staff will want to verify the identity of a suspect, having details of a bank card that has been used to pay for e-tickets is pretty useful when they are trying to verify information given to them. If they are not satisfied then they will just call over the transport police who have the power to compel you to give details if they suspect you of a crime.

 

[HSP 2]

Not really but I was making regular journeys Guildford paying the full fares for months on end

Out of interest I would like to know what stations A - B were and what C - D were and why the OP did not when he realised that he did not have a ticket from B - C he did not buy one on his phone before departing the train.
Also as you were on your way to work (please see post 1) how did you get station D wrong?

 

[scrapy]

The fact you haven't been cautioned or told you do not have to say anything is not really a big deal. It may be that the person you spoke to was not PACE trained in which case they would not be able to interview you under caution.

The person you spoke to would not be the one prosecuting ( that's the train operator should they decide the witness has provided sufficient evidence) they would be a mearly a witness who has noted down their version of events which they have every right to do. Should the TOC decide to prosecute they will likely call that person as a witness (you or your legal representative also have the right to do this, and cross examine them). It's up to the court to decide on the reliability of the witness.

Any statements such as MG11s used in prosecution would also be made available to you in advance.

Regarding your bank card, I would suggest contacting your bank for a replacement should you have concerns. I don't know if they can take the full long card number but I believe they can take some details including account number and sort code if the card was shown to them. Even if details that shouldn't have been taken, were it wouldn't affect the validity of any prosecution.

 

[England]

to update everyone they have reached back to me and asked me to pay £90 Admin cost+ a £5.80 fare

 

[MotCO]

to update everyone they have reached back to me and asked me to pay £90 Admin cost+ a £5.80 fare

Thanks for letting us know - it is always good to know the outcomes so we can help advise others in the future.

 

[WesternLancer]

to update everyone they have reached back to me and asked me to pay £90 Admin cost+ a £5.80 fare

Thanks for update. I would suggest that is a good outcome for you and would recommend prompt payment to close the issue.