Under caution with a valid ticket

[DaveNewcastle]

I think the surprising comment was:

Of course you are under no obligation to provide the name of your employer, but it will often help both parties to do so.

I can just about understand that, if the point was truly relevant, one might want to ask one's employer to give evidence at trial.

I cannot see why an innocent passenger would ever want an RPI or prosecution team member calling up his HR department and asking questions saying they're under suspicion!

It's actually quite common for people who are being asked about their regular pattern of activity to reply, adding "you can check with my boss if you want", from which the two most likely replies are surely "that won't be neccesary, thanks" or "yes thanks, who is your employer?".

There are other situations in which it wouldn't be as undesirable as you make out - plenty employer-employee relations are very supportive!

. . . . Then concluded by saying his report would be sent off and they would call my work (I had to give my work and HR details) to verify how many days I work (I am part time) . . . .

Millster, you said that is how the discussion concluded. Much of the comment on here seems to be based on a vast uncertainty about what was said before that conclusion, and I apologise if much of it doesn't apply to your actual situation.

I tried simply to answer your question "is this possible?" by showing that it is possible, that it does happen, and some possible lines of thinking that would bring someone to asking that question.

If this is true then it could be that the OP was being mistreated in a way that could be described as bullying.

And there could be a range of other interpretations - it is odd that you have chosen to post just this one for Millster to consider. Very odd.

 

[30907]

I wonder what type of ticket the "out of date" one is and why it was purchased with an origin further out since equivalent fare types are not cheaper.

#9 the OP sometimes travels from Epping rather than Sawbridgeworth because of childcare issues.

#14 the Stansted ticket is Anytime Return rather than Anytime Day Return.

If the OP occasionally travels out one way and back the other, but does the reverse within a month, an Anytime Return and would save £6 compared with Anytime Singles for Sawbridgeworth - LST. And they might easily have an old ticket in their wallet.

Obviously on days the OP uses NR both ways they will buy the much cheaper ticket from Sawbridgeworth, and will have evidence of that.

 

[Hannes]

Hi Millster. Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but having been in a (sort of) similar position I'll let you know what I'd do.

First thing is take a picture of all the tickets you showed the inspector and download as much of your journey history as possible from your contactless, then email them to yourself to keep it safe. If you can't get your actual contactless history you should still be able to use bank statements to infer any journeys you took using that. If you have records of prior tickets or receipts make sure you hold on to those.

Secondly, you might want to give your employer a heads up. This depends on the company you work for and circumstances may vary, but you don't want them jumping to conclusions.

Lastly, relax. As long as you showed a valid ticket on the day and your contactless doesn't have a suspicious history you'll almost certainly be fine. If you get any further correspondence from them just pop back here and I'm sure the kind folks will help you out.

 

[Panda]

... and check my bank account to verify I use contact less payment to travel from Liverpool St to west end london. Is this possible?

Only possible if you provide the bank statements, but not entirely sure why they would want to do that as this isn't what's in question here?

 

[matt_world2004]

Bank statements only show Tfl.gov.UK/cp and a price doesn't actually show a journey history.

 

[En4orc3R]

An RPI will only 'caution' you IF there is a suspicion of Fare Evasion.

If you'd shown the valid ticket before the caution was issued, he overstepped his authority.

Even if the valid ticket was shown after the caution was issued, he is ONLY allowed to question you on the ticket irregularity.

Issuing a caution before questioning means that he is having due regard to PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) Act and the questions must be relevant.
PACE quote,
(a) Cautions - when a caution must be given (taken from Code C section 10)
3.1 A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence (see Note 2) must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect’s answers or silence, (i.e. failure or refusal to answer or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution. A person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes e.g.:
(a) solely to establish their identity or ownership of any vehicle;
(b) to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement;

3.2 Whenever a person not under arrest is initially cautioned, or reminded they are under caution, that person must at the same time be told they are not under arrest and are free to leave if they want to.
3.5 The caution, which must be given on arrest, should be in the following terms:
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”


Obviously I've missed some not relevant bits out but in essence, asking where you work and your HR department is nothing to do with the suspected offence and so asking those questions, IN MY OPINION, was purely an intimidating tactic and I'd make a complaint.

Were those questions written down in his note book?
Were you given an opportunity to read and sign the note book?
If any of the the answers are no, you have very good grounds to issue a letter of complaint to the Operating Company.

I'll await your reply for a more details explanation so clarification can be given if needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bank statements only show Tfl.gov.UK/cp and a price doesn't actually show a journey history.

With a CPC account, a full journey history, going back 12 months, can easily be obtained.

 

[BestWestern]

Does the RPI, or his office bound colleagues, actually have any power whatsoever to contact a person's employer and request information? I would imagine any such request to be met by non-cooperation from the employer until their employee had formally agreed to them releasing information. And as for checking bank accounts...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Does the RPI, or his office bound colleagues, actually have any power whatsoever to contact a person's employer and request information? . . . .

See R (Virgin Media Ltd) v Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52 which was a private prosecution in which the procedure was examined at length, In the course of the investigation by Virgin Media, their investigators supplied the intelligence they had obtained about the suspects to the Metropolitan Police who then issued search warrants, visited premises and examined bank accounts.

The MET provided assistance to the private prosecutor by using their confiscation investigation powers as accredited financial investigators to look into the defendant’s finances and into the financial benefit obtained by the defendant.

Remuneration was given to the Police by Virgin, in accord with the 1996 Police Act. The lawfulness of these procedures in a private prosecution were thoroughly examined in the course of that Appeal, and found to be proper. Railway investigators finding a cause to examine a person's financial details would be in an identical position.

 

[crehld]

See R (Virgin Media Ltd) v Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52 which was a private prosecution in which the procedure was examined at length, In the course of the investigation by Virgin Media, their investigators supplied the intelligence they had obtained about the suspects to the Metropolitan Police who then issued search warrants, visited premises and examined bank accounts.Remuneration was given to the Police by Virgin, in accord with the 1996 Police Act. The lawfulness of these procedures in a private prosecution were thoroughly examined in the course of that Appeal, and found to be proper. Railway investigators finding a cause to examine a person's financial details would be in an identical position.

So for the purpose of providing a clear and unambiguous answer to BestWestern's question, the RPI or their office colleagues would not have the authority, but may mobilize the support of the police who do have such authority?

 

[Wolfie]

Does the RPI, or his office bound colleagues, actually have any power whatsoever to contact a person's employer and request information? I would imagine any such request to be met by non-cooperation from the employer until their employee had formally agreed to them releasing information. And as for checking bank accounts...

If the employer met such a request from a TOC or RPI (the police are a rather different kettle of fish) without employee approval they would be breaching the Data Protection Act and could face a nice big fine from the Information Commissioner...

As for a bank.....

See R (Virgin Media Ltd) v Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52 which was a private prosecution in which the procedure was examined at length, In the course of the investigation by Virgin Media, their investigators supplied the intelligence they had obtained about the suspects to the Metropolitan Police who then issued search warrants, visited premises and examined bank accounts.Remuneration was given to the Police by Virgin, in accord with the 1996 Police Act. The lawfulness of these procedures in a private prosecution were thoroughly examined in the course of that Appeal, and found to be proper. Railway investigators finding a cause to examine a person's financial details would be in an identical position.

Interesting.... I woudl love to know how that reconciles with RIPA...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

.... I woudl love to know how that reconciles with RIPA...

This is not assisting Millster, but I'll help if I can. But I'm not clear where you've seen the conflict. Is it : in general with private prosecutions; with a prosecutor engaging police resources; with police accepting remuneration ; with the powers of a private prosecutor ; with the powers of a private investigator ; with the right to engage with 'the proceeds of crime' by a provate investigator ; or something else?

 

[island]

If the employer met such a request from a TOC or RPI (the police are a rather different kettle of fish) without employee approval they would be breaching the Data Protection Act and could face a nice big fine from the Information Commissioner...

I think you'll find section 29 of the DPA disagrees with you.

 

[leo22]

Firstly in Millster's scenario I would like to see them try. I also don't see where the Toc has gathered sufficient evidence to even interview millster, let alone contact their employers.

Secondly, the exemptions in the DPA protects the employer if they gave information for the prevention of crime but does not compel them to assist. It is very rare in law that anyone can be compelled to give information about anyone else. An employer cannot be compelled to give out information on its employees (except maybe to hmrc for tax) without a court order. The toc (nor even the police) cannot compel the employer to give such data. They can try and seek a search warrant or ask the police to do so if

A few years ago an assault was filmed on the Jeremy kyle show. The police had to obtain a court order to get that video.

I very much doubt HR would divulge anything off the back of a phone call. I very much doubt they would divulge that info even with a written request from a toc, even if they were told this was for detection of a crime. The toc would also have to be very careful in any communication with the employer in what they said they wanted this info for, so they don't open themselves for any legal action by the subject

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . It is very rare in law that anyone can be compelled to give information about anyone else. . . .

You might want to consider the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) refered to above, and, from its proposed amendments in respect of information held by digital service providers : "For the reasons stated by the Surveillance Court, we are persuaded that, under the surveillance laws, “dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information” may also be “content."

 

[leo22]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You might want to consider the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) refered to above, and, from its proposed amendments in respect of information held by digital service providers : "For the reasons stated by the Surveillance Court, we are persuaded that, under the surveillance laws, “dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information” may also be “content."

Hi Dave, could you explain what you mean. You have a quote from a US FISA court which was referenced in a 3rd circuit federal court and is now being interpreted as the FBI will need a warrant for web surveillance
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

See R (Virgin Media Ltd) v Zinga [2014] EWCA Crim 52 which was a private prosecution in which the procedure was examined at length, In the course of the investigation by Virgin Media, their investigators supplied the intelligence they had obtained about the suspects to the Metropolitan Police who then issued search warrants, visited premises and examined bank accounts.Remuneration was given to the Police by Virgin, in accord with the 1996 Police Act. The lawfulness of these procedures in a private prosecution were thoroughly examined in the course of that Appeal, and found to be proper. Railway investigators finding a cause to examine a person's financial details would be in an identical position.

Also re the Virgin case, having read it on ballii, the issues were over whether virgin could prosecute under poca in confiscation proceedings . Neither the case nor its attached cases seem to discuss powers of the private investigator and I am not clear on its relevance to Millsters situation. The case discusses virgins role as a private prosecutor not its powers to investigate.

Virgin requested assistance from the police, who then took it upon themselves to investigate and apply for search warrants from the court. They agreed with virgin that they would pass the case to virgin for prosecution rather than the cps.

"The Court of Appeal held that merely because private prosecutors will not be, and cannot employ, an appropriate officer under s 378(1), that does not mean they cannot participate as a prosecutor in confiscation proceedings. Private prosecutors may seek assistance from an appropriate officer and the mere fact that they cannot conduct the investigation does not impair their ability to participate fully in confiscation proceedings"

 

[John Palmer]

So for the purpose of providing a clear and unambiguous answer to BestWestern's question, the RPI or their office colleagues would not have the authority, but may mobilize the support of the police who do have such authority?

The observation that the lawfulness of the procedures in question was ‘found to be proper’ comes across as being a little disingenuous. You really need to take a look at the Lord Chief Justice’s judgment in Virgin v Zinga (Link) . For balance, it’s worth drawing attention to the passage cited in Zinga from the judgment in R v Hounsham & Ors (Link):

"The prosecution now accept that the police were acting ultra vires their powers when they accepted financial contributions towards the expense of the investigation from three insurance companies. In our judgment, soliciting by the police of funds from potential victims of fraud, or any other crime, quite apart from being ultra vires police powers, is a practice which is fraught with danger. It may compromise the essential independence and objectivity of the police when carrying out a criminal investigation. It might lead to police officers being selective as to which crimes to investigate and which not to investigate. It might lead to victims persuading a police investigating team to act partially. It might also lead to investigating officers carrying out a more thorough preparation of the evidence in a case of a "paying" victim; or a less careful preparation of the evidence in the case of a non-contributing victim. In short, it is a practice which, in our judgment, would soon lead to a loss of confidence in a police force's ability to investigate crime objectively and impartially.

It has been unnecessary, in this case, to consider whether the police authority could sanction such activities pursuant to its powers under section 93 of the 1996 Act (the power to accept gifts and loans). Even assuming it does have such powers, we find it difficult to conceive of a situation where it would be sensible to exercise those powers in connection with criminal investigations."

And later in Zinga (para. 52 et seq):

"Given the fact that the only benefit of the confiscation proceedings inured to the benefit of the state as no compensation or other recompense was sought by Virgin, there is no basis on which it can be contended that the agreement with the Metropolitan Police Authority gave rise to any abuse of process.

However we would observe that the agreement of 28 November 2011 (i.e. the agreement made under Section 93 Police Act 1996) did in fact run some of the risks identified by Gage LJ in Hounsham. It did in fact provide an incentive for the police to devote resources to assisting Virgin in their claim for compensation and gave rise to a perception that their independence was being compromised.

It would not, however, be appropriate us to comment further on the circumstances in which the police should assist in confiscation proceedings brought by private prosecutors (particularly where the private prosecutors are commercial companies or trade organisations with substantial resources) or in the obtaining of compensation by such private prosecutors and the terms on which the police do so. The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued guidance on the generation of income for the police service under s.25 and s.93 of the Police Act 1996. The issues raised by the present appeal will require careful consideration by the Association of Chief Police Officers (or its successor national body), the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the Home Office in the light of the observations made by Gage LJ in Hounsham and the very changed financial circumstances in which police forces now operate. Although it is not for this court to give advice on what is acceptable and what is not, it is essential that very urgent consideration is given by the three bodies to which we have referred to the issuing of clear guidance on what the police may or may not do when approached by commercial enterprises to lend assistance in the proceedings for confiscation and claims for compensation. "

In April 2014 ACPO published its “Guidelines on Charging for Police Services”. This makes no more than a passing reference to the power of a police force to accept contributions under Section 93, so it’s not clear to me whether this is the guidance being referred to in Zinga. If the 2014 ACPO publication is the only such guidance, the circumstances in which police forces may properly assist a private prosecutor (e.g. by application for search warrants) have yet to be clarified.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I see that leo22 and John Palmer have taken this opportunity to develop the arguments arising from Virgin v Zinga - a matter which was outstanding due to the massive scale of losses being pursued by a private prosecution. However, I briefly raised it here by way of illustration in a response to a simple question by FirstWestern and not intending to develop it in respect of Millster's circumstances.

Similarly, my quote from a US judgement was in respect of Google, whose policies and practices are relevant to very many UK internet users. In the context of the subject here, and the recent UK ruling on Google's procedures, I thought it was a helpful reminder of the information that may be the subject of a disclosure compliant with RIPA, whose S.49.2 seemed an appropriate response to leo22's question about compulsion to disclose information.

I don't wish to curtail these arguments or debate, and I agree that the long tradition of private prosecution in the UK is a good subject for discussion, but I don't feel that this debate belongs here, in Millster's request for assistance. Happy to continue in a more appropriate forum.