The purpose of the interview is primarily to establish the losses that the Company (or other Companies) have incurred. This is achieved by simple questions and answers, in a structured interview, to establish the facts, which will be used to decide how to proceed.
A secondary purpose will be to identify any other relevant information which might assist the investigators.
It is not to negotiate a resolution. It is not to determine your remorse, not to hear your reasons for doing what you did, and not to hear what you have learned from the experience (though it would be wise to touch on each of these at some point in the interview).
If you have a friend, family member or solicitor (any high street criminal solicitor will do) with you, then they can help remind you of what you wanted to say or to take notes and definitely help you to feel less vulnerable and frightened.
BUT, if you instruct a Barrister or instruct a Solicitor to assist in mounting a Defence, then they will probably cost you a significant sum of money, and will maybe and maybe not find a fatal flaw in the Evidence which the Company has against you - they will certainly want to restrict how much more Evidence you give them - which will prolong the matter, probably increase the costs, and still leave you with the anxiety for a long time. If this is the route you choose, then ultimately, the outcome will turn on this simple question : does the Evidence which the Company already has on file give confidence that a Prosecution has a reasonable prospect of success? If they assess that it does, and if they are right, then the costs of a Barrister (or even the solicitor) would be of little help. The fine, the damages and the costs will be a high price to pay.
But perhaps the Solicitor and Barrister will find a defect in the Evidence which suggests that the Evidence does not prove the point 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. But as you have already made an admission on record, then that's a diminishing prospect.
Conversely, if you stick with the low cost, low risk approach which I have successfully advised others to adopt, and take a friend & tell the truth in the interview, accept the actual costs of the fares not paid, accept the costs of the Company's investigation, and then after all that, try to make a settlement which would be an agreeable alternative to asking the Court to decide, then your final costs might be substantially lower, and will probably be resolved sooner.
In short - its your call, but you're making a risk assessment between :
1. [with expensive legal representation at the interview] High cost, fine + actual damages + professional legal costs on both sides (far higher on your side), criminal record, process over several months, fairly high probability ;
2. [with expensive legal representation at the interview] High cost, modest prospect of absolute discharge, process over several months, fairly low probability;
3. [with a friend or a low cost Criminal Defence Solicitor at the interview] Moderate costs, very high prospect of fine + actual damages + professional legal costs on Company's side (at lower fee level, and little on yours), criminal record, process over several months.
4. [with a friend or a low cost Criminal Defence Solicitor at the interview] Moderate costs, agreed resolution between parties without trial, no prospect of fine + actual damages + professional legal costs on Company's side (at lower fee level, and little on yours), no criminal record, process over a month or so.
I can't pretend to have all the facts necessary to make the best decision for you, but it doesn't look to me as if throwing professional costs at it at this stage is increasing the probabilities of achieving the best outcomes for you.
