MG11 SouthWestern Railway - First offence

[AlterEgo]

When invited for an interview as there a chance of them pushing for court? Just really worried about getting a criminal conviction I am just the start of the career and don’t want to ruin my life.

Those interviews are rare. However, the purpose of any investigative interview is to extract the maximum settlement and, if invited, you should not attend one without legal representation.

In any case, there is nothing you can do now, to be blunt, except stop talking and just wait for the letter. Worrying about possibilities isn't going to be helpful.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

The advice I normally give to people who seek our help in circumstances similar to yourself has already been posted upthread so I won't repeat it again.

Just to confirm a few things:

- You need to sit tight and wait for the letter from SWR. There is nothing to be gained by chasing it up, however tempting it might seem
- It is important that you answer the letter truthfully, but you are not required to incriminate yourself in doing so. For example if the letter only refers to the specific incident where you were caught then you should confine your reply to that incident and not refer to anything else. On the other hand, if they say they have researched your online purchasing history then it would be wise to mention that you have doen this on other ocasions.
- While we cannot completely rule out a prosecution if you co-operate with the process there is a good chance of an out of court settlement

I suggest you post a copy of the letter in this thread (with personal details redacted), along with your draft reply and forum members will be happy to proof read it for you.

In the meantime try and put the indident to the back of your mond and get on with your life. I know this is easier said than done but there is nothing to be gained by worrying.

 

[island]

When invited for an interview as there a chance of them pushing for court? Just really worried about getting a criminal conviction I am just the start of the career and don’t want to ruin my life.

It's really unlikely that a minor criminal conviction for fare evasion, if you do end up with one, will "ruin your life".

 

[Iamconfused123]

Hi everyone I just got the letter! Any advice on what I should do? I am really worried it will lead to a criminal record.

 

[AlterEgo]

You should not answer any questions in an interview under caution without legal representation.

In your shoes, given you don't have a solicitor, I would possibly choose to attend, listen to their questions, and respond "no comment" to all of them (other than confirming your identity). Then you at least know what they suspect you of. Say "no comment" to every question, even if they accuse you of something you haven't done. You must be consistent with your use of your right to silence.

You may also choose not to attend, as I said upthread; it is not compulsory and you aren't under arrest.

The purpose of the interview is to collect evidence against you. It is not a friendly chat or a chance to explain yourself to a benevolent headteacher. Let *them* do the digging. There's a reason they want to interview you and it's because they haven't been able to build a full enough picture of your offending using other means.

 

[Iamconfused123]

You should not answer any questions in an interview under caution without legal representation.

In your shoes, given you don't have a solicitor, I would possibly choose to attend, listen to their questions, and respond "no comment" to all of them (other than confirming your identity). Then you at least know what they suspect you of. Say "no comment" to every question, even if they accuse you of something you haven't done. You must be consistent with your use of your right to silence.

You may also choose not to attend, as I said upthread; it is not compulsory and you aren't under arrest.

The purpose of the interview is to collect evidence against you. It is not a friendly chat or a chance to explain yourself to a benevolent headteacher. Let *them* do the digging. There's a reason they want to interview you and it's because they haven't been able to build a full enough picture of your offending using other means.

Based on your experience do you think I should attend?

 

[AlterEgo]

Based on your experience do you think I should attend?

I do not have specific experience of being interviewed for fare evasion.

However, whether you attend or not, you should answer no questions whatsoever without legal representation. You have the right to do this.

If you attend, you will be placed under caution, told that:

“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.”

You may choose not to attend and not to be interviewed or placed under caution.

It is up to you to choose whether or not to attend.

 

[Haywain]

You should not answer any questions in an interview under caution without legal representation.

In your shoes, given you don't have a solicitor, I would possibly choose to attend, listen to their questions, and respond "no comment" to all of them (other than confirming your identity). Then you at least know what they suspect you of. Say "no comment" to every question, even if they accuse you of something you haven't done. You must be consistent with your use of your right to silence.

You may also choose not to attend, as I said upthread; it is not compulsory and you aren't under arrest.

The purpose of the interview is to collect evidence against you. It is not a friendly chat or a chance to explain yourself to a benevolent headteacher. Let *them* do the digging. There's a reason they want to interview you and it's because they haven't been able to build a full enough picture of your offending using other means.

The other side of this is that a 'no comment' attendance or non attendance are both likely to see the case proceed to court whereas we have, if I recall correctly, seen a couple of cases where attendance at such an interview has led to a settlement being offered.

 

[AlterEgo]

The other side of this is that a 'no comment' attendance or non attendance are both likely to see the case proceed to court whereas we have, if I recall correctly, seen a couple of cases where attendance at such an interview has led to a settlement being offered.

I've seen only one person claim that a settlement was offered after interview and the interview was "really nice". This was a new, anonymous poster who had signed up for the sole purpose of posting in someone else's thread, encouraging someone else to attend the interview (without representation!). The conversation then magically appeared on the SWR Yammer. Make of it what you will.

We have had no reports of SWR going to court following non-attendance at the voluntary interview.

 

[AstowJ]

I do not have specific experience of being interviewed for fare evasion.

However, whether you attend or not, you should answer no questions whatsoever without legal representation. You have the right to do this.

If you attend, you will be placed under caution, told that:

“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.”

You may choose not to attend and not to be interviewed or placed under caution.

It is up to you to choose whether or not to attend.

May I ask a question on this?

I was interviewed under caution on the spot whilst being filmed, is there a reason this doesn't always happen and people are invited to interview at a later date? Or is this just a difference in TOCs?

 

[Iamconfused123]

I've seen only one person claim that a settlement was offered after interview and the interview was "really nice". This was a new, anonymous poster who had signed up for the sole purpose of posting in someone else's thread, encouraging someone else to attend the interview (without representation!). The conversation then magically appeared on the SWR Yammer. Make of it what you will.

We have had no reports of SWR going to court following non-attendance at the voluntary interview.

If I do not attend the interview what would happen?

 

[Titfield]

Based on your experience do you think I should attend?

One possibility to consider would be to prepare a written statement and read it out to them at the interview.

Do not answer any questions - other than to say no comment because there is a danger you will contradict what you put in the statement.

The written statement simply being a version of the generic advice that is given on this (and other) thread as to what to say when receiving a letter from a TOC.

I do wonder why this TOC is going down this route of an interview given the time and cost they incur? Perhaps it is a way to try and test the sincerity of the passenger when they say they have "learned their lesson" / "wont do it again"? Perhaps it is to gain more insight into why passengers do not purchase the correct / valid ticket etc?

Mods- do you wish to split the latter comment into a new thread?

EDIT ADDTIONAL COMMENTS

I have given this more thought and wonder if
1) The purpose of the interview is to give SWR an opportunity to reinforce the message re wrongdoing whether this is openly or just through the stress the OP will feel attending an interview.
2) If the OP employs a solicitor the cost of doing so is a further "financial sanction" on the OP.
3) Furthermore employing a solicitor demonstrates to the TOC that the OP appreciates the seriousness of their situation.

 

[Iamconfused123]

I am thinking to attend the interview does anyone have advice on who I can get legal representation to help with an out of court settlement?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hi everyone I just got the letter! Any advice on what I should do? I am really worried it will lead to a criminal record.

It seems to me that you need to make a decision: if you do not co-operate (whether by not attending the interview, or by answering 'no comment' throughout) then the matter will almost certainly end up in court where I would expect you to lose. Against this, if you do co-operate then the railway might let you settle out of court - or they might use what you have said to take you to court.

Neither of these are particularly nice options. My personal suggestion would be to co-operate and hope that this might lead to a settlement. But there's one piece of advice that you've been given that I would entirely agree with: don't do the interview by yourself. The best option would be to take a solicitor with you - but that will be expensive. If you can't afford that, then take someone else (a friend or relation perhaps) with you. Even if that someone else knows nothing about the law, they can listen to what has been said - which means that you have a witness if the railway claim you said one thing when actually you said another - and they can talk through what you've heard afterwards - which can be useful if you aren't quite sure what something meant.

On the basis of what you have told us and the railway calling you in for an interview, you're not going to finish this one up without having to pay something. But that's the worst it can be - and it may still be possible to end it up by settling out of court which you wouldn't have to tell your employer about.

 

[AlterEgo]

If I do not attend the interview what would happen?

They will not be able to obtain any more evidence from you. It is not clear what would happen as a result because none of us *know* the strength of their current evidence. However, SWR don’t invite everyone in for an interview, and them doing so makes one believe they wish to extract a confession from you over further offending they are unable to prove to a criminal standard without said confession.

One possibility to consider would be to prepare a written statement and read it out to them at the interview.

This is also a possibility. You read the statement, and answer no further questions.

EDIT ADDTIONAL COMMENTS

I have given this more thought and wonder if
1) The purpose of the interview is to give SWR an opportunity to reinforce the message re wrongdoing whether this is openly or just through the stress the OP will feel attending an interview.

No - this is an interview under caution conducted under PACE rules. It is effectively questioning by the police, except here it’s done by TOC staff with relevant training! Importantly, unlike if you are being arrested by the police, you have no right here to ask for a solicitor to be provided free of charge.

2) If the OP employs a solicitor the cost of doing so is a further "financial sanction" on the OP.

I agree.

3) Furthermore employing a solicitor demonstrates to the TOC that the OP appreciates the seriousness of their situation.

Probably also true. But I don’t think a solicitor is necessary unless the OP chooses to attend the interview and answer questions.

 

[Haywain]

The conversation then magically appeared on the SWR Yammer. Make of it what you will.

Maybe that some people who work for SWR also read (and post) on this forum. I know for a fact that this was the case 4 years ago.

 

[AlterEgo]

Maybe that some people who work for SWR also read (and post) on this forum. I know for a fact that this was the case 4 years ago.

Of course they read and post here! That's why you shouldn't take any anonymous, single-issue poster whose only contribution was to suggest another poster confess everything without representation in a PACE interview with SWR, seriously.

 

[Haywain]

Of course they read and post here! That's why you shouldn't take any anonymous, single-issue poster whose only contribution was to suggest another poster confess everything without representation in a PACE interview with SWR, seriously.

I was referring specifically to how something might have got on to the SWR Yammer. You clearly wish to go further and accuse that same person of posting misleading information on the forum.

 

[Iamconfused123]

One possibility to consider would be to prepare a written statement and read it out to them at the interview.

Do not answer any questions - other than to say no comment because there is a danger you will contradict what you put in the statement.

The written statement simply being a version of the generic advice that is given on this (and other) thread as to what to say when receiving a letter from a TOC.

I do wonder why this TOC is going down this route of an interview given the time and cost they incur? Perhaps it is a way to try and test the sincerity of the passenger when they say they have "learned their lesson" / "wont do it again"? Perhaps it is to gain more insight into why passengers do not purchase the correct / valid ticket etc?

Mods- do you wish to split the latter comment into a new thread?

EDIT ADDTIONAL COMMENTS

I have given this more thought and wonder if
1) The purpose of the interview is to give SWR an opportunity to reinforce the message re wrongdoing whether this is openly or just through the stress the OP will feel attending an interview.
2) If the OP employs a solicitor the cost of doing so is a further "financial sanction" on the OP.
3) Furthermore employing a solicitor demonstrates to the TOC that the OP appreciates the seriousness of their situation.

There is a part of me that does want to attend the interview and comply as what I did was wrong and hope for out of court settlement.

Just to understand your additional comments on what you mean by financial sanctions? Also will it look bad to have a socilitor? I am really worried and not sure what to do.

 

[Titfield]

There is a part of me that does want to attend the interview and comply as what I did was wrong and hope for out of court settlement.

Just to understand your additional comments on what you mean by financial sanctions? Also will it look bad to have a socilitor? I am really worried and not sure what to do.

By a "financial sanction" I mean the costs you incur as a result of your failure to purchase a valid ticket.

The costs you could incur are:
1. the cost of an out of court settlement (which would include the fares you should have paid but didnt plus an admin fee levied by SWR)
2. a fine (but NB only a court can impose a fine on you) plus any fares you are ordered to pay, victim surcharge.
3. solicitors fees (whether to write a letter on your behalf, attend the interview with you or go to court with you. NB IIRC a barrister is needed in court to represent you if you plead not guilty.)

If you agree an out of court settlement then you wont be going to court so only (1) applies but if you go to court only (2) applies. Whether you need to employ a solicitor in either scenario is up to you.

From an SWR perspective what they want is the money they should have received in the first place, reimbursal of their costs and reassurance (whether that is by your actions or the deterrent value of the additional costs you incur) that you wont do it again.,

 

[ainsworth74]

Also will it look bad to have a socilitor?

No, the only inference that might be drawn is that you're taking the matter seriously. I certainly don't see how it would effect SWRs decision making process with regards to offering a settlement or proceeding to court action.

I am really worried and not sure what to do.

Unfortunately you're going to have weigh up and decide for yourself we cannot decide for you as only you know how to balance the various factors that are to be weighed considering your own personal circumstances!

I would say the advice given by @AlterEgo is sensible. If you do go and don't have legal representation the most I would consider doing confirming my identity and then saying no comment to any further questions (and stick to saying no comment no matter how much they may try and encourage you to say something, they are not your friend, they are looking to catch you out). If you do go and have a legal representative I would listen to their advice and proceed according to that advice.

If you don't go then you will need to wait and see what SWR decide to do next.

It could be that they only have enough evidence for one instance of fare evasion so might offer a settlement on that basis. It could be that they'll proceed to court on the basis of there only being enough evidence for one instance. It could be that they have lots of evidence and they're just looking to make their life easier by hoping you'll confess or say something unwise making their case easier to prove at court. It could be that this is a last throw of the dice and they're struggling to build a case. We just don't know how it will pan out and what evidence SWR have already when weighing their own decisions on how to handle this case.

But that's sort of your choices at this stage really.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are we actually aware of SWR ever having taken anyone to court other than in cases where they literally ignored all correspondence?

 

[Watershed]

You should not answer any questions in an interview under caution without legal representation.

In your shoes, given you don't have a solicitor, I would choose to attend, listen to their questions, and respond "no comment" to all of them (other than confirming your identity). Then you at least know what they suspect you of. Say "no comment" to every question, even if they accuse you of something you haven't done. You must be consistent with your use of your right to silence.

You may also choose not to attend; it is not compulsory and you aren't under arrest.

The purpose of the interview is to collect evidence against you. It is not a friendly chat or a chance to explain yourself to a benevolent headteacher. Let *them* do the digging. There's a reason they want to interview you and it's because they haven't been able to build a full enough picture of your offending using other means.

If the OP does not intend to say anything in the interview, their interests may be better served by not attending at all. This not only avoids the risk of them accidentally saying something they didn't mean to, but also means that the "it may harm your defence" element of the standard caution before interview (i.e. adverse inference) doesn't come into effect.

In other words, the OP's defence can't be harmed by their failure to say something at this inteview if there is no interview.

 

[skyhigh]

If the OP does not intend to say anything in the interview, their interests may be better served by not attending at all. This not only avoids the risk of them accidentally saying something they didn't mean to, but also means that the "it may harm your defence" element of the standard caution before interview (i.e. adverse inference) doesn't come into effect.

In other words, the OP's defence can't be harmed by their failure to say something at this inteview if there is no interview.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the same thing could be reasonably inferred from declining/refusing to attend an interview.

 

[Watershed]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the same thing could be reasonably inferred from declining/refusing to attend an interview.

That's not the case - an interview must be conducted for any adverse inference to be drawn. The CPS page on adverse inferences refers:

Section 34 [of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994] allows an inference to be drawn if a suspect is silent when questioned under caution prior to charge

...

Prosecutors should be mindful that an adverse inference may only be drawn where questions have been put. It was held in Johnson [2005] EWCA Crim 971 that this section does not apply to a suspect who refused to leave his cell to be interviewed

 

[AlterEgo]

If the OP does not intend to say anything in the interview, their interests may be better served by not attending at all. This not only avoids the risk of them accidentally saying something they didn't mean to, but also means that the "it may harm your defence" element of the standard caution before interview (i.e. adverse inference) doesn't come into effect.

In other words, the OP's defence can't be harmed by their failure to say something at this inteview if there is no interview.

I agree. If he doesn’t allow himself to be cautioned, no inference can be drawn.

 

[some bloke]

Any advice on what I should do?

Go for a walk, have a bath, watch a comedy, think of other relaxing things. You have time to decide.

There is a part of me that does want to attend the interview and comply as what I did was wrong and hope for out of court settlement.

It seems to me that there are good reasons to think the instinct of the person concerned can be "right" - genuine remorse and desire to confess might come across well.

Some things we can't easily advise you on might include:

How honest you would seem to them in person
How likely your manner would be to make them think you are hiding more misdeeds
What impression of remorse they would get or not get from your non-verbal clues
How dodgy your facial expressions might look if you say "no comment", if they do look dodgy

Your decision might depend on your priorities. How high on the list is your desire to come clean? That kind of thing doesn't have to make the decision for you, but it may be something to take into account.

I have a couple short journey tickets on Trainline app

I have reason to be believe they will definitely look into my history on Trainline I have been “doughnutting” for a couple of months

We might think it would be kind of negligent if no-one in the SWR prosecution team had read this thread.

the OP's defence can't be harmed by their failure to say something at this inteview if there is no interview.

What if someone said,

"That's correct in a formal sense - in terms of what can be taken into account at a trial - but in practice attending and co-operating rather than refusing to attend might result in the company offering a settlement rather than prosecuting"?

 

[30907]

"That's correct in a formal sense - in terms of what can be taken into account at a trial - but in practice attending and co-operating rather than refusing to attend might result in the company offering a settlement rather than prosecuting"?

Quite. I would expect SWR to move immediately to a Byelaw 18 prosecution for a single offence, which must succeed, and the chance of an administrative settlement is lost.

 

[tsman]

By a "financial sanction" I mean the costs you incur as a result of your failure to purchase a valid ticket.

The costs you could incur are:
1. the cost of an out of court settlement (which would include the fares you should have paid but didnt plus an admin fee levied by SWR)
2. a fine (but NB only a court can impose a fine on you) plus any fares you are ordered to pay, victim surcharge.
3. solicitors fees (whether to write a letter on your behalf, attend the interview with you or go to court with you. NB IIRC a barrister is needed in court to represent you if you plead not guilty.)

If you agree an out of court settlement then you wont be going to court so only (1) applies but if you go to court only (2) applies. Whether you need to employ a solicitor in either scenario is up to you.

From an SWR perspective what they want is the money they should have received in the first place, reimbursal of their costs and reassurance (whether that is by your actions or the deterrent value of the additional costs you incur) that you wont do it again.,

I think solicitors can represent in magistrates (where this would presumably go). Barristers (or solicitor advocate) only required for Crown Court I think?

 

[ainsworth74]

I think solicitors can represent in magistrates (where this would presumably go). Barristers (or solicitor advocate) only required for Crown Court I think?

Correct. Crown and up is Barristers (though there are exceptions). Magistrates is Solicitors (though Barristers can also appear).