Prosecution but it’s mistaken identity

DaniD · 21 Dec 2017

Hi,

Back in June I received a letter saying that I was stopped without a ticket the previous month, and asked to produce a valid rail ticket or I’d be prosecuted. Knowing nothing about this, I phoned the number on the letter and they advised that someone was stopped in Manchester/Sheffield who provided my name and address, and if I wanted to prove it wasn’t me, I should send in a copy of my passport/ driving licence to an email address they provided.

I decided not to send my passport details to the email address, not because I was guilty, but because I didn’t want to share such sensitive details to a random email address. I asked them if they could send the witness statements they had, and they said if I was claiming it wasn’t me, it’d be a data protection breach and wouldn’t send me any proof that this alleged incident even occurred.

Fast forward to today, I have received court summons for the case. However, the signed witness statement from the officer who allegedly stopped ‘me’, doesn’t even have my name or address!! He’s signed a witness statement saying that he stopped someone else. I’m really confused as to how I’ve ended up being summoned to court, or how my name has been dragged into this, when even the officer has signed a statement saying he’s stopped someone else?

I’ll obviously reply to the summons with a ‘not guilty’ plea, but any advice on what I should do? Do I let this drag out to trial or is there a way to stop it? It’s frustrating that it’s gotten this far, and Northern Rail couldn’t have admitted they got it wrong and apologised months ago.

To add, I was at work in London at the time and day in questions with a number of witnesses who can testify I was at work. The only time I left the office was an hour for lunch and ironically I took pictures that day, so I have time stamped pictures showing I was in London at the time (also was at lunch with 5 other people who I can call at witnesses) I have my bank statements which show I touched in/out on the Tube in London to get to/ from work and all this is backed up by GPS data on my phone which helpfully let me track my actions that day minute by minute. I have really strong evidence (and witnesses) for every step of my day on the day in question, so I know they cannot argue otherwise in court.

But not sure what to do next. Do I need to get a solicitor involved to end this? I really don’t think I should be wasting my time or money defending myself against a case of mistaken identity.

You advice would be appreciated.

RailUK Forums

Mathew S · 22 Dec 2017

I would write Northern a formal letter setting out exactly what you've put in your post. If they've any brains at all, which seems debatable in this instance, they'll stop the prosecution and apologise.
If they don't, then provided you have the evidence you say you have, they'll get laughed out of court.
Either way, the chances of you being found guilty would seem, on the basis of what you've said, to be nil.

cuccir · 22 Dec 2017

Agreed. I wonder if there's been an admin error and two case files have been mixed together; human error does happen!

You may want to collate some of that evidence for where you were (eg back up the bank statements and photos in a folder somewhere) and contact details for a couple of people who can corroborate it; write (for yourself) a short factual summary of what you did on the day. There's no need to be extensive with this at this stage or to send it to Northern, but to make sure it's not lost and so you can access it in the unlikely event if this goes to court.

Fawkes Cat · 22 Dec 2017

Mathew S said:
I would write Northern a formal letter setting out exactly what you've put in your post.

+1 for this.

In the first place, you were worried about sending your personal information to an email address that you had no reason to trust. The position you are now in means that you have to make a compromise between convenience and security:

If you want this to go away quickly, you need to share the information that proves you cannot have committed the offence with Northern Rail. Northern is a big company, so it's not as if all their staff sit round one big table and if you send information to the wrong person they just have to push it across the table to the right person. That in turn means you need to be prepared to trust the address they have given you as somewhere to send your personal information - or assume that they will competently redirect internal post that has arrived at a general address.
If security of your information is the most important thing to you, then (warning - I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong on the detail here) you can wait until the whole thing goes to court, turn up and present your evidence. That would mean that you don't have to trust your data to Northern: it would also mean that you would have to go through the stress of waiting for a court date and of the day in front of the magistrates as the defendant.
There may be a middle way of employing a solicitor as a trusted intermediary - you have chosen them so presumably you trust them to send your information to the right person in Northern. I think this would be quicker than going to court, but slower and more expensive than passing the defence you rely on to Northern as I suggest in my first bullet point above.

The ultimate point is that while *at the court* it is for Northern to prove their point, rather than for you to disprove it, if what you want is for Northern to discontinue the prosecution then in practice it is up to you to give them a reason why they will know that their prosecution won't succeed.

There are two routes to this:

You can point out that their witness statement seems to talk about someone else - but if (as Cuccir suggests above) they have muddled two statements and sent you the wrong one that may leave you no further forward
You can (one way or another) let them see your evidence that shows you cannot have committed the offence.

Deafdoggie · 22 Dec 2017

I AM NOT A LEGAL ADVISOR OR SOLICITOR

What I would do, is write to Northern, briefly outlining the above facts you have recounted, and explain (but don't enclose) your evidence. Explain that, as Northern have logged your details when it wasn't you, and then sent you a letter saying it wasn't you, you do not wish to send them sensitive data. Ask for their solicitor name and address, not at a Northern Trains address, and explain you will be more than happy to send it there.

Once an actual 'outside' solicitor gets their hands on this case, expect it to disappear fairly quickly based on the information you have provided here. Of course, Northern may say they are dealing internally with it, but they must have a solicitor company they use for court cases. It is very unlikely they have an in-hose solicitor for more than basic legal advice.

DaniD · 22 Dec 2017

Thanks for the advice. The witness statement does refer to two females having been stopped travelling together (or maybe it’s a male and female as the written statement gets confused between his and her and he and she in a couple of places), and it could just be a case of them inserting the details of the other female in there. Call me paranoid, but them making that mistake makes me think I have done the right thing in not sending further details about myself as I wouldn’t have trusted them to mistakenly send this out to someone else. As is it, the only thing they’ve got now is my name and addresss and the date of birth they have is wrong by a good few years.

I have been emailing the ‘ital prosecutions’ email address about this and have previously listed that I have evidence, but of course they keep asking to see both the evidence and a copy of my passport, which I haven’t provided them.

I will email now and ask for their solicitors email, I’m happy to send out something to a legitimate office/ address but they haven’t been forthcoming and pushing ahead with prosecution.

I would rather this not go to court, not least because I and all my witnesses live in London and there taking this to court in Manchester. But if it does go that far, I do have complete confidence Northen will have zero chance of winning.

It’s a however a real shame that someone innocent can be taken to court and rail companies make no effort to validate the information they receive.

Puffing Devil · 22 Dec 2017

Now this has gone to court you need to deal with both the summons and Northern Rail. As you're in London you will want to avoid a trip to court in Northern Land as this will cost time and money. Similarly, getting a solicitor involved will cost you money.

I'll say this just once: if you had engaged with Northern earlier this may have been easier and quicker to resolve. A little persistence and negotiation around the supply of documents would have gone a long way. That said, we are where we are.

To deal with the summons, you need to send a letter to the court stating you intention to plead not guilty on the basis of incorrect identity. Ask for an adjournment to conclude the matter with NR before the next hearing. Also asked to be excused on this occasion due to the distance. Copy this letter to NR.

Secondly, engage with NR. Ask what you need to show them to satisfy them that you were not involved and be prepared to provide it. If you are worried about your passport details you should be able to blank out the numbers, or event visit a solicitor to provide a certified copy, though that will cost you.

Post back here if you have difficulties moving this forward with NR before the court date. If they do agree to drop the prosecution, make sure you get a copy of the letter and send your own letter into court with a copy of theirs so it ends up in the file in case of any failings later down the line.

Antman · 22 Dec 2017

DaniD said:
Hi,

Back in June I received a letter saying that I was stopped without a ticket the previous month, and asked to produce a valid rail ticket or I’d be prosecuted. Knowing nothing about this, I phoned the number on the letter and they advised that someone was stopped in Manchester/Sheffield who provided my name and address, and if I wanted to prove it wasn’t me, I should send in a copy of my passport/ driving licence to an email address they provided.

I decided not to send my passport details to the email address, not because I was guilty, but because I didn’t want to share such sensitive details to a random email address. I asked them if they could send the witness statements they had, and they said if I was claiming it wasn’t me, it’d be a data protection breach and wouldn’t send me any proof that this alleged incident even occurred.

Fast forward to today, I have received court summons for the case. However, the signed witness statement from the officer who allegedly stopped ‘me’, doesn’t even have my name or address!! He’s signed a witness statement saying that he stopped someone else. I’m really confused as to how I’ve ended up being summoned to court, or how my name has been dragged into this, when even the officer has signed a statement saying he’s stopped someone else?

I’ll obviously reply to the summons with a ‘not guilty’ plea, but any advice on what I should do? Do I let this drag out to trial or is there a way to stop it? It’s frustrating that it’s gotten this far, and Northern Rail couldn’t have admitted they got it wrong and apologised months ago.

To add, I was at work in London at the time and day in questions with a number of witnesses who can testify I was at work. The only time I left the office was an hour for lunch and ironically I took pictures that day, so I have time stamped pictures showing I was in London at the time (also was at lunch with 5 other people who I can call at witnesses) I have my bank statements which show I touched in/out on the Tube in London to get to/ from work and all this is backed up by GPS data on my phone which helpfully let me track my actions that day minute by minute. I have really strong evidence (and witnesses) for every step of my day on the day in question, so I know they cannot argue otherwise in court.

But not sure what to do next. Do I need to get a solicitor involved to end this? I really don’t think I should be wasting my time or money defending myself against a case of mistaken identity.

You advice would be appreciated.

I would imagine this must happen quite a lot with people giving false details and somebody getting a letter regarding to an incident that they know nothing about?

Surely a simple declaration that it wasn't them should be sufficient with it being up to the accuser to prove otherwise?

najaB · 22 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
Surely a simple declaration that it wasn't them should be sufficient with it being up to the accuser to prove otherwise?

In theory, yes. However, it wouldn't really be useful for revenue protection if TOCs always dropped prosecutions based on "Wasn't me, Guv'nor". For some reason (ours not to guess) Northern don't believe the OP's protestations and, absent evidence to the contrary, believe they have the right person and are continuing along the path to court.

Haywain · 22 Dec 2017

Deafdoggie said:
I AM NOT A LEGAL ADVISOR OR SOLICITOR

What I would do, is write to Northern, briefly outlining the above facts you have recounted, and explain (but don't enclose) your evidence. Explain that, as Northern have logged your details when it wasn't you, and then sent you a letter saying it wasn't you, you do not wish to send them sensitive data. Ask for their solicitor name and address, not at a Northern Trains address, and explain you will be more than happy to send it there.

Once an actual 'outside' solicitor gets their hands on this case, expect it to disappear fairly quickly based on the information you have provided here. Of course, Northern may say they are dealing internally with it, but they must have a solicitor company they use for court cases. It is very unlikely they have an in-hose solicitor for more than basic legal advice.

I'm not sure this is great advice. I would be surprised if Northern engage a solicitor to deal with such cases at any time before the case goes before the magistrates as they are mostly open and shut cases. They will use in house staff to manage the prosecution up to that time therefore it will need to be dealt with internally to prevent it going to court.

swj99 · 22 Dec 2017

I think my initial letter would be something like this.

Dear _______. I note that you have commenced court proceedings against me in relation to an alleged offence in the Manchester / Sheffield area.

As has previously been made very clear to yourselves, I am not the person to whom this summons should have been directed, and on the date and time of the alleged offence, I was at my place of employment in London. When I initially telephoned your office, it was suggested that I send copies of my passport and driving licence to an email address, however, due to concerns regarding confidentiality and data security, I was unable to do this. The person to whom I spoke informed me they were unable to provide me with evidence that the alleged offence had occurred.

As you are no doubt aware, it is for the prosecution to prove that a defendant is guilty, and not for a defendant to prove that he is not. The witness statement which is attached to the summons I have received does not contain any evidence that I was present at the time of the alleged offence. In light of the above, I should be grateful if you could confirm that you will withdraw the summons which has been wrongly issued against me.

If you are determinued to pursue this matter, I will of course be pleading not guilty, and I will ask the court to make an order against you for my costs, together with those of my witnesses.

I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully

Mathew S · 22 Dec 2017

swj99 said:
I think my initial letter would be something like this.

That's a good start, but I would strongly recommend that you include in your letter more details of why it can't possibly have been you that was stopped. Tell them that you have bank statements, train tickets, whatever documentary evidence you've been able to find, that you were in London at the time of the alleged offence. Write out an actual list of all your evidence and include it in the letter. You don't have to send them any of those things, but listing a load of evidence which would disprove their case should at least make them think twice about going through with the prosecution.
Remember that train companies will receive letters with excuses in every day of the week trying to get them to drop prosecutions, often containing information that is less than 100% true. Rightly or wrongly, if you don't want the case to proceed to trial you need to give them a very good reason to drop it, especially since you've already received a summons.
The only other comment I'd make is about costs. I'm not completely familiar with the rules regarding costs in criminal cases, someone else may be able to clarify, however you may find a court reulctant to order Northern to pay your costs if they argue that you witheld information that would otherwise have led them not to prosecute in the first place. One of the expectations that courts have is that both sides should, as far as possible, co-operate to avoid things ending up in court if there's any way they can. It's possible that a court could take the view that the costs are your fault because you've not provided Northern with the information they've asked for. I'm not saying that I support that view, but you should be aware that it's a very real possibility.

SouthStand · 22 Dec 2017

If the case does get laughed out of court, can the OP request any form of renumeration for the inconvenience?

najaB · 22 Dec 2017

SouthStand said:
If the case does get laughed out of court, can the OP request any form of renumeration for the inconvenience?

Compensation for inconvenience: I don't think so. But they might be entitled to reasonable costs.

Puffing Devil · 22 Dec 2017

swj99 said:
I think my initial letter would be something like this.

Dear _______. I note that you have commenced court proceedings against me in relation to an alleged offence in the Manchester / Sheffield area.

As has previously been made very clear to yourselves, I am not the person to whom this summons should have been directed, and on the date and time of the alleged offence, I was at my place of employment in London. When I initially telephoned your office, it was suggested that I send copies of my passport and driving licence to an email address, however, due to concerns regarding confidentiality and data security, I was unable to do this. The person to whom I spoke informed me they were unable to provide me with evidence that the alleged offence had occurred.

As you are no doubt aware, it is for the prosecution to prove that a defendant is guilty, and not for a defendant to prove that he is not. The witness statement which is attached to the summons I have received does not contain any evidence that I was present at the time of the alleged offence. In light of the above, I should be grateful if you could confirm that you will withdraw the summons which has been wrongly issued against me.

If you are determinued to pursue this matter, I will of course be pleading not guilty, and I will ask the court to make an order against you for my costs, together with those of my witnesses.

I look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully

Completely the wrong tone and guaranteed to get the reader's back up.

Start from the position that the OP failed to provide information that may have cleared this matter up and that they are now asking NR for the opportunity to correct the matter before ending up in court - a course of action that NR are more than entitled to take. NR owe the OP nothing and an inflammatory letter that attempts to remind them of their own job is not going to help at all.

Stick to the facts, state the reasons why the OP could not have been present at the time and ask them what they would like to see to corroborate that position.

cuccir · 22 Dec 2017

Matthew S's outline of a letter is sensible and I'd follow this.

Fare-Cop · 22 Dec 2017

Over the years any of us in this line of work will have seen hundreds of similar cases, sometimes an inspector has been mistaken, or more commonly 'duped' by an impostor, sometimes it is a correctly identified traveller who attempts to claim 'victim of impostor' in the hope that the case will be dropped without checking the claim.

The ones who get cleared up quickest are, as in the OPs case, someone who can prove that they were at work elsewhere and who then go to their employer / company personnel dept. and say 'can you help please, I have been the victim of an impostor, your work records will show I was here in London (or wherever) at the time I am alleged to have been elsewhere. Can I have a note on company letterhead that shows I was at work then please?'

An independently signed record of being at work elsewhere at the time of the alleged offence will almost always be enough to dispose of the allegation without sending any personal identity.

falcon · 22 Dec 2017

najaB said:
Compensation for inconvenience: I don't think so. But they might be entitled to reasonable costs.

A defendant that is aquited can claim travel costs and the cost of a meal. If a solicitor has been engaged he can only claim the legal aid day rate which is about £450. But a not quilty plea solicitor will cost £600- £1000 for a prep and morning in court.

falcon · 22 Dec 2017

Send a photocopy of your passport or driving licence as requested.

Other wise they may claim they tried to resolve the matter before court. It always looks better if you have co-operated.

Magistrate looking over top of half moon specs. "an order for costs is rejected as had the defendant supplied the photocopy of the driving licences or passport the matter need never before this court"

Court time is pecious because it costs the tax payer and Magistrates do not like to see it wasted.

googolplex · 23 Dec 2017

As an aside, if the statement they've sent you includes somebody else's name and address; I think it would be worth reporting that to the Information Commissioner's Office, as Northern have an obligation under the Data Protection Act to safeguard personal data (particularly relating to alleged criminal offences).

Mathew S · 23 Dec 2017

I'm not sure that antagonising the person they're hoping to persuade to give them what they want is particularly wise.

ForTheLoveOf · 24 Dec 2017

I can see both sides of the argument here.

On the one hand, giving them what they want will (hopefully) resolve the matter without the expense and inconvenience (and risk) of Court. And so this is the perhaps simpler option if OP wants to simply forget about the matter.

On the other hand, I don't see why someone should provide a private company, that has shown its spectacular incompetence here and in other cases, any information, when it is them that has to prove the elements of the offence they are attempting to prosecute. I see no reason to help a private company that is entirely wrongly trying to prosecute you. Who knows if they will properly secure his personal data (whatever he provides)!

Ultimately, I would have hoped that this crosses over the boundary into malicious prosecution or misfeasance in public office (them being prosecutors, it is quasi a public role), and that OP hence commences proceedings against Northern and is awarded all his costs (whether or not he attends Court), plus a significant amount extra to punish their ludicrous incompetence. However, with the justice system being the (in my opinion unjust) way it is, I would imagine this would be difficult, if at all viable, and would probably require the assistance of a specialised solicitor and/or barrister, whose costs would likely be unrecoverable.

Puffing Devil · 24 Dec 2017

ForTheLoveOf said:
I can see both sides of the argument here.

On the one hand, giving them what they want will (hopefully) resolve the matter without the expense and inconvenience (and risk) of Court. And so this is the perhaps simpler option if OP wants to simply forget about the matter.

And if they had taken this course of action in the first place, we would not be having this thread.

ForTheLoveOf said:
On the other hand, I don't see why someone should provide a private company, that has shown its spectacular incompetence here and in other cases, any information, when it is them that has to prove the elements of the offence they are attempting to prosecute. I see no reason to help a private company that is entirely wrongly trying to prosecute you. Who knows if they will properly secure his personal data (whatever he provides)!

That's why we have a court system. If you want an independent arbitrator, you go to court. Unfortunately, the cost of this is your time and the risk of the court not finding in your favour.

ForTheLoveOf said:
Ultimately, I would have hoped that this crosses over the boundary into malicious prosecution or misfeasance in public office (them being prosecutors, it is quasi a public role), and that OP hence commences proceedings against Northern and is awarded all his costs (whether or not he attends Court), plus a significant amount extra to punish their ludicrous incompetence. However, with the justice system being the (in my opinion unjust) way it is, I would imagine this would be difficult, if at all viable, and would probably require the assistance of a specialised solicitor and/or barrister, whose costs would likely be unrecoverable.

I'm struggling to be polite here. Looking at this from the NR side, putting their faults and alleged incompetence to one side, they have a fare dodger stopped and interviewed who provided a name and address that presumably checked out at the time. Without access to photo ID, which they are not allowed to press for and in the UK we are not required to carry, they proceed down their penalties procedure. Nothing wrong with that. The OP calls in and says "It wasn't me" should NR say:

1) "Oh, that's fine. Clearly someone else was impersonating you, we'll just let the matter drop" or
2) "Oh - we understand. This does happen on occasions, please provide some evidence to show it wasn't you stopped on the day."

I can't see anything incompetent, let alone malicious, in this course of action. I can see the OP wanting to secure their personal data and this is something that could be achieved by negotiation. NR have done nothing wrong in this.

talldave · 24 Dec 2017

Puffing Devil said:
2) "Oh - we understand. This does happen on occasions, please provide some evidence to show it wasn't you stopped on the day."

Did Northern take a photo of the offender? If not, how would a passport prove innocence?

I'm with the OP and wouldn't send copies of my ID to any organisation that cares to make a false accusation against me. Just as I refuse to confirm any security information when a bank calls me - it's caller proves ID, not the recipient of a call.

island · 24 Dec 2017

googolplex said:
As an aside, if the statement they've sent you includes somebody else's name and address; I think it would be worth reporting that to the Information Commissioner's Office, as Northern have an obligation under the Data Protection Act to safeguard personal data (particularly relating to alleged criminal offences).

There’s a carve-out for information processed in relation to the prevention and detection of crime.

ForTheLoveOf · 24 Dec 2017

Puffing Devil said:
And if they had taken this course of action in the first place, we would not be having this thread.

That's why we have a court system. If you want an independent arbitrator, you go to court. Unfortunately, the cost of this is your time and the risk of the court not finding in your favour.

I'm struggling to be polite here. Looking at this from the NR side, putting their faults and alleged incompetence to one side, they have a fare dodger stopped and interviewed who provided a name and address that presumably checked out at the time. Without access to photo ID, which they are not allowed to press for and in the UK we are not required to carry, they proceed down their penalties procedure. Nothing wrong with that. The OP calls in and says "It wasn't me" should NR say:

1) "Oh, that's fine. Clearly someone else was impersonating you, we'll just let the matter drop" or
2) "Oh - we understand. This does happen on occasions, please provide some evidence to show it wasn't you stopped on the day."

I can't see anything incompetent, let alone malicious, in this course of action. I can see the OP wanting to secure their personal data and this is something that could be achieved by negotiation. NR have done nothing wrong in this.

I see very much they have done wrong here. Their witness statement - which, if the witness is not called, will be their primary evidence of the facts of the matter - explicitly says that they have caught someone else (according to post #1).

If they fail to realise their monumental mistake by the stage of issuing Court summons, there is nothing else I can think of to describe or explain this, other than malice in hoping to get money from someone (even if it's the wrong person).

island · 24 Dec 2017

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Puffing Devil · 24 Dec 2017

ForTheLoveOf said:
I see very much they have done wrong here. Their witness statement - which, if the witness is not called, will be their primary evidence of the facts of the matter - explicitly says that they have caught someone else (according to post #1).

If they fail to realise their monumental mistake by the stage of issuing Court summons, there is nothing else I can think of to describe or explain this, other than malice in hoping to get money from someone (even if it's the wrong person).

1) The OP is still in the frame following the first contact.

2) It appears that there has been an admin error in sending out the summons. This can and will be corrected at court.

There are plenty of posters in this section who have direct experience of the prosecution process from arrest to trial and give very good advice. I would contend that you are not one of these and are posting on the basis of speculation and what you feel should be done.

ForTheLoveOf · 24 Dec 2017

Puffing Devil said:
1) The OP is still in the frame following the first contact.

2) It appears that there has been an admin error in sending out the summons. This can and will be corrected at court.

There are plenty of posters in this section who have direct experience of the prosecution process from arrest to trial and give very good advice. I would contend that you are not one of these and are posting on the basis of speculation and what you feel should be done.

I make no qualms that I have no experience, however, one has to start somewhere. I would be happy to have pointed out where you feel I have given advice rather than commenting.

I do feel that there is a strong hostility in this forum to any kind of outsider. As someone with a lot of experience on the passenger side, but little elsewhere, I find this a shame.

A final note. Making an 'admin error' when what is at stake may be someone's potential career or livelihood is something that needs to be taken very seriously, but addressed correctly. I do not think it being an 'admin error' excuses the huge mistake being made.

najaB · 24 Dec 2017

ForTheLoveOf said:
I do feel that there is a strong hostility in this forum to any kind of outsider. As someone with a lot of experience on the passenger side, but little elsewhere, I find this a shame.

It's not hostility and it's not the general case across the forum. However, many posters in D&P are facing criminal prosecution and following bad 'advice' (even if it wasn't intended as such) can make the difference between the case being set aside by the TOC and the OP ending up with a criminal record.

As such we ask that anything not intended as advice either be taken to a separate thread or, at the very least, clearly marked as opinion rather than advice.

Prosecution but it’s mistaken identity

New Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

New Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member