Dishonest regarding Station of origin after losing a ticket.

Discussion in 'Disputes & Prosecutions' started by Neathy, 9 Jun 2019 at 16:53.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. radamfi

    radamfi Established Member

    Messages:
    7,967
    Joined:
    29 Oct 2009
    There has to be some leeway. Otherwise any of us could be pickpocketed on the train without knowing and get prosecuted for fare evasion. My link to the discussion above appears to suggest that losing your ticket should not lead to a conviction.
     
  2. ForTheLoveOf

    ForTheLoveOf Established Member

    Messages:
    5,264
    Joined:
    7 Oct 2017
    I agree, I was just pointing out why the generic term "proof" is rather unhelpful in circumstances such as these!
     
  3. 30907

    30907 Established Member

    Messages:
    6,384
    Joined:
    30 Sep 2012
    Location:
    Airedale
    Not sure that giving one's name and address when questioned under caution is an option envisaged by 5(1), but it could always be tested in court I suppose - or you, or the legal advisor the OP consults, may know otherwise.
     
  4. ForTheLoveOf

    ForTheLoveOf Established Member

    Messages:
    5,264
    Joined:
    7 Oct 2017
    Which part of 'or' is so complex? It's not known as the three fails for nothing!
     
  5. 30907

    30907 Established Member

    Messages:
    6,384
    Joined:
    30 Sep 2012
    Location:
    Airedale
    There's an obvious difference between providing a get-out-of-jail card (please note, this is NOT a literal description!) to avoid committing an offence and being questioned under caution having on the face of it committed said offence.
     
  6. ForTheLoveOf

    ForTheLoveOf Established Member

    Messages:
    5,264
    Joined:
    7 Oct 2017
    I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Giving your name and address is a 'get out of jail free' card in respect of Section 5(1) of RoRA, and that's entirely intentional. It's designed to make it so that, if for whatever reason you are not paying your fare there and then, you can leave your details to enable correspondence to be sent to you (which in the 'good old days' might just have been a bill). S5(1) is designed to capture those who refuse to cooperate with the process at all.
     
  7. Silverdale

    Silverdale Member

    Messages:
    502
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2018
    The OP may confirm, but my understanding is that being asked for name and address will happen before a suspect is cautioned, because providing name and address, when asked, is a requirement [byelaw 23]. They are not questions which a suspect can legitimately decline to answer. Telling them they are not obliged to say anything and then asking for name/address would be to neuter the effect of the byelaw.

    It really is nonsense to say that S5(1) doesn't envisage that a person may give name and address, rather than show a ticket or pay a fare, when the clause specifically states it's one of the three things they may do.


    Exactly that.
     
  8. 30907

    30907 Established Member

    Messages:
    6,384
    Joined:
    30 Sep 2012
    Location:
    Airedale
    On #1. That changes the sequence, but there is still IMO a difference between volunteering one's name and address so that one can be sent a bill, and being required to give those details under a byelaw. However, I don't think pursuing the point helps the OP much.
    On #2. I entirely agree.
     
  9. najaB

    najaB Veteran Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Joined:
    28 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    There is evidence that a fare has been paid.
     
  10. Silverdale

    Silverdale Member

    Messages:
    502
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2018
    If we want to be pedantic, the burden of proof is on the prosecuting TOC to show that the OP hadn't previously paid his fare.

    How strong is any evidence of that likely to be?
     
  11. whhistle

    whhistle Established Member

    Messages:
    2,353
    Joined:
    30 Dec 2010
    Bank statements can be easily changed.
    Give me 30 mins with a PDF version or slightly longer with a scanner and I can make it say anything I want.

    Unless the OP's bank would send a statement direct to TfW, but they ain't gonna do that, even if the OP insisted.

    Ergo, a bank statement doesn't show innocence.

    The OP needs to consider why they said a different origin station.
    Even in a panicked state (why were they panicked?), I don't see how that would make someone say a different point of origin.
    If the OP was panicked because they knew they had a problem, having no ticket, then either explain and pay again, or offer to pay again. There should be no panic about the truth.
     
  12. ForTheLoveOf

    ForTheLoveOf Established Member

    Messages:
    5,264
    Joined:
    7 Oct 2017
    Yes, a bank statement can be faked. So can a witness statement by an RPI, or for that matter any evidence out there. In fact recently even "video evidence" of the US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allegedly saying something was faked by dubbing it over. Nothing is 100% watertight, and that's why Courts deal in likelihoods of the truth - i.e. civil cases are (mostly) "on the balance of probabilities" (is the claim 51+% likely to be true), whilst criminal cases are "beyond all reasonable doubt" (is the accusation ~90+% likely to be true).

    A bank statement is strong, even if not 100%, evidence that a certain amount was paid to a ticket office/TVM. Those places usually do little other than sell tickets, i.e. accept fares, and thus it isn't a massive leap of imagination to say that the OP paid a fare there. The fare to where, you might say? Well, it just so happens the OP was later 'accosted' at Cardiff, at a time that will just so happen to match up with the timings of buying a ticket at Neath, and then taking the train from Neath to Cardiff. And it just so happens that the amount they paid is the amount of the fare to Cardiff.

    Yes, none of this is outright proof that the OP paid their fare to Cardiff, but even in the slightly unusual circumstances of the OP's giving of an incorrect origin station it is still is a good indication of that they have paid their fare, and certainly by my mind more than sufficient to give reasonable doubt as to whether they are guilty of the S5(3)(a) offence. If the Court found so too, the OP would be acquitted of the offence.

    We've been over this several times and I really don't see what discussing it again adds for the OP.
     
  13. najaB

    najaB Veteran Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Joined:
    28 Aug 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    See: confirmation bias.
     
  14. bb21

    bb21 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    23,230
    Joined:
    4 Feb 2010
    This is now clearly going down the route of the ridiculous and hyperbole so thread is locked as the OP is in contact with a legal professional. You can even show him some of the discussion if you want views from a legally qualified person.

    Best of luck with your effort in securing an offer. If you have any other question you would like help on, please get in touch with the staff team.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page