Fare Evasion - Freedom Pass

[Silverdale]

They would be two answers he could give.

We should all refrain from advising the OP's husband what answer he should give, whether it is @AnkleBoots saying he should not admit to having made previous journeys, or @najaB, saying he should.

 

[najaB]

We should all refrain from advising the OP's husband what answer he should give...

I think you have misunderstood my posts. I haven't suggested anything that he should say (future tense), I'm trying to figure out why @AnkleBoots thinks that lying would have been (past tense) a good idea, since they objected to my observation that "lying rarely, if ever, helps."

 

[Silverdale]

The way I see it, @AnkleBoots' #10 asks why a person convicted of a fares offence would admit it to their employer if the general question about having convictions was asked. This isn't a situation where such a person would be incriminating themselves by answering, so they have no right to say nothing. Unless @AnkleBoots is actually saying the response should be "no comment", the person can either be "up front", as @ForTheLoveOf suggested or they can lie about having the conviction. In that case, I couldn't disagree with you when you say "lying rarely, if ever, helps", even if "[the employer] would not otherwise have found out".

But that moved swiftly on to #11, and the question of whether the same person should have made admissions to the RPO. Here, because the RPO's investigations could lead to a criminal prosecution, the suspect had the right not to be obliged to incriminate themselves (the RPO should also have made the suspect aware they have this right) So when @AnkleBoots suggests that the suspect shouldn't have made the admissions, it is not to necessarily suggest the suspect should have lied and e.g. said that it was the first occasion they had used the pass. Replying "no comment" or "I can't answer", if the direct question is asked, isn't lying, it's refusing to answer, which is the suspect's right. Not mentioning previous journeys if the direct question isn't asked, certainly isn't lying.

Lying, when being questioned under caution, rarely turns out to be helpful. Declining to answer can sometimes be helpful to a suspect, e.g. if it allows them to obtain proper legal advice about what the consequences would be if/when they do answer the questions. Of course, a consequence of refusing to answer a direct question when asked, but then giving a convenient explanation at trail, could be to create an impression of dishonesty in the mind of a jury. Conversely, trying to answer every question as fully as possible can often be unhelpful. If, e.g. a suspect tries to be honest, but makes a mistake and volunteers information or answers a question in a way which can later be proved to be false, the accusation; "You lied when questioned and you are obviously lying now" can be thrown at them if they give evidence in their defence.

So there will be cases where responding "no comment" to a particular question would be the right thing to do, others where it wouldn't, yet others where volunteering information would be helpful, some where doing so could be disastrous. But even if that was this forum's remit, are posters here necessarily aprised of all the relevant facts to be able to offer such advice on a case by case basis?

Apologies for the long post and to the OP for taking the thread away from discussing their case specifically.

 

[najaB]

So when @AnkleBoots suggests that the suspect shouldn't have made the admissions, it is not to necessarily suggest the suspect should have lied and e.g. said that it was the first occasion they had used the pass. Replying "no comment" or "I can't answer", if the direct question is asked, isn't lying, it's refusing to answer, which is the suspect's right. Not mentioning previous journeys if the direct question isn't asked, certainly isn't lying.

That may well be what they meant, but it isn't what they wrote.

 

[Silverdale]

Well it was a terse comment, so easy to misconstrue.

If I have misconstrued what @AnkleBoots meant, I'm sure they will be along to put me straight.

 

[AnkleBoots]

Which is fine. You still haven't said what else the OP's husband should/could have said to the RPO about the additional journeys that wouldn't have been dissembling at best, or an outright lie at worst.

In the unlikely event I find myself in a similar situation I think all I would be required to do is surrender the pass/ticket, and provide name and address. I would then ask whether I was free to go and would expect to be allowed to do so without speaking further.

I'm trying to figure out why @AnkleBoots thinks that lying would have been (past tense) a good idea, since they objected to my observation that "lying rarely, if ever, helps."

I objected to the previous word, "Good" about owning up to the other journeys. I agree that lying rarely, if ever, helps.

The way I see it, @AnkleBoots' #10 asks why a person convicted of a fares offence would admit it to their employer if the general question about having convictions was asked. This isn't a situation where such a person would be incriminating themselves by answering, so they have no right to say nothing. Unless @AnkleBoots is actually saying the response should be "no comment", the person can either be "up front", as @ForTheLoveOf suggested or they can lie about having the conviction. In that case, I couldn't disagree with you when you say "lying rarely, if ever, helps", even if "[the employer] would not otherwise have found out".

I think the existing employer would not ask so I can't see a reason to have a conversation with them about it. Applying for a new job would be more problematic. Again I agree that lying rarely, if ever, helps.

But that moved swiftly on to #11, and the question of whether the same person should have made admissions to the RPO. Here, because the RPO's investigations could lead to a criminal prosecution, the suspect had the right not to be obliged to incriminate themselves (the RPO should also have made the suspect aware they have this right) So when @AnkleBoots suggests that the suspect shouldn't have made the admissions, it is not to necessarily suggest the suspect should have lied and e.g. said that it was the first occasion they had used the pass. Replying "no comment" or "I can't answer", if the direct question is asked, isn't lying, it's refusing to answer, which is the suspect's right. Not mentioning previous journeys if the direct question isn't asked, certainly isn't lying.

If I have misconstrued what @AnkleBoots meant, I'm sure they will be along to put me straight.

You've expressed it better than me, thank you. Apologies for the terseness.

 

[najaB]

In the unlikely event I find myself in a similar situation I think all I would be required to do is surrender the pass/ticket, and provide name and address.

As you are entitled to do. The issue with selectively choosing not to answer questions is that, invariably, it further raises suspicions. And when it comes to previous journeys made with the pass the OP's husband either made them or he did not. So while I agree he would have lawfully been able to say nothing at the time, he would have had to answer after further questioning - increasing the amount involved in any potential settlement.

 

[AnkleBoots]

Thank you, I'll certainly bear this in mind if faced with this situation.

I know a colleague who shares an Oyster with another colleague sometimes and I think that neither of them would instantly remember exactly who made specific previous journeys if questioned (I'm not aware of them doing anything they shouldn't, though).

 

[Haywain]

I think the existing employer would not ask so I can't see a reason to have a conversation with them about it.

They may not ask but, especially if working in any position of trust, there is an expectation that they should be made aware. To have them finding out through any other means would reflect badly.

 

[MikeWh]

Thank you, I'll certainly bear this in mind if faced with this situation.

I know a colleague who shares an Oyster with another colleague sometimes and I think that neither of them would instantly remember exactly who made specific previous journeys if questioned (I'm not aware of them doing anything they shouldn't, though).

As long as it is beng used for PAYG and has no discount entitlement loaded then this is fine. There is no requirement to keep track of who made which journeys.

 

[Silverdale]

As you are entitled to do. The issue with selectively choosing not to answer questions is that, invariably, it further raises suspicions.

It could raise suspicions. Depends what other facts are to hand or come to light. And we don't know, and can only speculate what those facts may be.

The issue with chosing to answer while discombobulated by having been apprehended is that you may panic and state things e.g. get places/dates mixed up, which, possibly combined with other facts, some of which are yet to be determined, amount to an admission of something you haven't actually done.

And when it comes to previous journeys made with the pass the OP's husband either made them or he did not.

Of course that is right, but does it follow that he must be able to confirm or deny having made all or any of the journeys the investigator thinks he made with the pass?

So while I agree he would have lawfully been able to say nothing at the time, he would have had to answer after further questioning - increasing the amount involved in any potential settlement.

Even when questioned further, he can still say "no comment", or equivalent. Of course it would not be wise to continue to refuse to give answers in the face of incontrovertible evidence. But do we on this forum know what the evidence is? Is it incontrovertible? A list of alleged previous journeys could be nothing more than speculative guesswork by an investigator.

That is why I suggest refraining from offering definitive advice about the way to answer questions to an enquiry posted here. We don't know and can't know all the facts and haven't had chance to discuss with the suspect in private, with the benefit of legal privilege. A solictor advising the suspect, and apraised of all the facts could give advice about the way a suspect should respond, or even should have responded to questioning. I don't think any of us here can, or should do that. We might think we are helping, we may not be.

If a criminal defence solictor wants to come along and disagree, I will stand corrected.

 

[najaB]

A solictor advising the suspect, and apraised of all the facts could give advice about the way a suspect should respond, or even should have responded to questioning.

If my solicitor suggested that I lie in a criminal investigation, I would be looking for a new one, pronto.

(Again, the only observation I made was that lying rarely, if ever, helps. I'm truly surprised that such an innocuous statement has lead to this level of rancour.)

 

[Silverdale]

If my solicitor suggested that I lie in a criminal investigation, I would be looking for a new one, pronto.

Again, NOWHERE in my explanation, have I suggested that a suspect should lie or that a solicitor would ever advise a client to lie. Rather, I have agreed with you, that it rarely helps.

There is absolutely no rancour. Just a discussion about what kind of advice this forum should give.

You did go beyond stating that lying rarely, if ever, helps. In #4, you also said said "Good" in reference to the OP's comment that having been told by the RPO about previous use of the pass, the husband had said that he must have used it.

But if the husband hadn't used that particular pass before, or couldn't clearly remember if he had and only said he "must have" because of what he had been told by the RPO, which itself might not be true, or backed-up by evidence... or indeed if knew he had used the particular pass before, but not for all the journeys the RPO was referring to... it really wouldn't be "Good". It could actually be "Bad" for him, that the husband has said that.

 

[najaB]

But if the husband hadn't used that particular pass before, or couldn't clearly remember if he had and only said he "must have" because of what he had been told by the RPO...

The OP clearly states that the pass was used multiple times:

My husband travelled with my mum's freedom pass a few times(maybe 3 to4) and was caught.

which itself might not be true, or backed-up by evidence

RPOs can see the recent journey history on their portable readers.

or indeed if knew he had used the particular pass before, but not for all the journeys the RPO was referring to... it really wouldn't be "Good". It could actually be "Bad" for him, that the husband has said that.

It's unlikely to make have any significant impact. Any subsequent correspondence will list the journey(s) that are in question, the husband can simply say "Further to the statement given on the day, and having double-checked, I made these journeys <list> but not these <list>."

 

[Silverdale]

The OP clearly states that the pass was used multiple times

When all the facts are available the OP may turn out to be mistaken.

RPOs can see the recent journey history on their portable readers.

And they always tell the truth? Never make a mistake? Never infer things incorrectly?

Any subsequent correspondence will list the journey(s) that are in question, the husband can simply say "Further to the statement given on the day, and having double-checked, I made these journeys <list> but not these <list>."

He can do exactly that, having previously said "no comment".

The problem with having mistakenly accepted he made the journeys in the first instance, and subsequently realising the consequences of having done so, changing his mind, is that it looks like dissembling. Unless he can provide evidence that he couldn't have made the journeys he now says he didn't, the investigator, or ultimately a court, is entitled to and might well believe his first, mistaken, admission.

You can only reasonably respond "Good" to the OP's comment, if you know all the facts. You don't - you can't - know all the facts in this particular case, simply from reading the OP.

But I have now stated my position twice, and explained it at length. If you want to continue to give the advice you do, that's fine. I won't question it again, but leave it up to the mods to decide if it goes beyond the remit of this forum.

 

[Haywain]

When all the facts are available the OP may turn out to be mistaken.



And they always tell the truth? Never make a mistake? Never infer things incorrectly?



He can do exactly that, having previously said "no comment".

The problem with having mistakenly accepted he made the journeys in the first instance, and subsequently realising the consequences of having done so, changing his mind, is that it looks like dissembling. Unless he can provide evidence that he couldn't have made the journeys he now says he didn't, the investigator, or ultimately a court, is entitled to and might well believe his first, mistaken, admission.

You can only reasonably respond "Good" to the OP's comment, if you know all the facts. You don't - you can't - know all the facts in this particular case, simply from reading the OP.

But I have now stated my position twice, and explained it at length. If you want to continue to give the advice you do, that's fine. I won't question it again, but leave it up to the mods to decide if it goes beyond the remit of this forum.

I have no idea what use this argument is meant to be to the OP's husband who, we are advised, has already said he used the pass on other occasions. However, I would also point out that we don't know whether he was being questioned under caution and if he was the words "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" are also relevant. Add to that the fact that the inspector had apparently mentioned other journeys to the same station - if there were a number of similar journeys at similar times of day (ie: commuting) it would seem pretty obvious that it would be the same user.

Anyway, as I said, I don't see this as being any help at all to the OP and as such the discussion should be in a separate thread.

 

[Silverdale]

However, I would also point out that we don't know whether he was being questioned under caution and if he was the words "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" are also relevant.

Pointing that out was the only reason I commented on this thread in the first place. I only commented further because @najaB took me to task about whether it was relevant or not.

On the more general point regarding the fact of whether a pass had been used before and the circumstances of that use, I am pleased that in the OP it is mentioned that a solicitor is being sought to advise the OP's husband.