Greater Anglia Penalty Fare No Knowledge

[neutron]

I am a University student.

I was informed a letter from Greater Anglia Prosecution Unit on the 5th March 2020 when the date of the letter was 25th Feburary 2020.
My father told me that I had a ticket from GA in regards to a penalty fare. I have no knowledge of ever taking the train because owning a car
I use it to go to places and havent used the train for a while.

I believe that someone used my details and gave it to the ticket inspector. With the original fine being £29.40 they asked for and additional £80.00
for "towards our cost incured". It stated that I have 14days from the date to pay and not be liable for a conviction.

I contacted the 3rd party comany who handle this "IRCAS". I told them that I belive that someone took my details and used it in this instance.
They asked for the refernce number which I gave and my passport to be sent as an email.

I followed their request and sent the email attaching the supporting docuemnts they required, they then reply with the details matched the info
given on that day.

They then asked for proof of my whereabouts on the day of questions. I provided all the information that I had on me
which was my google maps location data. I asked them if they had my passport photo why don't you match my face to the bodyworn cameras
or CCTV.

They then reply to me saying that the information location data is irrelevent as it does not include the time the contrevention took place.
They told me that it happened at 06:36AM in the morning.
I then replied back to them saying that I can't provide evidence for that time because I would have been sleeping and there's no way of verifiying this.

I have now received a second letter from GA Prosecutions Unit, telling me that due to COVID19 the case will be ajourned to the 30th June 2020 and
you can settle this by paying a balance of £179.40. If not then the matter will go to court.


My question is:
How likely would it be that I am prosecuted if I go to court?

Many Thanks in advance

 

[ainsworth74]

They then reply to me saying that the information location data is irrelevent as it does not include the time the contrevention took place.
They told me that it happened at 06:36AM in the morning.
I then replied back to them saying that I can't provide evidence for that time because I would have been sleeping and there's no way of verifiying this.

Okay but where were you at 0636? Sleeping I appreciate but where do you live in comparison to where they're saying the offence happened? In terms of verification do you live with anyone who could comment on what you were doing on the day in question or as to your normal routine if they couldn't recall the specific day? The station (or train) in question is it close or far away from where you would have been? Is it on the way to anywhere you would normally go? You say you're a student did you have any early lectures, seminars or similar on the day in question or were they all later? Presumably your phone data for 0636 shows you as being at home? Did you share that with them?

Hopefully you can see what I'm doing from the above but you might not have hard evidence of where you were but you can certainly start to paint a picture of what you would do and what you would likely be doing which begins to cast doubt on their argument.

Have they give you a description of the person that they caught? Do you match that description or are their differences? If there are differences did you tell them that and point out those differences to them?

 

[WesternLancer]

I am a University student.

I was informed a letter from Greater Anglia Prosecution Unit on the 5th March 2020 when the date of the letter was 25th Feburary 2020.
My father told me that I had a ticket from GA in regards to a penalty fare. I have no knowledge of ever taking the train because owning a car
I use it to go to places and havent used the train for a while.

I believe that someone used my details and gave it to the ticket inspector. With the original fine being £29.40 they asked for and additional £80.00
for "towards our cost incured". It stated that I have 14days from the date to pay and not be liable for a conviction.

I contacted the 3rd party comany who handle this "IRCAS". I told them that I belive that someone took my details and used it in this instance.
They asked for the refernce number which I gave and my passport to be sent as an email.

I followed their request and sent the email attaching the supporting docuemnts they required, they then reply with the details matched the info
given on that day.

They then asked for proof of my whereabouts on the day of questions. I provided all the information that I had on me
which was my google maps location data. I asked them if they had my passport photo why don't you match my face to the bodyworn cameras
or CCTV.

They then reply to me saying that the information location data is irrelevent as it does not include the time the contrevention took place.
They told me that it happened at 06:36AM in the morning.
I then replied back to them saying that I can't provide evidence for that time because I would have been sleeping and there's no way of verifiying this.

I have now received a second letter from GA Prosecutions Unit, telling me that due to COVID19 the case will be ajourned to the 30th June 2020 and
you can settle this by paying a balance of £179.40. If not then the matter will go to court.


My question is:
How likely would it be that I am prosecuted if I go to court?

Many Thanks in advance

Remember that if they take it to court they have to (I assume) provide the proof that it is you to the court's satisfaction - it's not for you to proove that it was NOT you, tho obv it helps if you can exactly as Ainsworth outlines

As you are a student I would also be seeking help and advice ASAP from your students union welfare / advice service over this. Their staff will be working remotely I would think and may be able to also help.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum. To reinforce and supplement @ainsworth74 's good advice above:

If you do not settle, it is close to certain that the railway will try to take you to court (but see below). But that shouldn't frighten you: you've told us that it wasn't you who fare-dodged and gave your details, and the legal position is that it's for the prosecution side (the railway) to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant (you) are guilty of the offence.

So you don't have to do anything. You can leave it to the prosecution to come up with evidence to prove their position. But it's probably a good idea to try and show them why they won't win. Because what happens in a court is that the magistrate/judge or jury look at the evidence that they have been provided with, and decide which they think is true. If you don't present any evidence, then although the railway's evidence might be weak the court might believe them because you haven't given the court any reason not to believe the railway.

But there's another reason as well. It's possible that when the railway come to start court action, they will have another look at what they know and realise that they are in a weak position, and drop matters. That will be quicker and less stressful for you than waiting for the matter to go to court.

So it would be a good idea to do your best to show why it can't have been you who was on the train and given a penalty fare. You might want to think about the following questions:

- where was the penalty fare issued? Is that anywhere that you would be likely to be (say, is it near where you live or where your university is, or near where you might be visiting friends)? If it's nowhere near where you might be expected to be then that's a point that the railway would have to overturn
- where were you on the date and time quoted? You've already told us that you were asleep in bed. As with the previous question, note where that was.
- you may not be able to prove that you were asleep in bed. But you may be able to prove that you went to bed the previous night, and that you got up in the morning. Who was the last person who saw you the night before, and the first person to see you in the morning - and where as well? Try to have a word with them to see if they will be prepared to tell the court about this if it comes to it. You probably don't need statements from them yet - but it will be helpful if you can tell the railway that your mum saw you go to bed the previous night / you had coffee with a friend in the kitchen when you got up / whatever
- you've told us that you don't use the train and normally drive. So try to produce evidence of how much you drive which (as you have said) would support an argument that you never use the train. How often do you put petrol in the car (petrol station receipts if you still have them, or entries on your bank/credit card statement)? How many miles do you do in a year (MOT certificates are good for this)?
- if you can show that you were somewhere other than where the train ticket was to later in the day, then that's also good. So if the fare dodged was Colchester to London, but you can show that you spent the morning in Ipswich (till receipts, credit card statements and so on) then that's another point in your favour.
- if the railway think that your passport matches the details they were given, then that suggests that there's someone of the same gender who looks something like you, and who knows your name, address and birthday who may have tried to pretend that they were you. This isn't a nice thing to ask, but does this remind you of any of your family, friends or colleagues? While it could be a difficult conversation, if someone is prepared to admit that they were impersonating you then they will be the people who should be facing prosecution
- another possibility is that someone has somehow obtained enough of your details to carry out 'identity fraud' against you - they are using your details to open a bank or credit card account, and then making off with the money.So it would also be a good idea to run a credit check through (for example) Experian to make sure that there aren't any new credit cards or bank accounts in your name that you don't recognise.

As I've said above, it's for the railway to prove that you were the person they caught, and it may feel like a lot of work to demonstrate that actually they were wrong. But going to court is stressful, so I think its better to put some work in now to persuade the railway that they are wrong, and avoid having to go to court.

 

[neutron]

Okay but where were you at 0636? Sleeping I appreciate but where do you live in comparison to where they're saying the offence happened? In terms of verification do you live with anyone who could comment on what you were doing on the day in question or as to your normal routine if they couldn't recall the specific day? The station (or train) in question is it close or far away from where you would have been? Is it on the way to anywhere you would normally go? You say you're a student did you have any early lectures, seminars or similar on the day in question or were they all later? Presumably your phone data for 0636 shows you as being at home? Did you share that with them?

Hopefully you can see what I'm doing from the above but you might not have hard evidence of where you were but you can certainly start to paint a picture of what you would do and what you would likely be doing which begins to cast doubt on their argument.

Have they give you a description of the person that they caught? Do you match that description or are their differences? If there are differences did you tell them that and point out those differences to them?

Many Thanks for the reply ainsworth74

Well I go to University in Colchester and there are people at the uni who will not pay for a ticket take train and give other peoples details.

I house shared, but most off us keep to themselves, and my pattern of going out is very eratic on the workload I have, one day I may be at the library till 2-3am or back by 4pm.

The information I asked IRCAS was the direction of travel and origin station and destination station, they did'nt respond to this request, but the fare amount was £29.40 so I am guessing that it was from Colchester to London.

I had a lecture which I was late to but have no attendence mark for it, the first time I left my house was at 2pm. So that didn't help

My phone data only shows when I was moving, so I got back home at around 7pm and didn't leave my house till 2pm the next day the day of the contrevention.

There are a few friends who I had fallen out with who had this details, unsure if they know my DOB fully but they know enough.

I have been reading up and noticed that If I am found guilty I will get a criminal record. The only reason why I didn't pay the first time I got the letter is because I thought that even if I go to court and am found guility.
For me to pay the fine there and then would show that I was guility but now I am second guessing that. If i pay the fine then this will all be over, as a conviction would cause problems down the line. Is it really worth the risk?

 

[neutron]

Remember that if they take it to court they have to (I assume) provide the proof that it is you to the court's satisfaction - it's not for you to proove that it was NOT you, tho obv it helps if you can exactly as Ainsworth outlines

As you are a student I would also be seeking help and advice ASAP from your students union welfare / advice service over this. Their staff will be working remotely I would think and may be able to also help.

Thanks for the reply WesternLancer

Yeah I will get in touch with them and ask for there advice.

 

[neutron]

Welcome to the forum. To reinforce and supplement @ainsworth74 's good advice above:

If you do not settle, it is close to certain that the railway will try to take you to court (but see below). But that shouldn't frighten you: you've told us that it wasn't you who fare-dodged and gave your details, and the legal position is that it's for the prosecution side (the railway) to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant (you) are guilty of the offence.

So you don't have to do anything. You can leave it to the prosecution to come up with evidence to prove their position. But it's probably a good idea to try and show them why they won't win. Because what happens in a court is that the magistrate/judge or jury look at the evidence that they have been provided with, and decide which they think is true. If you don't present any evidence, then although the railway's evidence might be weak the court might believe them because you haven't given the court any reason not to believe the railway.

But there's another reason as well. It's possible that when the railway come to start court action, they will have another look at what they know and realise that they are in a weak position, and drop matters. That will be quicker and less stressful for you than waiting for the matter to go to court.

So it would be a good idea to do your best to show why it can't have been you who was on the train and given a penalty fare. You might want to think about the following questions:

- where was the penalty fare issued? Is that anywhere that you would be likely to be (say, is it near where you live or where your university is, or near where you might be visiting friends)? If it's nowhere near where you might be expected to be then that's a point that the railway would have to overturn
- where were you on the date and time quoted? You've already told us that you were asleep in bed. As with the previous question, note where that was.
- you may not be able to prove that you were asleep in bed. But you may be able to prove that you went to bed the previous night, and that you got up in the morning. Who was the last person who saw you the night before, and the first person to see you in the morning - and where as well? Try to have a word with them to see if they will be prepared to tell the court about this if it comes to it. You probably don't need statements from them yet - but it will be helpful if you can tell the railway that your mum saw you go to bed the previous night / you had coffee with a friend in the kitchen when you got up / whatever
- you've told us that you don't use the train and normally drive. So try to produce evidence of how much you drive which (as you have said) would support an argument that you never use the train. How often do you put petrol in the car (petrol station receipts if you still have them, or entries on your bank/credit card statement)? How many miles do you do in a year (MOT certificates are good for this)?
- if you can show that you were somewhere other than where the train ticket was to later in the day, then that's also good. So if the fare dodged was Colchester to London, but you can show that you spent the morning in Ipswich (till receipts, credit card statements and so on) then that's another point in your favour.
- if the railway think that your passport matches the details they were given, then that suggests that there's someone of the same gender who looks something like you, and who knows your name, address and birthday who may have tried to pretend that they were you. This isn't a nice thing to ask, but does this remind you of any of your family, friends or colleagues? While it could be a difficult conversation, if someone is prepared to admit that they were impersonating you then they will be the people who should be facing prosecution
- another possibility is that someone has somehow obtained enough of your details to carry out 'identity fraud' against you - they are using your details to open a bank or credit card account, and then making off with the money.So it would also be a good idea to run a credit check through (for example) Experian to make sure that there aren't any new credit cards or bank accounts in your name that you don't recognise.

As I've said above, it's for the railway to prove that you were the person they caught, and it may feel like a lot of work to demonstrate that actually they were wrong. But going to court is stressful, so I think its better to put some work in now to persuade the railway that they are wrong, and avoid having to go to court.

Many thanks for the reply Fawkes Cat

Okay I see your point that it's up to them to prove it. Would it work in my favour that when I emailed IRCAS that I provided my Passport information, Location data, Gym usage,( Although the Location data showed timings after the contrevention) and provided driving data.

- I belive that it would be close to the uni, the price of the ticket that they said it was £29.40 is the amount from Colchester to London, I know this because I used to work for Greater Anglia on Weekends for rail replacement.

Yeah I will ask my housemates if they remember that.

Yeah the point about the car recipts are all in my phone and banking statments, not only that but I have a black box fitted to my car which shows how many miles I have done since the policy started and I average around 1000miles a month. I sent that information to IRCAS and have didn't hear a responce from them, untill GA sent me a second letter in regards to court proceddings.

I believe that someone I used to know has my details, I did ask them but they dennied it and we are not really on speaking terms. He is someone who has done it before and at that time aswell. But I have no evidence to support that, unless GA could match the CCTV to my passport photo which would prove it was not me.

I am contemplating paying as the risk of court is worse than paying the charge.
The only thing I am worried about is a crimianal conviction

I have attached the letters that GA has sent

 

[matt_world2004]

Do you live in halls of residence. Do you have an access card for the halls of you do your entry and exit into your block might be time stamped.

 

[Darandio]

the fare amount was £29.40 so I am guessing that it was from Colchester to London.

said it was £29.40 is the amount from Colchester to London, I know this because I used to work for Greater Anglia on Weekends for rail replacement.

You either know or you don't. If I can pick holes so easily you can be sure they can. But I cannot find a £29.40 fare either, how certain are you it's this journey?

 

[clagmonster]

I would report the suspected identity theft to the Police. If somebody has used your details for a penalty fare, you don't know what else they have been doing with them. I would then submit the crime reference number to Greater Anglia along with the rest of your defence. Note that as the data has been used in relation to a railway ticketing offence, the crime report should go to the British Transport Police.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I am contemplating paying as the risk of court is worse than paying the charge.
The only thing I am worried about is a crimianal conviction

It sounds as if you have already thought of a lot of the things that I suggested so I think you are already doing the right things.

But to pick up on the quote above, I think there are two sides to it. You have told us that it wasn’t you. So morally I think you should fight this case, putting in time and effort to clear your name.

But against that, there are the relative values to you of your time and effort on the one hand, and paying £179.20 on the other. If you pay the settlement offered, then you will not have a criminal record, and you will not have to say ‘yes’ if a job application or insurance quotation (or similar) asks if you have any convictions/a criminal record/etc. Only if on some future occasion you were to fare-dodge on Greater Anglia would you have a problem as they would know that you had previously paid a penalty and so they would assume that they had caught you for a second time. But you have told us that you don’t use the trains so that may not be a problem for you.

So paying the settlement may be the easy way out. That’s got to be your decision and we can’t make it for you!

 

[MotCO]

My phone data only shows when I was moving, so I got back home at around 7pm and didn't leave my house till 2pm the next day the day of the contrevention.

Won't this prove that you didn't leave your home between 7pm and 2pm the next day, i.e. you couldn't be on the train at 6.30am.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Won't this prove that you didn't leave your home between 7pm and 2pm the next day, i.e. you couldn't be on the train at 6.30am.

This is a good practical point. Pedantically, it doesn't *prove* that the OP didn't go out (it only shows where the phone was which need not be the same as where the phone's owner was), and how certain are we that phone location data is always right?) but it supports the argument that the owner didn't go out. So if this matter went to court, it would be up to the prosecution to show why the obvious implication (that the OP wasn't on a train but was at home in their room) was not, in fact, true. So this is something useful to add to the pile of evidence.

 

[38Cto15E]

neutron
If you are innocent of the allegation then do not pay this penalty. See it through right to the end, I believe that you get your expenses back if you have to go to court and are found Not Guilty. Do not tell the prosecution too much, tell them what they need to know and keep your other evidence to substantiate your defence in court.
Please do not be afraid of going to court if you are not guilty.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Do not tell the prosecution too much, tell them what they need to know and keep your other evidence to substantiate your defence in court.

I'm not convinced that this is good advice. What the other side need to know is why they should give up at the earliest possible stage. Which amounts to explaining all the reasons why the person who was stopped on the train is not, in fact, the original poster.

If you think about it, on the basis of what they were told on the train, the railway have good reason to believe that the OP is the person they want: they have been given a name and address that match a real person, and (if I have understood things properly) the information from the OP's passport also match what the railway saw on the train. If the OP doesn't take steps to provide evidence to counter this, then the railway will go to court, and only in that time-consuming and stressful environment will the OP give their side of the story. It's surely much better to explain now why the railway have got the wrong person? The railway presumably does not want to waste time and money pursuing a prosecution that is doomed to failure, so they will look at the evidence, and if they think that the court will throw their case out, withdraw before getting that far.

Maybe the OP does want their day in court. But the way I read their posts, they just want this to go away with no ongoing consequences. That's why paying an out of court settlement might be the right thing for them (not necessarily someone else in the same position) to do, although I think it would be better to present their evidence of why it was not them to the railway so that the railway can withdraw and not head off with £179.20 of the OP's money.

 

[Alteran Ancient]

Another thing to think about is that if you need to prove your whereabouts at the time the alleged offence took place, your phone may tell you where you were. Google Maps offers location history unless you have this turned off.

I have very rarely found it to be inaccurate as a tool, and whilst I've never needed to prove my location to anyone other than myself, it can sometimes be a useful tool for things like keeping tabs of shift work, when you took a holiday, or in a case like this, disproving a case of false identity. If you're a driver and have a Dash Cam with a correctly set timecode, this can also be used to prove an alibi.

I'm not sure if the iOS version is any less accurate than the Android one, so my experiences may differ from the next person's.

If anyone had to question my whereabouts and the onus was on me to disprove it, my immediate go-to would probably be using location history.

If you are being truthful, then I wish you good luck! The right thing to do is to fight it and clear your name.

 

[MotCO]

so that the railway can withdraw and not head off with £179.20 of the OP's money.

The other side to this is that someone else who has [allegedly] defrauded the railway has got off scot-free by giving a false name and address. That does not sound fair to me.

 

[Llanigraham]

Phone positioning records do not prove where the OP was. They only prove where the phone was. That has been tested in Court in the past and has been proven inconsistent.
The OP has to be able to PROVE where he wAs at the time of the offence to the satisfaction of the Magistrates. All the Prosecution needs to ask is "Where were you on x?" After the accused says where the follow on question is often" And can you prove that? "

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The other side to this is that someone else who has [allegedly] defrauded the railway has got off scot-free by giving a false name and address. That does not sound fair to me.

So your advice to the OP is that although it wasn't them who avoided a fare, they should pay the penalty to avoid the railway being out of pocket? I'm not sure that follows.

 

[packermac]

This will not help the OP but I often wonder in cases like this if you have undeniable proof it was not you (say an airline ticket and an exit stamp in your passport that shows you would have been on a flight at the time) can you sue the TOC for some form of damages if they take you to court and win the case against them?

 

[MikeWh]

Phone positioning records do not prove where the OP was. They only prove where the phone was. That has been tested in Court in the past and has been proven inconsistent.
The OP has to be able to PROVE where he wAs at the time of the offence to the satisfaction of the Magistrates. All the Prosecution needs to ask is "Where were you on x?" After the accused says where the follow on question is often" And can you prove that? "

The first paragraph I agree with.

Taking the OPs postings here at face value, as we have to, if they are as they say completely innocent then they don't have to PROVE anything.

 

[Haywain]

The first paragraph I agree with.

Taking the OPs postings here at face value, as we have to, if they are as they say completely innocent then they don't have to PROVE anything.

I agree with this but the OP does need to convince TIL that they should not prosecute him.

 

[SteveM70]

Phone positioning records do not prove where the OP was. They only prove where the phone was. That has been tested in Court in the past and has been proven inconsistent.

This is true, but if the OP can demonstrate that the phone was being used whilst it was somewhere other than on a 630am train, and that nobody else has access to it, then the evidence for the defence starts to look stronger.

 

[Stigy]

I am a University student.

I was informed a letter from Greater Anglia Prosecution Unit on the 5th March 2020 when the date of the letter was 25th Feburary 2020.
My father told me that I had a ticket from GA in regards to a penalty fare. I have no knowledge of ever taking the train because owning a car
I use it to go to places and havent used the train for a while.

I believe that someone used my details and gave it to the ticket inspector. With the original fine being £29.40 they asked for and additional £80.00
for "towards our cost incured". It stated that I have 14days from the date to pay and not be liable for a conviction.

I contacted the 3rd party comany who handle this "IRCAS". I told them that I belive that someone took my details and used it in this instance.
They asked for the refernce number which I gave and my passport to be sent as an email.

I followed their request and sent the email attaching the supporting docuemnts they required, they then reply with the details matched the info
given on that day.

They then asked for proof of my whereabouts on the day of questions. I provided all the information that I had on me
which was my google maps location data. I asked them if they had my passport photo why don't you match my face to the bodyworn cameras
or CCTV.

They then reply to me saying that the information location data is irrelevent as it does not include the time the contrevention took place.
They told me that it happened at 06:36AM in the morning.
I then replied back to them saying that I can't provide evidence for that time because I would have been sleeping and there's no way of verifiying this.

I have now received a second letter from GA Prosecutions Unit, telling me that due to COVID19 the case will be ajourned to the 30th June 2020 and
you can settle this by paying a balance of £179.40. If not then the matter will go to court.


My question is:
How likely would it be that I am prosecuted if I go to court?

Many Thanks in advance

I replied to you on the other forum too, so I've C/P that reply below...What I didn't mention below however is the fact that if ID was shown, presumably with your details on it, that would raise questions? How could that be the case unless someone you know wasn't using your details? Did they mention ID, or did you mention this when responding to them only? Unless it's a case of identity theft, this offence was committed by somebody who knows you and all of your particulars quite intimately, too.

"If this genuinely wasn't you, you need to tell them it wasn't you and supply whatever evidence you can. If they still chose to issue a summons, then you need to plead not guilty and attend court. The worst thing you could do will be to hope this goes away and ignore them (which I'm sure you won't do), as you will then be found guilty in your absence regardless. It is the job of their Prosecutor to prove that it was you, not for you to prove that it wasn't. If they issue a summons, you'll more than likely find the case is withdrawn on the day. Bear in mind that if the staff member noted a concise description of his or her customer, that will form part of the TOC's evidence. Most descriptions are pretty bleak, but if they noted distinguishing marks/tattoos etc, this could easily put you in the clear, as much as it could prove the defendant WAS you (which, as you say, it wasn't).

You mentioned Body Worn Video? Was this mentioned at all? Chances are they won't be allowed to use it anyway as the usage is usually governed very strictly and their policy won't allow the use of this in evidence in such cases unless there was an assault of some description and/or a police investigation (whereby the police seized the footage). It would be able to be used legally, but the company probably won't use it as evidence in such a case. The same is usually said for CCTV, not least because by the time they realise they could utilise it, the footage has been wiped (this being a Penalty Fare matter initially, there would have been a period of at least a month awaiting appeals and preparing for the next stages of the process)."

 

[Alteran Ancient]

This is true, but if the OP can demonstrate that the phone was being used whilst it was somewhere other than on a 630am train, and that nobody else has access to it, then the evidence for the defence starts to look stronger.

Absolutely. Anything like text messages, call logs, or any other activity to demonstrate it was being used at or near the time of the offence. The bit that confused me initially was this...

My phone data only shows when I was moving

Is this when it says you "left" the house? Google location is periodically tracking your location, but for simplicity reasons, only "tracks" actual movement when you move more than a certain distance from a particular landmark. So you can use the argument that the location data had your device at X location between the time of X and Y. Although, I'll admit, their User Interface doesn't always make it clear in that regard. It typically only shows the time you were "last" at home before a movement.

Phone positioning records do not prove where the OP was. They only prove where the phone was. That has been tested in Court in the past and has been proven inconsistent.
The OP has to be able to PROVE where he wAs at the time of the offence to the satisfaction of the Magistrates. All the Prosecution needs to ask is "Where were you on x?" After the accused says where the follow on question is often" And can you prove that? "

Of course this is a potential angle the plaintiff or prosecution may use, but in today's day and age, it would be hard to imagine that many people would frequently leave their phone behind. I do know a family member who has a bad reputation for travelling without their phone, but I'd have to imagine this isn't the norm for most people. I seriously doubt I would have the idea to consciously leave my phone at home if I was planning on committing fare evasion.

Hopefully this isn't something that has to go all the way to court - the responsibility remains with GA to prove that OP is the same person as the person they issued a Penalty Fare to. Just make sure you do turn up for your day in court if it does come to it.

I replied to you on the other forum too, so I've C/P that reply below...What I didn't mention below however is the fact that if ID was shown, presumably with your details on it, that would raise questions? How could that be the case unless someone you know wasn't using your details? Did they mention ID, or did you mention this when responding to them only? Unless it's a case of identity theft, this offence was committed by somebody who knows you and all of your particulars quite intimately, too.

That last bit would be my most likely guess - someone you know or previously knew, who knows your name and address. I knew petulant kids from my school days who would have only too happily tried to "have a cheeky one" on the train, get caught, and then think it really funny to pass over the details of one of their classmates.

 

[ukkid]

It's for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the OP was the same person stopped on the railway. The defence just has to shake reasonable doubt at the prosecution evidence either by questioning Its strength, evidence to suggest otherwise or a combination of both

What details did the RPI take at the time. Did they request to see any ID, even a bank card with persons name on it?
Did they note a description of the individual at the time and how vague is the description.
Did the individual sign any interview notes at the time.
If body worn camera footage was available at the time it needs to be produced. Internal company policy does not prevent the defence from demanding it, and the court ordering it to be produced. Destroying it does not help the prosecution. The defence can argue it would have assisted their case.

The phone's location may only prove where it was located but he is not seeking to prove his location. He says he was at the same location as his phone, for which data is available . Do the prosecution have any evidence to say he is untruthful, left the phone at home and travelled without it?? Its up to the magistrates to determine how much weight or not to give to this evidence

Additionally for any trial to take place, they would have to bring the rpi to come under oath, identify the OP and be ready to cross examined. The case cannot proceed otherwise.

 

[Stigy]

That last bit would be my most likely guess - someone you know or previously knew, who knows your name and address. I knew petulant kids from my school days who would have only too happily tried to "have a cheeky one" on the train, get caught, and then think it really funny to pass over the details of one of their classmates.

I tend to agree, however I'd say its unlikely someone would know a date of birth of someone other than a close friend or relative to be able to quote it accurately in the heat of the moment unless they had it written down in front of them. That is of course assuming one was given. Even a full address would usually be a bit of a challenge, especially remembering a door number and postcode.

 

[Stigy]

If body worn camera footage was available at the time it needs to be produced. Internal company policy does not prevent the defence from demanding it, and the court ordering it to be produced. Destroying it does not help the prosecution. The defence can argue it would have assisted their case.

The phone's location may only prove where it was located but he is not seeking to prove his location. He says he was at the same location as his phone, for which data is available . Do the prosecution have any evidence to say he is untruthful, left the phone at home and travelled without it?? Its up to the magistrates to determine how much weight or not to give to this evidence

Additionally for any prosecution to take place, they would have to bring the rpi to come under oath, identify the OP and be ready to cross examined. The case cannot proceed otherwise.

The Body Worn Video would be ideal, however even if it was "demanded" by the defence, this wouldn't be available after 30-days usually. It's not about evidence being destroyed.

As for witnesses; The RPI would only have to attend for a trial to give evidence should the defendant plead not guilty, so its wrong to suggest the RPI would be required for any prosecution to take place. In some cases, a case may be adjourned if the magistrates/JD etc believe having the witness there would help at all, in particularly complex cases.

 

[ukkid]

If its the footage is retained somewhere/anywhere it has to be disclosed. The point I was try to make was regardless of the reasons why, the unavailability doesn't assist the prosecution and can be used against them. if anything a good defence would make a song and dance about it

Yes, sorry I meant at trial (and edited above). If he pleaded guilty and no Newton hearing required the RPI wouldn't likely be there. Thanks,

 

[Stigy]

If its the footage is retained somewhere/anywhere it has to be disclosed. The point I was try to make was regardless of the reasons why, the unavailability doesn't assist the prosecution and can be used against them. if anything a good defence would make a song and dance about it

Yes, sorry I meant at trial (and edited above). If he pleaded guilty and no Newton hearing required the RPI wouldn't likely be there. Thanks,

I was probably being a bit pedantic as I doubt the OP in this case will be pleading guilty

With regard to the footage, indeed it would have to be disclosed if it was put aside (in which case it would naturally form part of the prosecution’s evidence and be exhibited as such), I think I misunderstood what you meant. In this case though, since it’s a PF matter initially, the likelihood of them seizing CCTV if any kind to support a prosecution is remote. Even if they reported the OP straight away for consideration of prosecution, the only reason CCTV or Bodycam footage would be submitted was if there was doubt in what was said during questioning, if the footage would prove an otherwise difficult case (a non-revenue related case whereby there’s no clear evidence such as a lack of ticket etc), or as I said before, if there was an allegation of assault etc.

Bodycam footage probably wouldn’t have been seized unless the latter applies, because chances are the camera wouldn’t even have been activated so it would be pointless (they’re generally not always on unless there’s a reason such as agression etc).