Please help with intended prosecuation

[_steve_]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could give me advice on an intended prosecution: “Travel on a train without a valid ticket contray S.5.3a Regualtion of Railways Act (1989)”

The price of the train fare under question is approx £3.

I travelled from a train station (train station A) with no ticketing facilitates to a train station (train station C) that does have ticketing facilities. There is no penalty fares on the line on which I travelled. Due to the train station where I started my journey having no ticketing facilitates, I boarded a train without a train ticket.
I was stopped inside my destination train station (train station C) by transport investigations ltd staff. There was a misunderstanding between myself and the transport investigations staff, which led them to wrongly think I had at the first instance of communication pretended I had come from another train station (train station B) to the one I had truthfully come from (train station A). This resulted in me being questioned under caution. I said under caution that I had saw the conductor on the train, but the conductor did not ask me for a ticket. I was also asked - why I had on the first instance said I started my journey at train station B, then changed my story to say train station A, which I replied “no comment”. Train station A (the correct train station) was recorded on the m11 form as my station of origin. I was then asked if I would have left the train station without paying had I not been stopped, which I replied “no comment”.

My questions are:
1- Has there ever been a successful prosecution under S.5.3a where there were no ticketing facilities at the station of origin?
2- If I didn’t buy a train ticket from the conductor on the train, would that be enough evidence to show intent of avoiding payment, if I can buy a ticket at the destination?
3- If I replied no comment to the question asked under caution: “why I had on the first instance said I started my journey at train station B, then changed my story to say train station A”, how would this stand as evidence against me?

Any help will be very much appreciated.

Thanks

 

[michael769]

My questions are:
1- Has there ever been a successful prosecution under S.5.3a where there were no ticketing facilities at the station of origin?

Yes

2- If I didn’t buy a train ticket from the conductor on the train, would that be enough evidence to show intent of avoiding payment, if I can buy a ticket at the destination?

It depends on the circumstances!

Did the conductor pass through the train? Did he ask for or offer to sell tickets? Did you ignore him? If so why?

3- If I replied no comment to the question asked under caution: “why I had on the first instance said I started my journey at train station B, then changed my story to say train station A”, how would this stand as evidence against me?

Your response may be revealed to the court - and it is free to draw whatever conclusions it sees fit to draw from your refusal to answer.

 

[Ferret]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could give me advice on an intended prosecution: “Travel on a train without a valid ticket contray S.5.3a Regualtion of Railways Act (1989)”

The price of the train fare under question is approx £3.

I travelled from a train station (train station A) with no ticketing facilitates to a train station (train station C) that does have ticketing facilities. There is no penalty fares on the line on which I travelled. Due to the train station where I started my journey having no ticketing facilitates, I boarded a train without a train ticket.
I was stopped inside my destination train station (train station C) by transport investigations ltd staff. There was a misunderstanding between myself and the transport investigations staff, which led them to wrongly think I had at the first instance of communication pretended I had come from another train station (train station B) to the one I had truthfully come from (train station A). This resulted in me being questioned under caution. I said under caution that I had saw the conductor on the train, but the conductor did not ask me for a ticket. I was also asked - why I had on the first instance said I started my journey at train station B, then changed my story to say train station A, which I replied “no comment”. Train station A (the correct train station) was recorded on the m11 form as my station of origin. I was then asked if I would have left the train station without paying had I not been stopped, which I replied “no comment”.

My questions are:
1- Has there ever been a successful prosecution under S.5.3a where there were no ticketing facilities at the station of origin?
2- If I didn’t buy a train ticket from the conductor on the train, would that be enough evidence to show intent of avoiding payment, if I can buy a ticket at the destination?
3- If I replied no comment to the question asked under caution: “why I had on the first instance said I started my journey at train station B, then changed my story to say train station A”, how would this stand as evidence against me?

Any help will be very much appreciated.

Thanks

You're being prosecuted for intent to avoid your fare because you failed to purchase a ticket from the conductor on the train - which it sounds like you admitted under caution. If that's the case, it is irrelevant that there were no issuing facilities for you to use - it appears from your account that you could've paid on the train but didn't, and there is the evidence of intent to avoid payment unfortunately.

It also appears from your post that this case is quite advanced. Have you now been issued with a summons?

 

[island]

Why didn't you buy your ticket from the guard on the train? And was the place where you were spoken to by the revenue protection staff at station C after the ticket office, where you could have gone to pay your fare on arrival?

 

[RPI]

Answering "No comment" can be deemed as a sign off guilt by some as if you had nothing to hide you would have answered the question honestly, sounds like a pretty straight forward 5.3 prosecution to me as by your own admission you had the opportunity to pay the conductor on the train, the only time this becomes "muddied" shall we say is when the guard doesn't go through the train, you must pay at the earliest opportunity and that was the guard on the train.

 

[bb21]

1- Has there ever been a successful prosecution under S.5.3a where there were no ticketing facilities at the station of origin?

The key is "opportunities to pay", not whether there was ticket purchasing facilities at the origin. You had an opportunity to pay, ie. the conductor onboard when he walked through the train, and you ignored him.

2- If I didn’t buy a train ticket from the conductor on the train, would that be enough evidence to show intent of avoiding payment, if I can buy a ticket at the destination?

You did not purchase your ticket at the first available opportunity, hence sufficient evidence imo.

3- If I replied no comment to the question asked under caution: “why I had on the first instance said I started my journey at train station B, then changed my story to say train station A”, how would this stand as evidence against me?

As others have mentioned, it could be interpreted either way.

What was the misunderstanding regarding stations A and B?

 

[spacehopper]

Hmm sounds like a just keep my head down or stare out of the window so I can get a free ride type.

See this everyday- up and down after each stop and they just try and ignore you. Just when they think its safe, normally when stood by doors.

"See your ticket, please"-

"Oh I need to buy one"

Well I had some a few weeks back who pull this stunt got a very nasty surprise when there was a revenue block on. They weren't selling tickets at block but taking names.

Seen it on penalty fare trains- send guard down train asking if anyone needs to buy a ticket. 2 minutes later RPI comes down and does a full check. No use staring out window, pretending to be asleep etc etc. PF pad / MG11 gets filled in.

 

[_steve_]

Thanks for your help.

I will try to answer all of your questions here:

1- The details of the case so far are: I received an initial letter from transport investigations ltd stating that I had been reported and that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, and it gave me the opportunity to give any mitigating circumstances. I replied to that letter saying there was no ticketing facilities at the station where I started my journey and that I intended on buying a ticket during my journey but didn’t because railway revenue protection staff prevented me from doing so. I have now received a reply to this (second letter) saying that an application of a summons may now be made, and if I wish to comment further before the matter proceeds, then to do so within 14 days. I haven’t replied to this letter yet.
2- The conductor did come through the carriage where I was seated (walked straight past), but did not ask me for a ticket. In my opinion the conductor appeared to be busy and arguably unapproachable. I suppose I could have made more of an effort to ‘seek him out’, but I didn’t see the need, because I thought I could just buy a ticket at my destination (station C). I made no effort to avoid the conductor. The price of the ticket was £3 and I had no ‘squirm’ with paying it
3- The misunderstanding between myself and the inspector at my destination station was - he asked where I had come from, and I misinterpreted the question – saying I just got off a train that had just come from station B (I did not mean this as my place of origin). When I was asked about this under caution I told the inspector it was a misunderstanding, but he would not write that answer down on the form – only no comment. In hindsight, I shouldn’t have signed the form and asked for the police to be called.
4- I stupidly approached the inspector in my destination station (mistaking him to be a normal conductor) requesting to buy a ticket. The inspector was stood next to the ticket office.

Could I please have some advice on how to proceed with the reply to the second letter?

Thanks

 

[revenueadvice]

Conductors on train lines with stops without ticketing facilities can have a difficult job remembering exactly who he has already asked for a ticket. Maybe he made a mistake and thought he had checked your ticket already...its easy done!

It is your responsibility to stop the conductor and purchase a ticket.

Moving on...If you were under caution and gave an answer to the question asked then the revenue inspector should have written down your answer. Some times people give long winded answers that need summarising but the person who is being questioned should always be allowed to read what is written and ONLY sign if your are happy with what has been written down. If you are convinced that the inspector wrote something down that is incorrect you should write back explaining that. Problem is that as you signed the form they probably won't believe you and may think that you have realised you should have answered the questions fully and are now looking for an escape route!

In my personal opinion after reading your original post I think the revenue inspectors were 100% correct in the action they took. You were asked where you had come from...Gave one place then changed your mind? RPI's have so many people that lie to them on a day in day out basis that as soon as discrepancies appear in your story they really are not gonna believe much that you say...

I personally would write back and offer money to try and avoid going to court..especially if they are prosecuting under Regulations of Railway Act as this is a more serious conviction ...Good luck!

 

[cuccir]

2- The conductor did come through the carriage where I was seated (walked straight past), but did not ask me for a ticket. In my opinion the conductor appeared to be busy and arguably unapproachable. I suppose I could have made more of an effort to ‘seek him out’, but I didn’t see the need, because I thought I could just buy a ticket at my destination (station C). I made no effort to avoid the conductor. The price of the ticket was £3 and I had no ‘squirm’ with paying it

Did the conductor just walk past? Or was he checking tickets? I've highlighted a key phrase that you use. If it were a court case, you'd need evidence that he was unapproachable, or at least you'd need to be able to argue in a way that is as or more convincing than the prosecutor!

The misunderstanding between myself and the inspector at my destination station was - he asked where I had come from, and I misinterpreted the question – saying I just got off a train that had just come from station B (I did not mean this as my place of origin). When I was asked about this under caution I told the inspector it was a misunderstanding, but he would not write that answer down on the form – only no comment.

Plausible, but unfortunate. Is the fare from B to C less than the fare from A to C? If it is, you can see quite quickly the presumption that the RPI has made - that you said that you had come from B in order to try and pay less.

With regards to the letter - I'd reply by apologizing, offering to pay the original fare, and any costs incurred to date. Reaffirm that you stand by your previous statements - that you had intended to buy a ticket all along, and realise now that you should have made more effort to do so. Avoid saying too much more about the incident itself - I think that there's more danger of you incriminating yourself further by saying anymore.

Of course, you can always be cocky and get lucky, with the court believing that you didn't have an opportunity to purchase on board AND that you accidentally gave the impression of travelling from the wrong station. But given the potential negative outcome (fine, criminal record), it would be foolish to take that risk.

 

[W230]

3- If I replied no comment to the question asked under caution: “why I had on the first instance said I started my journey at train station B, then changed my story to say train station A”, how would this stand as evidence against me?

As RPI states above, giving "no comment" will have been more damaging than saying what happened.

When dealing with interviews under PACE, put simply, if you decide to give no comment then you are refusing to account for your actions. You are not denying an allegation of an offence. So if there is not enough evidence for a successful prosecution then you are not going to dig a hole for yourself. But if there is enough evidence to support a prosecution, you fail to account for your actions and give no comment to explain what happened. This = big hole!

I don't work in railway law so don't know much about such things but I would suggest that as a result of you answering "no comment", you may have changed what would have been a S18 railway byelaw offence of travelling without a ticket, into a S5 fare evasion one because when they asked you if you would have left the train station without paying, instead of saying "no", you in effect refused to answer!

 

[Ferret]

As RPI states above, giving "no comment" will have been more damaging than saying what happened.

When dealing with interviews under PACE, put simply, if you decide to give no comment then you are refusing to account for your actions. You are not denying an allegation of an offence. So if there is not enough evidence for a successful prosecution then you are not going to dig a hole for yourself. But if there is enough evidence to support a prosecution, you fail to account for your actions and give no comment to explain what happened. This = big hole!

I don't work in railway law so don't know much about such things but I would suggest that as a result of you answering "no comment", you may have changed what would have been a S18 railway byelaw offence of travelling without a ticket, into a S5 fare evasion one because when they asked you if you would have left the train station without paying, instead of saying "no", you in effect refused to answer!

I couldn't agree more with this. Not having bought a ticket on the train was demonstration of intent, but then the 'misunderstanding' and the 'no comment' responses appear to have exacerbated the situation. It may well be that this case is now heading to Court come what may because of this, and the OP should perhaps seek to get themself adequate representation in Court to try and mitigate the adverse affects....

 

[michael769]

I don't work in railway law so don't know much about such things but I would suggest that as a result of you answering "no comment", you may have changed what would have been a S18 railway byelaw offence of travelling without a ticket, into a S5 fare evasion

As the OP boarded at a station without ticket selling facilities the defense set out in Railway Byelaw 18(3)(i) would apply

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey; or

so prosecution under the byelaw would have no realistic prospect of success - the RoR offence was probably on the table right from the outset!

I couldn't agree more with this. Not having bought a ticket on the train was demonstration of intent, but then the 'misunderstanding' and the 'no comment' responses appear to have exacerbated the situation. It may well be that this case is now heading to Court come what me because of this, and the OP should perhaps seek to get themself adequate representation in Court to try and mitigate the adverse affects....

I think that this is good advice should the matter come to court.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree.

 

[W230]

As the OP boarded at a station without ticket selling facilities the defense set out in Railway Byelaw 18(3)(i) would apply
so prosecution under the byelaw would have no realistic prospect of success - the RoR offence was probably on the table right from the outset!

Yep, makes sense. I was only aiming to give the OP an answer to his third point as I know nothing of railway law (though always learning in this forum!)

 

[_steve_]

My case has now finished.

I paid the train companies costs and the matter has now been dropped.

I hope this helps others in similar situations - who are worrying about what the final outcome might be.

Good luck

 

[island]

Good to hear that you managed to resolve the issue and thank you very much for coming back to tell us how it went.

 

[W230]

Firstly, the reason the railway inspection officer conducts an interview under caution is because there is not already enough evidence to prosecute.

True if there isn't enough evidence for a prosecution. The interview is to determine your intent. But I believe in this case there there may still have would have been a prosecution, even had you answered "no comment" to all questions.

The motive for the interview is to acquire evidence for prosecution. If you say nothing or ´no comment´ during an interview, the court can infer guilt but only if: (1) you are charged and go to court, and (2) you do not submit evidence to the court. If you simply answer ‘no comment’ to all questions, the case may not proceed for lack of evidence.

Again true, but only if there is no evidence in the first place. If there is evidence and you fail to account for what took place then it is detrimental to your defence. And in reference to your point (1) you would have been reported on summons, where your failure to answer the questions at the time you were asked them would have gone against you. Being "charged" is only one way for a defendant to end up in front of a court.

Anyhoo, i'm glad you took the sensible option and have got it sorted without a massive dent in the wallet and thank you for updating the forum.