Quality of evidence required for a successful prosecution: Is it too low?

[MichaelAMW]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #24 originally in this thread.

I think what bothers me, assuming the story is all truthful and accurate, is that TOC have been able to use such woefully weak evidence of identity to secure a criminal conviction, which has now escalated to an offence against the courts and is thus pretty serious. How on Earth do they get to bring a prosecution - successfully - when the proof is so far from beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Llanigraham]

Person apprehended and gives a false name and address. Remember that there is no requirement for UK residents to carry ID so stated details are accepted.
Name and address checked and confirmed as correct. Accused has done their homework!
Correspondence sent to address but no response made.
Court hearing dates sent to address but no response made.
Court hearing undertaken with accusued not present. A common proceedure!
Person found guilty and fine issued.
Fine not paid.
Court issues further correspondence but no response.
Arrest warrant issued.

The Railway Company and the Court have fully and correctly followed legal proceedure.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Person apprehended and gives a false name and address. Remember that there is no requirement for UK residents to carry ID so stated details are accepted.
Name and address checked and confirmed as correct. Accused has done their homework!
Correspondence sent to address but no response made.
Court hearing dates sent to address but no response made.
Court hearing undertaken with accusued not present. A common proceedure!
Person found guilty and fine issued.
Fine not paid.
Court issues further correspondence but no response.
Arrest warrant issued.

The Railway Company and the Court have fully and correctly followed legal proceedure.

Whilst that might be true, it's not an answer to my question.

 

[najaB]

How on Earth do they get to bring a prosecution - successfully - when the proof is so far from beyond reasonable doubt?

They have a name and address that checks out and an uncontested case means no evidence to the contrary. Hence a successful prosecution.

 

[MichaelAMW]

They have a name and address that checks out and an uncontested case means no evidence to the contrary. Hence a successful prosecution.

But surely you can see how bad that is, in terms of utter injustice towards an innocent party? Why doesn't the TOC have to provide better evidence? A person having an association with an address doesn't mean they can easily be contacted - obviously, in this case.

 

[najaB]

But surely you can see how bad that is, in terms of utter injustice towards an innocent party? Why doesn't the TOC have to provide better evidence?

What better evidence would you suggest?

 

[tiptoptaff]

For every 1 case like this, there are 99 other cases where the name and details given are indeed correct and the legitimately guilty party has just ignored it and found guilty in their absence correctly and justly. So, when the details were not contested, it is reasonable for the courts to rule that it was a guilty party ignoring the summons.

 

[Llanigraham]

But surely you can see how bad that is, in terms of utter injustice towards an innocent party? Why doesn't the TOC have to provide better evidence? A person having an association with an address doesn't mean they can easily be contacted - obviously, in this case.

And I will repeat myself, the railway company and the Court have done nothing wrong. They have followed the full and correct legal procedures in this case.
The only way this could have been done differently was if the population of the UK had to carry Identity Cards, and we dont. Perhaps you would prefer that?
I suggest that if you think the system is wrong then you take it up with your MP and try to get him to force the Government to change it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why doesn't the TOC have to provide better evidence

What better evidence?

The OP's situation is both regrettable and unfortunate, but also a massive outlier (most people would access post in this situation) and not the fault of the justice system.

There is the option of a stat dec within 21 days of becoming aware of the conviction for this very reason.

It is the same in the civil courts, where post is automatically assumed to have been delivered and that registered addresses are correct. I would suggest the OP's friend may wish to consider having their post sent somewhere they can access it. If they're registered as a limited company, they definitely must.

 

[Silverdale]

So, when the details were not contested, it is reasonable for the courts to rule that it was a guilty party ignoring the summons.

It would be reasonable if it had been established at the time the prosecution was brought, that the person found travelling without a ticket was the same person whose given name/address checked out from a crude search of the electoral roll or other public data.

It isn't reasonable for a court to convict someone unless and until it has been established that the person named on the indictment is the guilty party. If the TOC wants to prosecute, the onus is on them to establish that fact by positive means, rather than rely on a lack of reply to correspondence sent to a given address because some of the time, or even most of the time, that turns out to be the case.

 

[najaB]

It would be reasonable if it had been established at the time the prosecution was brought, that the person found travelling without a ticket was the same person whose given name/address checked out from a crude search of the electoral roll or other public data.

How do you propose this is done given that the UK has no standard form of official ID and no requirement that it be carried even if it did?

 

[LAX54]

But surely you can see how bad that is, in terms of utter injustice towards an innocent party? Why doesn't the TOC have to provide better evidence? A person having an association with an address doesn't mean they can easily be contacted - obviously, in this case.

Rest assured if your name was used for something, and ended up going to court, but for some reason you ignored all the letters etc, (like this person being in S.A ) then rest assured you would be found guilty and be given a fine, followed by an arrest warrant if you failed to pay up.

 

[Llanigraham]

It would be reasonable if it had been established at the time the prosecution was brought, that the person found travelling without a ticket was the same person whose given name/address checked out from a crude search of the electoral roll or other public data.

It isn't reasonable for a court to convict someone unless and until it has been established that the person named on the indictment is the guilty party. If the TOC wants to prosecute, the onus is on them to establish that fact by positive means, rather than rely on a lack of reply to correspondence sent to a given address because some of the time, or even most of the time, that turns out to be the case.

I'm afraid it is reasonable, because that is how the Law is written in the UK, and not just in relation to railway prosecutions.
Neither the TOC or the Court have done anything wrong.

 

[Silverdale]

How do you propose this is done given that the UK has no standard form of official ID and no requirement that it be carried even if it did?

You are right that in the UK we don't have ID cards, nor are we required to carry any proof of ID around with us. Nevertheless we are obliged to provide proof of ID for all manner of routine things from renting a car to collecting a parcel from a delivery office and various forms of photo ID are available to do this.

I'll readily admit that in a case where a fare dodger refused or was unable to produce any proof of ID, it would become onerous on the TOC to detain that person while they sought to establish whether the name and address they supplied was actually theirs. But it is equally onerous on the police to do that in cases of minor crimes, such as shoplifting or begging yet we, and more importantly the courts, expect them to do it, should they choose to prosecute. I don't see any reason why bodies which bring their own prosecutions shouldn't have to do the same. The fault in this case lies with the court which did not seek adequate proof that the person they were trying for the offence was the person who actually committed it.

 

[Llanigraham]

It does amaze me the distinct lack of knowledge about the British legal system by some who have commented here.
Both the TOC and the Courts have followed the letter of the Law in this case and to suggest otherwise is frankly preposterous.
Until the UK population has to carry ID cards then this sort of case will continue. Frankly that time cannot come soon enough.

 

[Silverdale]

It does amaze me the distinct lack of knowledge about the British legal system by some who have commented here.
Both the TOC and the Courts have followed the letter of the Law in this case and to suggest otherwise is frankly preposterous.
Until the UK population has to carry ID cards then this sort of case will continue. Frankly that time cannot come soon enough.

What the TOC and court have done in this case is follow established practice, but that does not mean they have followed the letter of the law.

My knowledge of the law may be basic, but even I understand that in a criminal prosecution it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. A TOC doesn't have a special exemption where bringing proof of the offender's ID to court is too onerous or difficult because they didn't establish a person's identity at the time they apprehended them.

I agree that requiring people to carry a simple form of ID document would avoid a lot of these problems, as would requiring people to register their residential address with the local authorities. When I lived in Germany both of these applied and it did make everyday life very much simpler. But until the onus falls on the individual to prove who they are, where there is doubt, prosecutors are obliged to go to the length of establishing it, often by exhaustive investigation. It's what the police have to do, no short cuts, no excuses, no rubber-stamping.

 

[najaB]

But until the onus falls on the individual to prove who they are, where there is doubt, prosecutors are obliged to go to the length of establishing it, often by exhaustive investigation. It's what the police have to do, no short cuts, no excuses, no rubber-stamping.

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong.

 

[talltim]

I’m not disagreeing that that is how the law and courts actually work in England, but I don’t see how sending someone a letter/s that may or may not have got the right person and then not turning up in court fits with beyond reasonable doubt. I mean, ignoring no the matter of identity, we’ve all had experience of the post office.

 

[MichaelAMW]

For all those people who just cheerfully side step the question of whether this is reasonable by simply stating that's what the law is, I trust you will be equally cheerful if it happens to you one day. And you still haven't actually bothered to answer the question of whether it's the right way to treat an innocent person.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Rest assured if your name was used for something, and ended up going to court, but for some reason you ignored all the letters etc, (like this person being in S.A ) then rest assured you would be found guilty and be given a fine, followed by an arrest warrant if you failed to pay up.

Oh, well, that's alright then. Dear God, where has people's compassion gone? This is a forum, not a court, so it's ok to engage with the issue.

 

[najaB]

And you still haven't actually bothered to answer the question of whether it's the right way to treat an innocent person.

Discussion of if this is the 'right way to treat an innocent person' of exactly zero use to the OP, and even if we are going to engage in that discussion the onus is on you to suggest a better solution.

 

[LAX54]

Oh, well, that's alright then. Dear God, where has people's compassion gone? This is a forum, not a court, so it's ok to engage with the issue.

Dont think he was saying anything about no compassion, what he was saying was, if you are given a fine, which is ignored for whatever reason, then a summons, which is not responded to, then when it goes to court, you are banged to rights, even if you are innocent, it may not be 'right' but that's the way it is, the 'other side' have done all they have to, but it was the defence that was lacking, well a bit more than lacking, it was non existent!

 

[LAX54]

For all those people who just cheerfully side step the question of whether this is reasonable by simply stating that's what the law is, I trust you will be equally cheerful if it happens to you one day. And you still haven't actually bothered to answer the question of whether it's the right way to treat an innocent person.

The TOC did not know he was innocent, neither did the Court, he got dropped in it from a great height by his mate, all he can do is try to clear his name, and hope the Police once it's sorted, do his 'friend' for fraud and deception.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dear God, where has people's compassion gone? This is a forum, not a court, so it's ok to engage with the issue.

The issue is "how does the OP's friend fix this mess".

One can be empathetic about the mess he is in, but "boo hoo it's so unfair" isn't really very practical advice is it? Tea and hugs won't fix nada.

For all those people who just cheerfully side step the question of whether this is reasonable by simply stating that's what the law is, I trust you will be equally cheerful if it happens to you one day.

The reasonableness (or otherwise) of the situation doesn't come into it.

Lots of innocent people get accused of crimes they didn't commit. Some even get convicted of them. Damn right it's not fair. But it's also why more people should be out campaigning about the destruction of criminal defence Legal Aid in the UK. You never know when you might need a good barrister.

 

[robbeech]

I’m not sure we are following all the facts here.
Does ALL mail for this person go to this address? I’m not sure it does.
It seems to me that the person has the mail procedure in place, but the link with the information given by the guilty party was this person at this address. Given there is a relationship with this address and this person the mail is sent there. It doesn’t mean that ALL of their mail is sent there.

 

[cuccir]

Oh, well, that's alright then. Dear God, where has people's compassion gone? This is a forum, not a court, so it's ok to engage with the issue.

Now that this has been spun off from the original thread, I'm happier to engage in debate.

To be honest, it surprised me when I first discovered that people could be prosecuted by a private company without all that much evidence that it was actually them who committed the offence. So in response to the actual concern raised: I don't think it's very fair, though I think that this is a governmental/legal flaw rather than one on behalf of the railway companies. Equally, I can see the problem in a country without ID cards that there is a question of enforcement.

The statutory declaration system is on the one hand quite good, though the 21 days notice does seem a bit brief to me.

. But it's also why more people should be out campaigning about the destruction of criminal defence Legal Aid in the UK.

Well said. This has been one of the travesties of the coalition/Conservative governments of the 2010s, and one which has received far too little attention.

 

[talltim]

Presumably (in the future) under GDPR the TOC will have to get consent from the person in question to process their data before even getting as far as considering prosecution. As the name/address they have is incorrect they don’t have that permission.
Recital 19 says that the normal rules of GDPR do not apply for investigation of criminal cases but then it gets a bit confusing. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-19/
It says that the rules about such investigations by a competent authority are covered by Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council. However, are TOCs authorities? And in this case they have been shown to not be competent!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Presumably (in the future) under GDPR the TOC will have to get consent from the person in question to process their data before even getting as far as considering prosecution. As the name/address they have is incorrect they don’t have that permission.
Recital 19 says that the normal rules of GDPR do not apply for investigation of criminal cases but then it gets a bit confusing. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-19/
It says that the rules about such investigations by a competent myauthority are covered by Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council. However, are TOCs authorities? And in this case they have been shown to not be competent!

The EU's consumer-addressed website has a fairly succinct guide to the basics of the GDPR. You will note that it states that consent is only required if processing cannot be justified under one of the other grounds. There is a wide exemption for law enforcement, in that people cannot simply refuse consent to give their details if they are legally required to do so (e.g. when driving, or if there is reasonable suspicion of you having committed a Byelaw offence).

 

[35B]

Presumably (in the future) under GDPR the TOC will have to get consent from the person in question to process their data before even getting as far as considering prosecution. As the name/address they have is incorrect they don’t have that permission.
Recital 19 says that the normal rules of GDPR do not apply for investigation of criminal cases but then it gets a bit confusing. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-19/
It says that the rules about such investigations by a competent authority are covered by Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council. However, are TOCs authorities? And in this case they have been shown to not be competent!

If a TOC can’t claim “legitimate interest” in this instance, when firms that market to me evidently are in the emails that they are sending me about how they process my data, then something is badly wrong.

 

[30907]

It says that the rules about such investigations by a competent authority are covered by Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council. However, are TOCs authorities? And in this case they have been shown to not be competent!

Competent has a specific meaning here - having the legal power to act.
Whether they are competent in the popular sense has nothing to do with it.