-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Someone impersonated me and now I have to go to court.
- Thread starter Sahra
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tsr
Established Member
They do. Mostly more difficult cases which also involve low-level crime other than fare evasion, but occasionally they deal with more mundane matters such as basic failures to pay for tickets. Several such exercises have occurred recently.
No. They have REOs on all routes, and TL/GN also have Passenger Hosts (who are basically just rebadged revenue staff).
We don’t explicitly know which grades of staff were involved in the original report of this offence. REOs are regularly involved in completing MG11 reports and indeed spend a considerable amount of time doing so.
It appears the OP mentions on another forum on Reddit, that their mother was home with them that day. Additionally it appears the name the TOC has is spelled rather differently than the OPs name, not just say a letter out.
A lot of speculation on what evidence the TOC has and a lot of focus on the OP having to find social media or Google timeline evidence of being elsewhere (on both threads). The OP hasnt even got to the plea hearing yet, and has to decide whether to plead guilty or not. A trial if any would be at a later date. If the OP hadnt committed the offence, they shouldnt really be pleading guilty but the choice is theirs.
I hope the OP gets some good legal advice. This type of case is not the first of its kind. People have given other peoples details before, and there have been threads on that.
The prosecution will have to be put to proof if this even gets to trial (they might even withdraw in the face of a not guilty plea... I know more speculation).
A good lawyer or prepared litigant in person would seek disclosure at plea hearing or before a trial, and would question the strength of the prosecution evidence either in a defence case statement or at trial or both. I am not a lawyer, but I recall a barrister writing once, the defence don't need to prove a negative, they need to shake enough doubt at the prosecution case.
Some things that stick out about the strength of the prosecution case, based on what has been written are as follows.
Who gives their correct address (so they can be contacted and prosecuted), but mispells their own name?
Faced with someone who only gave a name and address did the RPI request to see a bank card or anything on them with their name on it?
Did the TOC attempt to trace the purchase of the ticket presented by the "stoppee" to identify the likely holder. If they havent yet, (particularly if the OP has denied being the "stoppee" in correspondence) , why dont they instead of jumping to prosecution.
Does the TOC have any cctv or photgraphs of the person on the day when stopped or at any of the stations? The lack of (regardless of reasons why discussed above) does not harm the defence, it shows the prosecution doesn't have something that could connect the defendant to the "stoppee" particularly if the "stoppee" gave nothing else but a name and address.
A lot of speculation on what evidence the TOC has and a lot of focus on the OP having to find social media or Google timeline evidence of being elsewhere (on both threads). The OP hasnt even got to the plea hearing yet, and has to decide whether to plead guilty or not. A trial if any would be at a later date. If the OP hadnt committed the offence, they shouldnt really be pleading guilty but the choice is theirs.
I hope the OP gets some good legal advice. This type of case is not the first of its kind. People have given other peoples details before, and there have been threads on that.
The prosecution will have to be put to proof if this even gets to trial (they might even withdraw in the face of a not guilty plea... I know more speculation).
A good lawyer or prepared litigant in person would seek disclosure at plea hearing or before a trial, and would question the strength of the prosecution evidence either in a defence case statement or at trial or both. I am not a lawyer, but I recall a barrister writing once, the defence don't need to prove a negative, they need to shake enough doubt at the prosecution case.
Some things that stick out about the strength of the prosecution case, based on what has been written are as follows.
Who gives their correct address (so they can be contacted and prosecuted), but mispells their own name?
Faced with someone who only gave a name and address did the RPI request to see a bank card or anything on them with their name on it?
Did the TOC attempt to trace the purchase of the ticket presented by the "stoppee" to identify the likely holder. If they havent yet, (particularly if the OP has denied being the "stoppee" in correspondence) , why dont they instead of jumping to prosecution.
Does the TOC have any cctv or photgraphs of the person on the day when stopped or at any of the stations? The lack of (regardless of reasons why discussed above) does not harm the defence, it shows the prosecution doesn't have something that could connect the defendant to the "stoppee" particularly if the "stoppee" gave nothing else but a name and address.
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
As the spelling seems to be quite different from your name,
https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvic...me_and_set_a_court/ewn44k8/?context=8&depth=9
I now think it's an important point to bring up - along with the fact that the person gave the wrong phone number for you. (It might be that the inspector assumed how to spell the name, rather than that the person gave the wrong spelling, but maybe GTR haven't taken adequate account of those two points.)
I would like to stress again that people may be much better able to help you if you say on here what you have already written to GTR - and details of any other communication from them that may be relevant.
As a not-guilty plea extends the time until court, it gives you more time to get rid of this case by communicating with the company.
Hopefully you're already getting advice from a solicitor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvic...me_and_set_a_court/ewn44k8/?context=8&depth=9
I now think it's an important point to bring up - along with the fact that the person gave the wrong phone number for you. (It might be that the inspector assumed how to spell the name, rather than that the person gave the wrong spelling, but maybe GTR haven't taken adequate account of those two points.)
I would like to stress again that people may be much better able to help you if you say on here what you have already written to GTR - and details of any other communication from them that may be relevant.
As a not-guilty plea extends the time until court, it gives you more time to get rid of this case by communicating with the company.
Hopefully you're already getting advice from a solicitor.
Last edited:
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,980
Assuming that you are the same person as on Reddit, I think you are in a fairly strong position.
You assert that it wasn't you. As I said above, if this goes to trial, you can go into the witness box and explain this (although that also allows the other side to ask you all sorts of questions - whether you ever travel from Hatfield to London, what you were actually doing on the day in question and so on - trying to catch you out)
Your mum can confirm that you were at home. As you have said on Reddit, surely everyone's mum would do that? Maybe, but (a) who better to know that you were in the house and (b) unless your mum has a history of lying to the courts, why should she start now? Also (c) any honest witness is better than none.
Your name has been spelt wrong. This could just be a transcription error - but again, it casts doubt on the reliability of the railway's case.
It seems to me that this is enough for you to challenge the railway's identification of you - which means asking them to produce whoever it was who wrote the report as a witness, and asking them to confirm that they are certain it was you who gave (something like) your name and address.
As we've said, you really need to be talking to a solicitor, and please take their advice over ours. But as long as you are telling us and Reddit the truth, you should be able to make this prosecution go away.
You assert that it wasn't you. As I said above, if this goes to trial, you can go into the witness box and explain this (although that also allows the other side to ask you all sorts of questions - whether you ever travel from Hatfield to London, what you were actually doing on the day in question and so on - trying to catch you out)
Your mum can confirm that you were at home. As you have said on Reddit, surely everyone's mum would do that? Maybe, but (a) who better to know that you were in the house and (b) unless your mum has a history of lying to the courts, why should she start now? Also (c) any honest witness is better than none.
Your name has been spelt wrong. This could just be a transcription error - but again, it casts doubt on the reliability of the railway's case.
It seems to me that this is enough for you to challenge the railway's identification of you - which means asking them to produce whoever it was who wrote the report as a witness, and asking them to confirm that they are certain it was you who gave (something like) your name and address.
As we've said, you really need to be talking to a solicitor, and please take their advice over ours. But as long as you are telling us and Reddit the truth, you should be able to make this prosecution go away.
Granted this is not rail but bear with me as I feel it’s incredibly similar and about the burden of proof. I had an incident where someone had given my details for dropping a cigarette butt in Southwark outside London Bridge. I received a letter from an enforcement officer / team to pay for a fine. I called them up tried to have a sensible conversation said it wasn’t me I don’t even smoke and I wasn’t in London that day. The overall tone and attitude was very similar to what people experience with TOC’s They insisted I prove I wasn’t there and evidence my whereabouts. Had the attitude been different I might have been more helpful, to cut along story short I refused point blank and told them they need to prove I was there and asked them to please send me a picture of this person as there’s a wealth of cctv around the area that supposedly is me and if it somehow miraculously turns out to be me I will gladly pay the fine but until then do not bother me again. I hung up and never heard anything else. If it was not you, ask them to prove it as other posters have mentioned the proof lies with them. Google search history is way too much effort that you should have to go through because someone has used your details. TOC’s like enforcement officers seem to think the burden of proof need not apply. You should make them prove their case!
I don't advise ignoring the issue. Prosecutions for rail fare evasion are a criminal matter and the last thing the OP needs is a case being heard in their absence and then ending up with a criminal record.
Is it normal for RP staff to take photos when they take a customer's details?
Presumably not, but if the person being prosecuted says they are not the person, then surely the TOC would have to get CCTV evidence? I don't see how else the TOC can get proof.
Given this case, surely TOCs will have to take photos in future, or use bodycam footage.
The inspector will often note a description of the person they are interviewing. Won't always be clear cut, but when a bald-headed guy turns out to have a full head of brown hair it's a bit of a giveaway.
nuts & bolts
Member
Who says the TOC is wasting court time?
There doesn't need to be photographic evidence. Prosecutions for impersonating people have taking place longer than cameras have been around.
If they've got no proof, what is the point of going to court?
C J Snarzell
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,506
I'm an ex-police officer and first and foremost please don't get upset about all of this.
Firstly, the revenue protection officers who issued the original ticket should really have verified the person's identity at the time. When I was in the police I never accepted what anyone said to me - very often people provide 'Joey' details and lie to the police. Fortunately we had the use of the Police National Computer on our radios and also we were issued with hand held devices to check offender profiles of people who had been in custody previously. This allowed us to view photographs taken in police custody and confirm that person was who they said they were. On rare occasions, I brought people into custody just to get them on a fingerprint machine because I had no other way of confirming who they are.
People who find themselves in the s**t often tell lies. I don't know if the revenue protection officers have the same powers as the police as I would assume people caught fare evading could just try and fob them off with duff details and in this case some idiot has used your name.
As an ex-cop I would I would certainly consider the following points:-
a) Body cam footage - this is potentially crucial evidence. The revenue protection officers wear body cams (like police officers do) and should activate them at all times in these circumstances.
b) ID of the offender. The officer issuing the fine should have submitted a statement and as an ex-police officer I would always include a description of the offender. If this description of the offender is nothing like you then the case is over with.
c) Try and recall your movements on the 13th February. If you know what time the fine was served then try and recollect where you would have been and if there are other people that can verify this. As it is six months ago, this would be extremely difficult.
The TOC in question should have a prosecution team. You should write to them and highlight someone else had fraudulently used your details. If they insist on taking the matter to court - then you must attend!!!!!
In terms of legal representation, you might not be entitled to a solicitor but in this case you can represent yourself as it is a low level uncompleted case. If you do, the TOC prosecutor has to provide you with disclosure of evidence. I would challenge any inconsistencies and request a trial take place.
When this happens the TOC will have to summon the revenue protection officer to give evidence. If he/she cannot identify you in court - NO CASE TO ANSWER, If he/she didn't activate their body cam and didn't record footage of the offender - NO CASE TO ANSWER, If their description of the offender in the witness statement is nothing like you - NO CASE TO ANSWER.
As a police officer my job was to prove a person was guilty. In this case the TOC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have committed an offence on their train. From what I have seen, the evidence is shallow to say the least.
I would take this all the way as you have done nothing wrong. The Magistrates I have dealt with over the years are decent people and in a case like this, if it were to go to court you have nothing to worry about. It would be dealt with in a more informal environment with the TOC representative doing all the work!!!
C J
Firstly, the revenue protection officers who issued the original ticket should really have verified the person's identity at the time. When I was in the police I never accepted what anyone said to me - very often people provide 'Joey' details and lie to the police. Fortunately we had the use of the Police National Computer on our radios and also we were issued with hand held devices to check offender profiles of people who had been in custody previously. This allowed us to view photographs taken in police custody and confirm that person was who they said they were. On rare occasions, I brought people into custody just to get them on a fingerprint machine because I had no other way of confirming who they are.
People who find themselves in the s**t often tell lies. I don't know if the revenue protection officers have the same powers as the police as I would assume people caught fare evading could just try and fob them off with duff details and in this case some idiot has used your name.
As an ex-cop I would I would certainly consider the following points:-
a) Body cam footage - this is potentially crucial evidence. The revenue protection officers wear body cams (like police officers do) and should activate them at all times in these circumstances.
b) ID of the offender. The officer issuing the fine should have submitted a statement and as an ex-police officer I would always include a description of the offender. If this description of the offender is nothing like you then the case is over with.
c) Try and recall your movements on the 13th February. If you know what time the fine was served then try and recollect where you would have been and if there are other people that can verify this. As it is six months ago, this would be extremely difficult.
The TOC in question should have a prosecution team. You should write to them and highlight someone else had fraudulently used your details. If they insist on taking the matter to court - then you must attend!!!!!
In terms of legal representation, you might not be entitled to a solicitor but in this case you can represent yourself as it is a low level uncompleted case. If you do, the TOC prosecutor has to provide you with disclosure of evidence. I would challenge any inconsistencies and request a trial take place.
When this happens the TOC will have to summon the revenue protection officer to give evidence. If he/she cannot identify you in court - NO CASE TO ANSWER, If he/she didn't activate their body cam and didn't record footage of the offender - NO CASE TO ANSWER, If their description of the offender in the witness statement is nothing like you - NO CASE TO ANSWER.
As a police officer my job was to prove a person was guilty. In this case the TOC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have committed an offence on their train. From what I have seen, the evidence is shallow to say the least.
I would take this all the way as you have done nothing wrong. The Magistrates I have dealt with over the years are decent people and in a case like this, if it were to go to court you have nothing to worry about. It would be dealt with in a more informal environment with the TOC representative doing all the work!!!
C J
Is the OP facing a civil case, in which case is the level of doubt test 'on the balance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
221129
Established Member
No. It's a criminal case.
TOCs typically bring several cases to a Magistrates Court on the same day. The cost of each indiviudal case is therefore relatively low and it is financially effective for them to call the accused's bluff - to see if the fare evader actually was them or not. Of course the TOC will lose some of those cases but it is overall cheaper to lose a few cases like this than to invest in suitable technologies and staff time to investigate situations where people claim to have not been the indivudal stopped. It's crappy for the impersonated person, but that is my reading of it.
C J Snarzell
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,506
I know I waffled on in my last update but I would definitely try and challenge the description angle.
I would contact the TOC prosecution team via telephone and see if they will disclose a description of the offender. If they won't do this, see if you can attend the TOC HQ in person and take your passport to confirm who you are. That way if they can verify you are not the same person on the train because the description doesn't match they should finalise the matter there and then and it will help them save valuable time.
Again the TOC prosecutions team may refuse to do this and insist on taking it to court. I'm just offering a couple of suggestions that may get the case binned off before it reaches a court room.
I would contact the TOC prosecution team via telephone and see if they will disclose a description of the offender. If they won't do this, see if you can attend the TOC HQ in person and take your passport to confirm who you are. That way if they can verify you are not the same person on the train because the description doesn't match they should finalise the matter there and then and it will help them save valuable time.
Again the TOC prosecutions team may refuse to do this and insist on taking it to court. I'm just offering a couple of suggestions that may get the case binned off before it reaches a court room.
While this would work, it does seem a bit OTT. If we exclude the possibility that the TOC would engage in a criminal conspiracy and alter their evidence in order to achieve a very minor conviction, it would suffice to provide them a basic description and advise them to drop the matter if it doesn't reasonbly approximate the description they have on record.
C J Snarzell
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,506
It was only a suggestion.
The prospect of going to court is a terrifying experience for anyone and I was just offering a solution to our fellow forum member who I'm sure is worrying about this.
Regards
C J
The prospect of going to court is a terrifying experience for anyone and I was just offering a solution to our fellow forum member who I'm sure is worrying about this.
Regards
C J
I understand that, just providing a less burdensome alternative.
AmicableMan
Member
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 14
In with your summons they would usually send you a copy of the inspectors statement. It might be worth uploading that, redacting your information and the inspectors information of course due to GDPR.
It might give people a better idea of what the evideene is against you.
It might give people a better idea of what the evideene is against you.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
If there was no written description of the person in the original report what stops the Revenue person looking up the OP on Social Media and using his appearance from there.?
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,097
Wow. You actually think they would commit perjury and risk jail for this?
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Yep, it certainly isn't our of the question. The sheer pigheadedness you hear about on makes me think it is more than possible; some individuals have been handing out what they think is justice for years and now think they are a law unto themselves
Last edited:
Therefore the description given by a rail employee should not be trusted and photographic/video evidence should be a requirement.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
- Status