Llanigraham
On Moderation
.Everyone I don't see how this is legal. When it says Inspectors contemporaneous notes. I know for a fact that me and my parter didn't state we ran through barriers and I know for a fact that we did state we had permission to travel.
Now they are saying there were no staff at Wembley on that day. I don't see how they can say this when I was there an employee was working on the machine and it was open. Should I ask Michael, so if no staff was there that day then why would a person be standing by the machine with it open, had someone had access to it who shouldn't have. CCTV will prove the fact that I was right.
I don't see how the Inspectors contemporaneous notes can be addmisable in court when it's clear the inspector did not write down what is true. And his body cam footage will prove this. If it did go to court and body cam footage did show the truth then it's a clear lie, but if they don't show it, it's clear they wouldn't show them as it would catch them out. Any thoughts.
1/ Yes it looks perfectly legal to me.
2/ Contemporanous notes are simply a report on what happened AT THE TIME. They do not have to be written as the event took place, but can be written up later elsewhere. (When I was prosecuting people for a Government Dept that is exactly what we did, as do the Police)
3/ They are possibly or most probably correct that there were no RAILWAY staff, (ie working for the Train Operator or Network Rail) working on the machine. That person may well have been a contractor.
4/ Unless you asked for CCTV evidence at the start I doubt it will now be available as it is generally over-written after a short period. That is perfectly legal.
5/ Did the inspector have his body cam on? Somehow I doubt it, and point 4 applies.
Several but the overriding one is unless this alleged voice recording of the man attending to the ticket machine has a date and timestamp that proves it was made at the time of travel I would take note of the comments about perjury and not even think about taking this to court based on that "evidence". The court won't look favourably on you producing some recoding made by a mate several months later.
I don't think the alleged voice recording would be admissable as evidence.
Last edited: