South West Trains - Awaiting prosecution! Please help...

[Old-CodJA]

The words "caution" have 2 distinct and easily confused meanings here.

 

There is a (police) caution, which involves signing an admission of guilt by an offender, at a police station, which 'counts' as a conviction, but avoids going to court. Officiated over by an officer of at least the rank of sergeant, and ideally inspector or above, it avoids court and "counts: as a crime 'cleared-up'. It will show e.g. on a eCRB/eDBS, but avoids court, however it is easily confused with the PACE caution.

 

The other caution, for purposes of PACE is a caution that "anything you say may be taken down, and given in evidence. You are not obliged to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention (when questioned) something you later wish to rely on in court". This can be given by any trained / authorised person, be that a police officer or railways staff.

 

The latter is the 'caution' at interview.

The former cannot be offered other than by the police : if the railway staff offer an administrative settlement outside of court it isn;t a 'police caution' and won't show as a criminal record on an eDBS.

 

A 'police caution' where the person signs admitting guilt, or a conviction (by guilty plea, or found guilty by the court) would show as a criminal record on an eDBS.

 

 

 

Sorry Music79, I meant to reply to that question too, but Bazza has explained the answer perfectly.

[wtlh]

I am slightly confused. I used to have a zone 1-4 travel card but occasionally goes to a friends house in zone 6. I was always able to swipe in from zone 1 and exit at a station in zone 6 without any issues. The correct amount is deducted from my card, charging the fare from zone 5 to zone 6 (the part not covered by my season ticket) every time. Even in the event of not having enough money in my card, it will just generate a negative balance which will be deducted the next time I top up.

 

So I don't understand why the OP is required to touch out and in again at the boundary of his/her season ticket?

[BazzaS]

I am slightly confused. I used to have a zone 1-4 travel card but occasionally goes to a friends house in zone 6. I was always able to swipe in from zone 1 and exit at a station in zone 6 without any issues. The correct amount is deducted from my card, charging the fare from zone 5 to zone 6 (the part not covered by my season ticket) every time. Even in the event of not having enough money in my card, it will just generate a negative balance which will be deducted the next time I top up.

 

So I don't understand why the OP is required to touch out and in again at the boundary of his/her season ticket?

 

You describe how you touch in to be covered by your travel card, and how the system then only charges you for the "extra" charge. You don't travel without having touched in, which is the key difference between you and the OP.

 

The OP said "I was travelling from Motspur Park to Wimbledon", and hadn't touched in at the start of their journey : outside the area of their weekly travel card.

 

They hadn't touched in / paid for their zone 4 to Zone 3 travel, even had they then touched in once in Zone 3 (which they also hadn't) for the latter portion to be covered by their travel card.

Edited September 4, 2013 by BazzaS

[wtlh]

Oh I see, s/he was caught travelling in the opposite direction...

[Grotesque]

Wimbledon can be a bit of a minefield for unwary passengers (and by that token a potential goldmine for RPI's!!!) anyway- IIRC, isn't even the tramlink stop in side the station? A curious layout either way.

 

Good luck to our bassoonist!!!

[music79]

please help me.

I attended the interview with a solicitor, as I was so scared to go by myself...

We read a prepared statement (well he did, as I was crying so much I couldn't speak) and gave a "no comment" answer to all the questions, not to be difficult or unco-operative, but we thought it wouldn't make sense to answer some questions and not answer others.

 

my solicitor got a call from The Main person dealing with the SWT prosecutions.. and he said that this will go to court,

 

I honestly want to die.

[music79]

and i'm not sure that the major read my character references or anything, as he was calling from court apparently

[music79]

dear Old CodJA please see my most recent post below, and if you could offer any advice, i'd be so grateful to you

[music79]

Sorry Music79, I meant to reply to that question too, but Bazza has explained the answer perfectly.

 

If you could help me (see below) , I would appreciate it very much

[music79]

are they taking it so seriously because of the past 2 penalties...?

i'm such a mess, my whole life will be ruined, what's the point of anything

[Grotesque]

What 'below' are you talking about?

 

To be honest, and YES it was your right, but you really shouldn't have gone in with a brief: it automatically appears that you are willingly raising the stakes. The thing is, prosecutors are human; that means they (often!) respond to a human, personal approach, but likewise can mean that if they feel brow-beaten by a solicitor, they might 'harden their hearts', as the phrase goes. Solicitors are for courts; not railway station management suites!

And 'no comment'? Crying might mean you sincerely regret your actions: but it would have indicated it a lot more if you had arrived with (e.g.) a friend or relative, rather than reading from a pre-prepared script and not answering questions. Know what I mean?

I'd also be interested in O/C's thoughts.

[honeybee13]

Hello again. I'm sorry it hasn't gone the way you might have hoped.

 

I'm sure the forum guys will be along when they can, but you may need to be patient. As I may have said before, this isn't the end of the world and you will come through it.

 

Please bear with us.

 

HB

[music79]

what do i do.....!!!

[music79]

i hope i would get through it.. i don't think that's a probable outcome though

[Grotesque]

Ask for another interview? That might come across as positive and proactive?

[music79]

Ask for another interview? That might come across as positive and proactive?

but anything there was to say., i've already said, and they have my letter i sent them when i first received the prosecution letter. and the statement at the initial interview.

i am shaking so much...

[Grotesque]

but anything there was to say., i've already said

 

But surely you went in there with a prepared statement and didn't answer questions you didn't like? Remember that was under caution, so anything you 'didn't say' can and will be used against you. So what left there is to say, is whatever you didn't say the first time. Of course they don't have to have you in again, you might have helped them all they need already! Remember, your case on the whole was purely defensive.

[honeybee13]

Music, I will try to get word to OC that you would like his advice, but I can't tell you when he might look at this thread again.

 

HB

[music79]

i fully admitted my guilt, they had evidence anyway,

i don't know what more they could possibly try to get out of me.

for sure, i will never ever ever again travel without a full ticket! i mean, i have learnt my lesson beyond enough... why do they want to kill me...honestly it would destroy my career completely. i completely understand i did wrong!!!

and if they are in the power of having a little compassion...... i mean, that would basically save me!!!!!!!!!!

[music79]

Music, I will try to get word to OC that you would like his advice, but I can't tell you when he might look at this thread again.

 

HB

 

thank you so much!

[Grotesque]

Honeybee means well, of course, and always looks on the bright side, but I don't quite understand how, having gone into an interview with paid legal advice, you expect to get an improvement on that advice with a second opinion here? But good luck, all the same. I'll try O/C on the jungle drums now.

[music79]

i'm a student and basically can't afford anything - had to borrow money for the solicitor. this shows how remorseful i am! i mean, the difference in amount of fees into solicitor and the actual fee i saved on the ticket is huge!!!!

my 17 years of music education, will be rendered completely pointless and a waste if i am not able to achieve my dream of working in the US.

i really have learnt my lesson,

if only SWT can take this in a human approach!!!!!!!!

i mean, i'm not even in my right mind, completely copmletely a mess

[Old-CodJA]

What 'below' are you talking about?

 

To be honest, and YES it was your right, but you really shouldn't have gone in with a brief: it automatically appears that you are willingly raising the stakes. The thing is, prosecutors are human; that means they (often!) respond to a human, personal approach, but likewise can mean that if they feel brow-beaten by a solicitor, they might 'harden their hearts', as the phrase goes. Solicitors are for courts; not railway station management suites!

And 'no comment'? Crying might mean you sincerely regret your actions: but it would have indicated it a lot more if you had arrived with (e.g.) a friend or relative, rather than reading from a pre-prepared script and not answering questions. Know what I mean?

I'd also be interested in O/C's thoughts.

 

 

I do agree with some points made by Grotesque here, but not on the substantive point with regard to representation in general.

 

Please bear in mind that this is my personal feeling. It cannot be said to be definitive advice given by CAG, but I actually believe that your Solicitor made an error of judgment in advising giving 'no comment' answers to every question and that, coupled with past incidents of travelling without ticket and getting PFs, are likely to be the reasons that the TOC prosecution manager will have decided to proceed.

 

Many people may advise going 'no comment', but I believe that there are always inherent dangers in this line of defence at interview. The trained inspector, or prosecutor will be perfectly well aware that such a response will permit the Magistrates to draw any inference that they may consider relevant from the alleged offender's failure to answer questions about their actions leading to a reportable offence.

 

In some cases the Magistrates might well consider that the defendant has something to hide by not answering relevant questions and as Magistrates are only human, this can be an important factor when reaching their decision.

 

The current position is not fatal to your case in my opinion, I am sure that the solicitor should have told you that if you were to plead 'not guilty' when charged you will have to attend Court for trial and answering questions frankly then will largely undo any damage done so far.

 

So far as I recall, you have not yet been told how many charges you are facing unless I have missed something in this thread.

 

Did your solicitor confirm with the interviewer how many and what offences you are to be charged with? I am assuming that you will be charged with one or more offences of 'intent to avoid a fare' contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

 

Please don't consider that this is a life threatening matter. It most certainly is not.

 

All of our lives stumble into difficulties at times and whilst this may seem all consuming right now, because the interview is entirely fresh in mind and it has forced you to relive an uncomfortable moment, you should not allow this to overshadow the fact that you have learned by your mistake and will be able to move on in exactly the same way that many thousands of others have done in the past and more will do in future.

 

I do agree with Grotesque that you might contact SWT and ask for a second interview, though the value might be debatable if you feel unable to conduct it yourself.

 

Now the key thing here is to consider whether or not you understand that, if further attempts to negotiate fail, pleading guilty to the charge is not going to mean the end of the world for your career. Yes, if you are convicted of intending to avoid a fare there will be a criminal record, BUT this does not mean that you cannot travel.

 

I stress that the decision must be yours, but you might wish to consider sending a letter by recorded delivery to the Prosecution Manager and say that, having had time to reflect and having been distressed at the time, you now feel that you may not have assisted their enquiry as fully as you might have.

 

Given your comment regarding past incidents regarding your state of mind, I think you might consider asking your GP if s/he is prepared to write a letter for you explaining how damaging the effect of prosecution might be for your future health. Combine this letter with your signed sincere apology and request for the TOC to allow you a further opportunity to resolve this by paying all monies that they can show that you owe them, plus all of the costs that they have incurred in dealing with the matter.

 

I'm afraid that this really does need some serious pleading if it is to work for you.

 

If it does not, please do not be too despondent. If this is the first time that you have been summonsed to Court the worst that can happen is that you will be fined. Pleading guilty with a heartfelt apology will gain credit from the Magistrates, but give the attempt to reach a settlement a further try first.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[honeybee13]

Thank you for replying, OC.

 

I think that's a very comprehensive and helpful answer. I hope it helps our student.

 

My best, HB

[music79]

thank you Old-CodJA

for such a good reply.

 

It's not just my career. I don't know if I can handle the trauma. My hair is falling out in serious chunks, and I think it's to do with stress.

I will definitely see the GP.

Also, what about working and living in the US or Aus??

And working in music schools and outreach and educational programmes with the weak and vulnerable in hospitals and prisons??

 

I don't know what the charges are against me.

 

In my statement - I fully admitted my guilt upon the evidence they had against me, and the answers to the relevant questions were all in my statement.

 

I think I saw on another post that it's worse to answer some questions and not answer others.

 

I will write to the Prosecution Department again.

DO you think I should send my degree certificates and other relevant documents that show how affected my career would be, by a criminal record??

And I should just say "I may have not fully assisted in your enquiry..." and what else.........

 

Thanks,,,i have more than learnt my lesson, when will this nightmare end

 

and the sad part is, it will never end if i end up having a criminal record, as it basically is for life.