Inaccurate and incomplete witness statement to support allegation of fare evasion - can I challenge?

WestLondonlife

Hello
I have been issued a Single Justice Procedure notice by TfL with the criminal charge of fare evasion. The incident happened in late 2018 when I accidentally used a relative's freedom pass to tap through the barriers at an underground station instead of my own. I was the relative's carer and often carried their pass to present on their behalf when travelling, and on this occasion unfortunately mistook their pass for mine without looking (same case in shape, size and feel). I had a valid Oyster card with sufficient funds for my journey. I admit a stupid mistake took place, so am not contesting that. But I do want to challenge why they have decided to prosecute with a criminal conviction if guilty, plus a fine. 
I have applied for Statutory Declaration because TfL was sending documentation to the wrong address plus COVID happened. That's underway. However, now that I have finally received the documentation with the witness statement taken by the revenue inspector, and it has inaccuracies and omissions which are prejudicial to my case. This version takes my answers out of context, does not provide a full account, and basically presents me as a blatant fare evader even when I repeatedly told the inspector it was a mistake. Also, the inspector was part of a group of plain clothes inspectors at the station. When one of them asked me to stop and show them my pass after I'd passed through the barriers, I didn't know they were inspectors and continued walking towards the stairs. They all started moving towards me as a group, and one of them called to a BTP officer who was standing a short distance away saying 'the police will sort you out'. For reference, I am female, of slim build and was not being aggressive - I was not a physical threat in any way. I believe this is intimidating and threatening language, and it made me panic and extremely anxious for the duration of the interview by the inspector who then stepped forward and identified himself.
The inspector's line of questioning seemed pushy and also, I see from looking at the statement, manipulative. When I told him it was a mistake - and only realised this when he pointed out I had used a non-standard pass as I had no idea at the time - he ignored me and kept saying 'tell me the truth' and 'it's OK, just tell me', about 2-3 times. I gave up trying and told him it was a relative's pass and they didn't know - my concern was that there might be recourse to them. He asked some more questions which I answered, and now see from the statement they were taken out of context or conflated into one answer. I did sign his notebook with notes from our interview, but I was nervous, scared, and not of clear mind. This is the first time I have read the statement submitted with enough time to take it in and with a calm mind, and it clearly misrepresents what I said and is not a full or accurate account of our conversation. I cannot stand by the statement as an accurate account of my circumstances or what was said. I admitted I had made a mistake at the time - which is omitted from the statement, as was my confirmation that this had never happened before - and had hoped that being cooperative would bring leniency. Instead, my words have been taken out of context to suggest I deliberately used a pass I wasn't meant to.
I have since found out that TfL have a strict liability policy and are particularly concerned about mis-use of high value passes. I expect a fine but do not believe the prosecutor/counsel has had the correct facts presented to them if it's the inspector's statement and has taken a heavy-handed approach as a result. The statement also does not mention the intimidation and implied threat used against me by the group of inspectors in the presence/hearing of the inspector who interviewed me. 
My questions are:
- Can I challenge the validity of the witness statement on the grounds above?
- What are my legal rights in this? I have been given the option to plea guilty and go to court, guilty and not go to court, or not guilty. I admit I made a mistake and a penalty fine is probably due, but I have a clean record, have not committed this mistake before or after, and admitted at the time that I had made a mistake but was not given the opportunity to fully explain the circumstances. If I plead guilty, how can I present the facts? Would pleading not guilty be a better way to proceed?
- The TfL enforcement policy states that I should have been sent a verification statement to present my facts and respond to the allegations. I have not received this and the prosecutor seems to have made a decision based on an inaccurate witness statement alone. Do I have the right to request this?

I believe a criminal record for an honest mistake made once and also misrepresented in an inaccurate statement is a heavy-handed penalty and would like to understand if I can do anything about this as I really want to avoid a criminal conviction. I have a clear prior record with no cautions etc, so this is a first-time offence.
Any help gratefully received. 
Thanks.

naedanger

Sorry I can't help but I think you really need to speak to a solicitor before deciding what to do.

(If you plead not guilty then I would expect the court would look at all the evidence, for you to give your own witness statement and for both sides to have a chance to challenge the other side's evidence. 

I would have thought a key consideration is how much evidence you can produce to support the argument that using your relative's pass was an innocent mistake. I am not sure if TfL can produce a log of where all that card was used in the past and whether the journey you took was an aberration, and so consistent with a mistake. Alternatively you may need testimony from your relative to explain your practice of caring for them and what this entailed as regards you using their pass for them. )

Johnmcl7

There's good advice for railway legal matters here:
https://railforums.co.uk/forums/disputes-prosecutions.152/

Andy_L

AIUI fare evasion is an absolute offence ie they don't have to prove intent to commit the crime, only that it happened.
Its similar to forgetting to renew your car tax or insurance. 

discat11

The strict liability offence simply means did you or did you not pay for your fare according to the bylaws etc?
From your own statement you know you didn't, the fact it was a mistake isn't relevant I'm afraid or the circumstances under which the interview took place.
It sounds simply as if the inspector was trying to ascertain whether this was a one off or a repeat offence -quite a difference in the type of ongoing investigation and court appearance, it doesn't appear they reported it as a repeat offence, so it's an open & shut case -one offence proven: fine.
  
You may well have a case for complaint to TFL for the Inspectors behaviour, but it has no bearing on the offence I'm afraid and it won't change the outcome of the appearance.

WestLondonlife

discat11 said:

The strict liability offence simply means did you or did you not pay for your fare according to the bylaws etc?
From your own statement you know you didn't, the fact it was a mistake isn't relevant I'm afraid or the circumstances under which the interview took place.
It sounds simply as if the inspector was trying to ascertain whether this was a one off or a repeat offence -quite a difference in the type of ongoing investigation and court appearance, it doesn't appear they reported it as a repeat offence, so it's an open & shut case -one offence proven: fine.
  
You may well have a case for complaint to TFL for the Inspectors behaviour, but it has no bearing on the offence I'm afraid and it won't change the outcome of the appearance.

Thanks for the comments so far. I admitted the mistake and was expecting a fine, but do want to contest the criminal conviction which I assume I would get if I plead guilty? However, the statement attached to the charge is incomplete and omits that I said it was a mistake and that it's the first time it's happened. It also states that the inspector identified himself before asking to see my pass which isn't correct; he stopped me along with the (assumed) other inspectors, one of them used threatening language, I stopped and then the conversation started. My answers have also been taken out of context, and were asked/answered when I was panicking, nervous and not of clear mind. I want to be able to present my facts so TfL counsel/prosecution can determine the penalty with the full facts before them, not a skewed version and based on information taken from me when I was very anxious. If I plead guilty then I assume I won't get that opportunity, which I will if I plead not guilty in which case I'm saying I didn't make a mistake?

WestLondonlife

Johnmcl7 said:

There's good advice for railway legal matters here:

Thank you! I have posted here too.

TonyMMM

If you plead guilty, then you will have a criminal conviction .... it isn't something optional that the court decide to add on.

Andy_L

WestLondonlife said:

discat11 said:

The strict liability offence simply means did you or did you not pay for your fare according to the bylaws etc?
From your own statement you know you didn't, the fact it was a mistake isn't relevant I'm afraid or the circumstances under which the interview took place.
It sounds simply as if the inspector was trying to ascertain whether this was a one off or a repeat offence -quite a difference in the type of ongoing investigation and court appearance, it doesn't appear they reported it as a repeat offence, so it's an open & shut case -one offence proven: fine.
  
You may well have a case for complaint to TFL for the Inspectors behaviour, but it has no bearing on the offence I'm afraid and it won't change the outcome of the appearance.

Thanks for the comments so far. I admitted the mistake and was expecting a fine, but do want to contest the criminal conviction which I assume I would get if I plead guilty? However, the statement attached to the charge is incomplete and omits that I said it was a mistake and that it's the first time it's happened. It also states that the inspector identified himself before asking to see my pass which isn't correct; he stopped me along with the (assumed) other inspectors, one of them used threatening language, I stopped and then the conversation started. My answers have also been taken out of context, and were asked/answered when I was panicking, nervous and not of clear mind. I want to be able to present my facts so TfL counsel/prosecution can determine the penalty with the full facts before them, not a skewed version and based on information taken from me when I was very anxious. If I plead guilty then I assume I won't get that opportunity, which I will if I plead not guilty in which case I'm saying I didn't make a mistake?

It will be the magistrate who decides the penalty not TfL

Does the paperwork/on-line form you've been sent not have the option to add your mitigation (1st offence, genuine mistake, guilty plea, very sorry etc etc)  to a guilty plea?

Jumblebumble

WestLondonlife said:

Hello
I have been issued a Single Justice Procedure notice by TfL with the criminal charge of fare evasion. The incident happened in late 2018 when I accidentally used a relative's freedom pass to tap through the barriers at an underground station instead of my own. I was the relative's carer and often carried their pass to present on their behalf when travelling, and on this occasion unfortunately mistook their pass for mine without looking (same case in shape, size and feel). I had a valid Oyster card with sufficient funds for my journey. I admit a stupid mistake took place, so am not contesting that. But I do want to challenge why they have decided to prosecute with a criminal conviction if guilty, plus a fine. 
I have applied for Statutory Declaration because TfL was sending documentation to the wrong address plus COVID happened. That's underway. However, now that I have finally received the documentation with the witness statement taken by the revenue inspector, and it has inaccuracies and omissions which are prejudicial to my case. This version takes my answers out of context, does not provide a full account, and basically presents me as a blatant fare evader even when I repeatedly told the inspector it was a mistake. Also, the inspector was part of a group of plain clothes inspectors at the station. When one of them asked me to stop and show them my pass after I'd passed through the barriers, I didn't know they were inspectors and continued walking towards the stairs. They all started moving towards me as a group, and one of them called to a BTP officer who was standing a short distance away saying 'the police will sort you out'. For reference, I am female, of slim build and was not being aggressive - I was not a physical threat in any way. I believe this is intimidating and threatening language, and it made me panic and extremely anxious for the duration of the interview by the inspector who then stepped forward and identified himself.
The inspector's line of questioning seemed pushy and also, I see from looking at the statement, manipulative. When I told him it was a mistake - and only realised this when he pointed out I had used a non-standard pass as I had no idea at the time - he ignored me and kept saying 'tell me the truth' and 'it's OK, just tell me', about 2-3 times. I gave up trying and told him it was a relative's pass and they didn't know - my concern was that there might be recourse to them. He asked some more questions which I answered, and now see from the statement they were taken out of context or conflated into one answer. I did sign his notebook with notes from our interview, but I was nervous, scared, and not of clear mind. This is the first time I have read the statement submitted with enough time to take it in and with a calm mind, and it clearly misrepresents what I said and is not a full or accurate account of our conversation. I cannot stand by the statement as an accurate account of my circumstances or what was said. I admitted I had made a mistake at the time - which is omitted from the statement, as was my confirmation that this had never happened before - and had hoped that being cooperative would bring leniency. Instead, my words have been taken out of context to suggest I deliberately used a pass I wasn't meant to.
I have since found out that TfL have a strict liability policy and are particularly concerned about mis-use of high value passes. I expect a fine but do not believe the prosecutor/counsel has had the correct facts presented to them if it's the inspector's statement and has taken a heavy-handed approach as a result. The statement also does not mention the intimidation and implied threat used against me by the group of inspectors in the presence/hearing of the inspector who interviewed me. 
My questions are:
- Can I challenge the validity of the witness statement on the grounds above?
- What are my legal rights in this? I have been given the option to plea guilty and go to court, guilty and not go to court, or not guilty. I admit I made a mistake and a penalty fine is probably due, but I have a clean record, have not committed this mistake before or after, and admitted at the time that I had made a mistake but was not given the opportunity to fully explain the circumstances. If I plead guilty, how can I present the facts? Would pleading not guilty be a better way to proceed?
- The TfL enforcement policy states that I should have been sent a verification statement to present my facts and respond to the allegations. I have not received this and the prosecutor seems to have made a decision based on an inaccurate witness statement alone. Do I have the right to request this?

I believe a criminal record for an honest mistake made once and also misrepresented in an inaccurate statement is a heavy-handed penalty and would like to understand if I can do anything about this as I really want to avoid a criminal conviction. I have a clear prior record with no cautions etc, so this is a first-time offence.
Any help gratefully received. 
Thanks.

You are clutching at straws saying "the prosecutor decided because" as in the case of TFL  it is my understanding that they almost always prosecute for offences involving freedom passes.
My guess is that this is being treated as a bylaw offence and that the Magistrates will gave the same fine to all comers regardless of statements or mitigation as no doubt they hear the same story from everyone they meet
A bylaw is mostly far less serious than a RRA as it should not be recorded on PNC and thus should not appear on a DBS
You should not even consider pleading  not guilty because to be blunt you are guilty and have no credible defence and it will cost you a lot more if you try

FaceHead

You should contact TFL and show genuine remorse, you appreciate that when TFL lose revenue other honest people have to pick up the tab...blah..blah. Saying it was an accident probably won't win any favour, as they may or may not believe it. They have seen from the journey history it was a one off. Say you don't have a criminal record and want to dispose of this swiftly without further cost or inconvenience to them.

Offer to pay their costs, and hopefully they will let you know their out of court offer. At least as expensive as pleading guilty, but it could save you the conviction, and for tfl it means the whole amount of the settlement goes in their pocket.