HurdyGurdy
Member
And we have seen plenty of cases here where people have received that letter and, not having been the person who gave those details, has engaged with the company concerned and put the record straight without being prosecuted.
Of course, and that's right - when a reply is received.
But when a reply is not received, the train company shouldn't just assume the named person is their suspected offender and prosecute them with no more ado.
The prosecution will be based on evidence. In the absence of the defendant, that will usually be a statement from the RPI or ticket inspector who encountered the suspect.
Does that statement always say; "I apprehended a person who gave their name as <name of defendant>..." or might it say; "I apprehended the defendant..." or "I apprehended <name of defendant>..."?
Last edited: