What could happen for not giving Revenue Officer my details

[HurdyGurdy]

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>..."?

 

[Haywain]

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>..."?

I don't see as it makes any difference. We have a legal system that allows the defendant to state their defence and if they are convicted without their knowledge to have the case reheard so that they can do so. The idea that people are being wrongly convicted is just fanciful.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I don't see as it makes any difference.

I would run that by a lawyer. The first statement is truthful. Unless the train company has other evidence to show that the suspect the RPI/inspector apprehended is the defendant, the others aren't.

Yes you're right that there are procedures which can correct things where a person has been convicted without their knowledge. But there are also requirements on the train company, as prosecutor, to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. If they don't have evidence that the named person is the suspect they believe committed the offence, is that the case?

 

[Haywain]

If they don't have evidence that the named person is the suspect they believe committed the offence, is that the case?

They do have evidence - the details they are given are part of the evidence.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Right now there are probably hundreds or thousands of people who don't know that, and it will only come to light when they get background or credit checked, refused insurance in some cases, or face further consequences for not paying court fines.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

They do have evidence - the details they are given are part of the evidence.

But you have already said that beyond maybe checking that the name and address appear on the electoral roll, unless a reply is received from a letter sent to the named person at the given address, there are no further checks made to determine whether the given details belong to the suspect the RPI/inspector has apprehended.

So, unless I've misunderstood that, the train company has no evidence to show the court that the defendant is the suspect the RPI/inspector apprehended.

If the train company then sidesteps that lack of evidence and asks its RPI/inspector to mislead the court by submitting a statement which reads; "I apprehended <name of defendant>..." it's no wonder a conviction results. But that statement wouldn't be the truth, would it?

Are statements written that way?

 

[AlterEgo]

The idea that people are being wrongly convicted is just fanciful.

We see it here very frequently! The first they know is something like a threat of further action from a court fine or an attachment of earnings order going to their employer. It is a horrendous system.

But you have already said that beyond maybe checking that the name and address appear on the electoral roll, unless a reply is received from a letter sent to the named person at the given address, there are no further checks made to determine whether the given details belong to the suspect the RPI/inspector has apprehended.

So, unless I've misunderstood that, the train company has no evidence to show the court that the defendant is the suspect the RPI/inspector apprehended.

There is sometimes bodycam footage, which may supplement the case.

If the train company then sidesteps that lack of evidence and asks its RPI/inspector to mislead the court by submitting a statement which reads; "I apprehended <name of defendant>..." it's no wonder a conviction results. But that statement wouldn't be the truth, would it?

Are statements written that way?

When we see statements from staff they usually say "I stopped the person I now know/understand to be (NAME)"

 

[HurdyGurdy]

When we see statements from staff they usually say "I stopped the person I now know/understand to be (NAME)"

Even in cases where there is only an assumption, because they have not responded to a letter, that (NAME) is the person they stopped?

 

[AlterEgo]

Even in cases where there is only an assumption, because they have not responded to a letter, that (NAME) is the person they stopped?

I mean the witness statement from the RPI at the time, which we have seen on here. Not the statement from the train company to the court.

 

[Fermiboson]

Could an FOI be conducive to shedding further light on the matter?

 

[Haywain]

Could an FOI be conducive to shedding further light on the matter?

Depends what you hope to find out.