Jane Anderson
Legal Director
Thousands of Rail Fare Evasion Cases Quashed in Landmark Ruling
The Chief Magistrate for England and Wales, Judge Goldspring has handed down a judgment which has the effect of quashing thousands of prosecutions for rail fare evasion.
22.08.2024
The judgment was the result of a test case looking at six cases which had been brought to court utilising the Single Justice Procedure (“the Procedure ”) and allows for cases to be heard by magistrates in private.
Prior to the judgment numerous prosecutions for allegations of fare evasion had been fast-tracked by rail companies however the judgment now means that all fare evasion prosecutions brought under the Procedure no longer stand.
What is the Single Justice Procedure?
The Procedure is a court procedure for minor offences such as watching television without a licence, driving a car without insurance, exceeding a speed limit and so on, and is a more efficient and straightforward process that a formal court hearing, whilst remaining “fair, transparent and vigorous”.
The Procedure applies only where the defendant pleads guilty, if they plead not guilty then the case will proceed to be heard in court, and the case is resolved in a swift manner which minimises court time and saves time for all parties who would, under usual circumstances, be required to attend court in person.
The defendant can plead their case online, and this includes giving them the opportunity to mention any mitigating circumstances they wish for a magistrate to consider.
The Procedure was introduced under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
The Fare Evasion Cases
The issue with the train fare evasion cases and why the Procedure was not the appropriate prosecution route for train companies to take was that the prosecutions brought by the rail operators in question were brought under the Regulations of Railways Act 1889, and it was not permissible for the Procedure to be used for prosecutions under that Act.
As such it is estimated some 74,000 prosecutions are to be quashed and whilst in most cases being convicted under the Procedure does not result in a criminal record that is recorded on the Police National Computer, there are financial consequences by way of fines to be paid.
The judgment of Judge Goldspring will require the courts and the rail operators to identify all affected individuals, and then refund individuals the fines they paid out following the conclusion of the Procedure in their case.
Comment
Colette Kelly, RCG Partner comments: “Whilst the rail companies acknowledged there was no power to have pursued the prosecutions and the series of significant errors, the unreserved apology to those affected will be of limited comfort for those whose personal and professional reputation was impacted by a criminal conviction.”
Key Contacts
Related Articles
Expert CommentQuincecare, APP Fraud and the Search for a Remedy: More Questions Than Answers Following Moorwand v HamblinIn October 2024, the Payment Systems Regulator introduced a mandatory reimbursement framework requiring UK payment service providers to compensate victims of authorised push payment fraud.
Expert CommentJoint Gambling Commission and police action against illegal gambling: a clear signal for operators and premises ownersRecent enforcement activity in South Yorkshire and Bristol underlines the Gambling Commission’s (“the Commission”) increasing focus on illegal land-based gambling and the wider criminality that can sit behind it.Illegal gambling is not just a regulatory issueA multi-agency enforcement modelWhat businesses should be thinking about nowKey takeaways
Expert CommentPresumption to Suspend Short Custodial Sentences: Sentencing Council Clarifies the Role of “Exceptional Circumstances”Prison overcrowding has once again dominated the headlines in recent days, with renewed concern about capacity across the prison estate and the wider strain this places on the criminal justice system. Against that backdrop, reforms designed to reduce reliance on short periods of immediate custody have taken on particular significance.The statutory presumptionCourt of Appeal guidance in R v MorganSentencing Council respondsWhy does this matter?Looking ahead
