Fare evasion cases quashed – an update 

In a test case ruling last week (Northern Trains Limited -v- Ballington, & others) the Chief Magistrate ruled a number of fare evasion prosecutions under the Single Justice Procedure a nullity.

This paves the way for the quashing of around 75,000 fare evasion convictions.

What is the Single Justice Procedure?

The Single Justice Procedure is a fast-track system whereby magistrates deal with some minor offences ‘behind closed doors’ as opposed to ‘in open court’ and defendants can notify the court of their proposed plea (usually online) prior to the hearing.

If a defendant enters a not guilty plea the matter will proceed to a full court hearing and a trial will be held as usual. However, if a defendant pleads guilty, the case can be dealt with without a full court hearing, and the court will notify the defendant of the result and sentence.

There has been much criticism in relation to the use of the Single Justice Procedure system. Defendants are usually notified through the post and many individuals are convicted without even having ever received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) and being aware of court proceedings.

What were the issues in the Northern Rail case?

Essentially, there are two main types of prosecution in relation to allegations of fare evasion. Prosecutions can be brought under byelaws or under the Regulation of Railways Act. Section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1980 – ‘fail to produce a ticket for inspection’, is a summary only non-imprisonable offence with a maximum penalty of a fine. Prosecutions are also brought under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, for example, section 5(3) intentionally travelling on the Railway without having paid the fare.

Transport for London (TfL) typically prosecutes under railway byelaws; however, other railway companies usually prosecute under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. There is a difference between the types of prosecution – to successfully prosecute under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, the rail company must prove a defendant intended to avoid paying the fare. However, byelaw prosecutions are brought under railway byelaws and are what is known as ‘strict liability’. That means the intention of the defendant makes no difference for example if they say, ‘they made a mistake and intended to pay the train fare’.

Prosecutors are allowed to institute proceedings by way of the Single Justice Procedure in relation to railway offences by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (New Method of Instituting Proceedings) (Specification of Relevant Prosecutors) Order 2016 to institute proceedings by a Single Justice Procedure.

The Order permits the prosecution of a “railway offence” through the SJP. The offence under s.5(1) of the 1889 Act is not included within the definition of a railway offence.

What did the court decide?

The court determined:

• The Single Justice Procedure should not have been used to prosecute offences contrary to section 5(1) or 5(3) of the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889;
• Any prosecution brought for Byelaw offences was valid.
• The proceedings conducted using the Single Justice Procedure for offences contrary to section 5(1) and 5(3) were invalid: a single magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try the offences.
• All convictions and sentences imposed using the Single Justice Procedure for offences contrary to section 5(1) and 5(3) should be set aside
• Any monies paid, by way of fines or costs, should be refunded in the same way as they would be for any other conviction which is subsequently appealed or set aside.
• The court went on to consider the proper legal route to remedy the unlawful prosecutions against these defendants.

What does this mean for fare evasion cases?

This means that offences under the Regulation of Railways Act cannot be prosecuted by way of the Single Justice Procedure.

The court stated:

“It follows that Railway Operators are only empowered to institute proceedings by way of a written charge and Single Justice Procedure Notice for the limited number of offences defined by the 2016 Order as “railways offences”. That does not include offences contrary to section 5(1) or 5(3) of the RRA. Prosecution of those offences should not have taken place using the Single Justice Procedure.”

Which train companies does this effect?

Affected cases were prosecuted by Northern, Transpennine, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Arriva Rail Northern and Merseyrail.

In a hearing last month both Northern Trains and Greater Anglia apologised for using SJPs incorrectly.

Northern stated it “welcomed” the ruling, adding: “We would like to apologise again for the errors that have occurred.”

“Northern remains committed to ensuring that all our customers are treated fairly, which means ensuring all passengers who board our trains have a valid ticket.”

How will this impact those convicted incorrectly of fare evasion cases?

It is hoped that a list of those affected could be compiled by the end of September, with the cases listed as a “bulk” hearing by the end of October with the convictions then being similarly quashed. Any fines and prosecution costs paid would be refunded.

It is understood those affected will be contacted directly and given further instructions.

A Government spokesperson said:

“We acknowledge the Chief Magistrate’s judgment and welcome the apology from train operators. While fare evasion should be tackled, the right process should be followed at all times.

The people affected will be directly contacted in due course to resolve the cases in accordance with the judgment.”

Olliers Solicitors – Specialist Fare Evasion Lawyers

Olliers has significant experience of representing those accused of fare evasion. We have a high level of success in disposing of such cases by way of out of court settlement thus avoiding a criminal record for our clients.

We can assist with the following types of cases:

• Consideration of documentation and initial advice
• Representations to fare authorities/rail companies/TFL suggesting out of court settlement avoiding prosecution
• Attending an interview under caution
• Dealing with a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), summons or postal requisition to attend court.

If you wish to discuss an allegation of fare evasion, please contact our new enquiry team by telephone on 020 3883 6790 (London) or 0161 834 1515 (Manchester), email info@olliers.com or complete the form below.