Rail companies agree alleged fare evasion prosecutions should be quashed

Lawyers representing two rail companies which brought prosecutions of alleged fare evasion under a controversial, fast-track legal scheme have said they are “in agreement” the cases should be quashed.

Northern Rail, Greater Anglia and other rail firms prosecuted alleged fare evaders under a system which allows certain offences to be prosecuted in private rather than in open court, known as the single justice procedure (SJP), after being given the power in 2016.

But a number of these cases against alleged fare evaders were brought under the Regulation of Railways Act (RRA) 1889 – which is not allowed in the SJP, the Evening Standard previously reported.

As many as 75,000 prosecutions are thought to have been processed in that way, it was previously heard in court.

He told chief magistrate Paul Goldspring: “We are all in agreement that the proceedings which were brought by the single justice procedure were a nullity.”

In written submissions to the chief magistrate, Greater Anglia said it acknowledged “a series of significant errors” had occurred and wanted to “apologise unreservedly” to those affected.

The hearing concerned six “test cases” of fare evasion prosecutions, with both Northern Rail and Greater Anglia dealing with three prosecutions each.

In all six cases, a prosecution was brought by the rail companies via the SJP under the RRA 1889.

None of the defendants were in attendance at the hearing.

Both Mr O’Neill and Alistair Richardson, representing Greater Anglia, said the court should set aside any convictions from completed prosecutions and adjourn any ongoing prosecutions brought under the RRA 1889, using its powers from the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.

Mr Goldspring, who previously described the prosecutions as “probably unlawful”, said declaring them a nullity was the “correct legal way forward” and there was no danger of the defendants being prejudiced by that ruling.

The single justice procedure was set up in 2015 to allow magistrates to decide on minor offences, such as using a television without a licence or driving without car insurance, without defendants going to court.

However, the Magistrates’ Association said in March “there are concerns” that cases are being brought before magistrates without prosecutors, such as the DVLA or TV Licensing, reading mitigations and that many of its members are “uncomfortable” with the system.

The chief magistrate adjourned the hearing to August 15 at the same court, when he is expected to hand down a judgment.