Thousands of Rail Fare Evasion Prosecutions To Be Quashed In England and Wales
Thousands of rail fare evasion prosecutions in England and Wales are set to be overturned following a landmark court ruling. The decision, made by Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring, could impact up to 74,000 cases after it was revealed that train companies used an improper legal procedure to prosecute alleged fare dodgers.
The issue centres around the use of the single justice procedure (SJP), which allows magistrates to decide on minor offences behind closed doors without the defendant being present in court. Although the SJP is legal for minor offences, it cannot be used for cases brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
Despite this, rail companies like Northern Rail and Greater Anglia had been using the SJP for fare evasion cases, which led to thousands of prosecutions that are now deemed void.
Judge Goldspring ruled that six test cases should be declared a "nullity," meaning the prosecutions never legally happened. He stated, "Parliament did not envisage these offences being prosecuted through the SJP. They should never have been brought through that process."
The ruling sets a precedent for thousands of other similar cases to be quashed.
The ruling has prompted an apology from the train companies involved.
Northern Rail expressed regret over the errors, stating, “We welcome the judgement of the chief magistrate in court today. We would like to apologise again for the errors that have occurred.”
Greater Anglia also acknowledged their mistake and offered an “unreserved” apology to those affected.
The Department for Transport (DfT) and train companies are now tasked with identifying those wrongly prosecuted. A list of affected individuals is expected to be compiled by the end of September, with a bulk hearing planned for the end of October.
Refunds for fines and other costs are anticipated to start in November, but the process may take months as each individual must be contacted before reimbursement can occur.
The single justice procedure, introduced in 2015, was originally designed to handle minor offences like TV licence evasion and minor traffic violations. It processes around 40,000 cases each month.
However, concerns about its use have been growing, with the Magistrates’ Association noting that some magistrates are uncomfortable with the system, especially regarding transparency and fairness.
The case highlights the complexities of using streamlined legal processes for a wide range of offences and raises questions about the accountability of companies when they misuse legal procedures. While the ruling offers relief for those wrongfully prosecuted, it also signals the need for a review of how such procedures are applied in the future.
