Rail firms accused of misusing courts for ticket errors / fare evasion (merged posts)

[whole diary]

[teamsaint]

I recently asked at Salisbury to buy an off peak day return from Basingstoke to Waterloo on a Network Railcard  at about 9.30 AM, and  was told by the ticket office staff member that he had a message not to sell such a ticket until 9.45.

I was able to buy  the ticket during my change at Basingstoke, but is there really any reason to impose such a restriction, since I could presumably have bought it at a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine), or online ?

[JayMac]

Absolutely no reason whatsoever. Apart from pig-headedness from the SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) manager who made the decision. Reinforced by the the ticket clerk. If SWR clerks want to put obstacles in the way of selling a legitimately requested ticket then I have no empathy when their role is downgraded or replaced by technology.

At a ticket office you should be able to buy whatever walk up ticket you like whenever you like.

Complain. What for the response that won't address the issue raised, then escalate. 

[grahame]

If SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) clerks want to put obstacles in the way of selling a legitimately requested ticket then I have no empathy when their role is downgraded or replaced by technology.

At a ticket office you should be able to buy whatever walk up ticket you like whenever you like.

But be careful you're not wishing to jump out of the frying pan into the fire ... as I understand it, staffed ticket offices (with certain exceptions) are required to sell any ticket on demand, where ticket machines may be programmed only to sell a limited set, and I'm not sure who sets those limit on the set on offer.   And when buying online, I usually find that you need to find a train that the ticket is going to be valid on to purchase it, which can be a right 'game' ... no site I know of (but I hope  can be corrected) like brfares where I find the tickets without having times up and select the one I want to buy.

[Surrey 455]

Rail firms accused of misusing courts as fast-track hearings unlawfully convict thousands of fare evasion

Northern and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are among those said to be doing that

Rail firms have been accused of misusing the courts after it was revealed tens of thousands of people have been convicted of fare evasion in unlawful fast-track court hearings taking place behind closed doors.

Ministers gave permission in 2016 for train companies to pursue alleged fare dodgers in the single justice procedure (SJP), a process where magistrates convict and sentence defendants in private hearings based on written evidence.

The fast-track courts are allowed to deal with breaches of railway bylaws by passengers accused of not having a ticket or failing to pay the correct fare for a journey. But the Standard has discovered vast numbers of criminal cases brought against alleged fare dodgers under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 — which is not allowed in the SJP.

Northern Rail, which has been government-owned since 2020, is one of a host of rail firms which has brought criminal cases in this way, and it conceded this week that more than 29,000 cases have gone through the secret courts process from March 2020 to January this year. It is understood bosses put an end to the practice in the wake of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, when criminal prosecutions brought by private companies were under an intense spotlight.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prosecution-courts-fare-evasion-northern-rail-single-justice-procedure-b1164191.html

[Witham Bobby]

Rail firms accused of misusing courts as fast-track hearings unlawfully convict thousands of fare evasion

Northern and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are among those said to be doing that

Rail firms have been accused of misusing the courts after it was revealed tens of thousands of people have been convicted of fare evasion in unlawful fast-track court hearings taking place behind closed doors.

Ministers gave permission in 2016 for train companies to pursue alleged fare dodgers in the single justice procedure (SJP), a process where magistrates convict and sentence defendants in private hearings based on written evidence.

The fast-track courts are allowed to deal with breaches of railway bylaws by passengers accused of not having a ticket or failing to pay the correct fare for a journey. But the Standard has discovered vast numbers of criminal cases brought against alleged fare dodgers under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 — which is not allowed in the SJP.

Northern Rail, which has been government-owned since 2020, is one of a host of rail firms which has brought criminal cases in this way, and it conceded this week that more than 29,000 cases have gone through the secret courts process from March 2020 to January this year. It is understood bosses put an end to the practice in the wake of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal, when criminal prosecutions brought by private companies were under an intense spotlight.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prosecution-courts-fare-evasion-northern-rail-single-justice-procedure-b1164191.html

Whoops

More corporate larceny

I hope there will be refunds of fines paid, and full sackcloth and ashes for the high-ups who decided they could be so cavalier

[ChrisB]

Surely their defence or the crown officials should know the law?....Not sure this can be put down to larceny?

[stuving]

I'm mystified why everyone thinks defendants have lost out by being prosecuted under the SJP rather then a court hearing. For one thing, the defendant can opt for a hearing if they prefer one. TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are only allowed to use SJP for bylaw offences, not statute ones, but that means they are offered a procedure the government thinks is suitable only for lesser offences.

I presume the advantage for the TOC is that this is cheaper and quicker. Defendants also get one chance to state their case (in writing), without having to turn up, which may suit many of them. On the other hand, being prosecuted is bad enough, and having another decision to make only adds to the stress. Despite that, as I said, it's hard to see it as a real disadvantage let alone an injustice.

[TaplowGreen]

I'm mystified why everyone thinks defendants have lost out by being prosecuted under the SJP rather then a court hearing. For one thing, the defendant can opt for a hearing if they prefer one. TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are only allowed to use SJP for bylaw offences, not statute ones, but that means they are offered a procedure the government thinks is suitable only for lesser offences.

I presume the advantage for the TOC is that this is cheaper and quicker. Defendants also get one chance to state their case (in writing), without having to turn up, which may suit many of them. On the other hand, being prosecuted is bad enough, and having another decision to make only adds to the stress. Despite that, as I said, it's hard to see it as a real disadvantage let alone an injustice.

I'm more mystified as to how the rail firms thought they could get away with it - arrogance or contempt (or quite possibly both).

It's going to be rather expensive for them.

[grahame]

The story continues

from the Yorkshire Post

A Yorkshire woman who was prosecuted by a train company for fare evasion under the controversial single justice procedure and whose case is being examined by a magistrate said she will "probably never again" get on a train.

and

The 40-year-old said the ticket machine would not accept her card for the fare and as she had not been on a train in decades believed she could buy a ticket once on the train.

Not exactly the loss of a good customer then?

However, the Northern system of a "promise to pay" does leave something to be desired in that it may not be clear to people who use the train less than once in a blue moon.   Mind, the story is a bit complex, and we only hear one side of it as told though the filter of a journalist. 

[grahame]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyx0p18kq74o

Thousands of train fare prosecutions to be quashed

As many as 74,000 prosecutions for alleged rail fare evasion in England and Wales are set to be quashed following a landmark ruling.

UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail companies had been fast-tracking alleged ticket dodging offences using a process called the single justice procedure (SJP), which allows magistrates' hearings to be held behind closed doors.

But on Thursday, the UK's chief magistrate, Judge Goldspring, declared six test cases as void, saying the process should never have been used.

The exact number of similar cases that will need to be quashed is still unclear.

[ChrisB]

Not *all* operators - the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) said that there were 4 in their report to the Ministry of Justice.

[ChrisB]

The Standard has updated their story, to include -

On Thursday afternoon, the Department for Transport confirmed for the first time that seven companies are embroiled in the scandal, naming them as: Northern, TransPennine, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Arriva Rail North, and Merseyrail.

[ChrisB]

The Standard carries a further story in their Business section

Tens of thousands of passengers who were prosecuted and fined for fare evasion are set to be refunded after a judge ruled that their convictions were void.

Seven train companies including Northern Rail and Greater Anglia could face paying out millions of pounds to people who they privately prosecuted for travelling without a ticket under the controversial single justice procedure (SJP), despite not being permitted to do so.

In a ruling on Thursday at Westminster Magistrates Court, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring said six “test cases” should be declared “void”, adding that the cases of thousands of other cases would be dealt with in the same way over the coming months.

The judge said the Courts Service, the Department for Transport and the train operating companies – two of which have not yet been identified – would work to identify those affected, and that “a team will be put in place to begin the work of recovering the money paid and refund the money to individuals” by November.

“There are discussions ongoing with all the parties about how that may be paid,” he added.

Neither the amount of money to be refunded nor the number of people affected has been confirmed, but Judge Goldspring said “over 74,000” people is a “best guess at the moment”.

The SJP 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.

Rail companies were permitted to use the SJP in 2016 to privately prosecute fare evaders, but many have been brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which is not allowed under the procedure.

In June, Judge Goldspring said those convictions were “probably unlawful”, with lawyers for rail companies telling a further hearing last month they were “in agreement” the prosecutions should be thrown out.

In his ruling, the judge declared the test cases a “nullity”, so it was “as if as though the proceedings never existed”.

He said: “Parliament did not envisage these offences being prosecuted through the SJP.

“They should never have been brought through that process.”

He continued: “I’m satisfied that the correct approach is to declare each of the prosecutions void and a nullity.”

He added that it was 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” and declared void by a “similar direction” so that “everybody is in the same position”.

Following the ruling, the Ministry of Justice, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Department for Transport said that the seven companies who had privately prosecuted fare evaders under the SJP were Northern, TransPennine, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Arriva Rail North and Merseyrail, with the list to be updated on Monday.

The departments said that those affected by the ruling were prosecuted by one of the seven companies between 2018 and 2023, with the “vast majority” of cases prosecuted from 2020, under either section 5(1) or section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

They added that those affected should wait to be contacted directly about their case.

They said: “The decision to use SJP is a matter for prosecutors. When cases come to court, magistrates decide on conviction and sentence, advised by legal advisers.”

Sarah Cook, whose prosecution was one of the test cases, said that the train companies admitting that her prosecution was wrong after fining her was “a kick in the teeth” and that the matter “puts a massive no-go” on travelling on trains.

Ms Cook, a 42-year-old pet shop owner from Barnsley, South Yorkshire, was fined £475 under an SJP prosecution after she did not pay a £20 fine for travelling without a ticket between Wombwell and Barnsley in November 2022.

But she said that she had been waiting to hear back for a year on an appeal against the original fine, before being told she had been prosecuted.

Following the court’s ruling, she said: “It’s a kick in the teeth. I know some people would say take the win, sit back, appreciate that. For me, although money at the time was an issue, for me more than the money was the stress.

“I have not got a criminal record, I’m not somebody out there committing crimes, and for somebody to say you could have a criminal record, you could potentially face jail time if you have been a repeat offender, to me that was terrifying.”

She continued: “For them, their punishment is ‘we’re sorry’, and there is a bit of me that thinks I don’t know if that is good enough.

“When you have put 75,000 people under the pressure of going to court, having to fill out multiple documents, potentially being threatened with larger fines and criminal records, I don’t know if ‘I’m sorry, here’s your money back’ is good enough.”

Tom Franklin, the chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association, called for reform of the SJP and said “serious questions” had been raised by the case.

He said: “This ruling has big implications for tens of thousands of people, and there are serious questions that the prosecuting authorities – in this case, the train companies – need to answer as to how this was allowed to happen.”

After Thursday’s hearing, a spokesperson for Northern Rail said: “We welcome the judgment of the Chief Magistrate in court today. We would like to apologise again for the errors that have occurred.

“We will now work with the court to implement today’s findings. We are unable to respond to individual inquiries in the meantime.

“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.”

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.”

A spokesperson for Greater Anglia said: “Following the hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court today we are now working to ensure all those who are entitled to compensation as a result of this procedural error are quickly and fully reimbursed.

“Like many in the industry, we acted in good faith following the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure in 2016, but we apologise for using this process incorrectly.”

[eXPassenger]

This is one I would put in the 'cock up' category. Relevant staff read the headline and did not connect that they prosecuted under the older bye laws and not the the exemption allowed by ministers.

I wonder how many of these cases would have been decided differently if heard in full court.

[grahame]

This is one I would put in the 'cock up' category. Relevant staff read the headline and did not connect that they prosecuted under the older bye laws and not the the exemption allowed by ministers.

I wonder how many of these cases would have been decided differently if heard in full court.

I'm not going to guess how many of the cases would have been decided differently, but I am aware of disquiet (heard loud from outside GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) land) at prosecutions that followed reported problems in buying tickets before joining trains and if those were (as I understand it) heard and decided without proper input/process from the person accused then they need in my view to be redone properly - or moved on from.