Prosecutions for rail fare avoidance ~ use of Single Justice Procedure ~ Ruling by Chief Magistrate

Senior District Judge Goldspring (Chief Magistrate) has issued an 18 page ruling (dated 15 August 2024) relating to private prosecutions by Northern Trains Ltd and Greater Anglia in connection with avoidance of fares. 

The prosecutions were brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 section 5 and were dealt with in Magistrates' Courts using "Single Justice Procedure (SJP)."

This was not permissible .....

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (New Method of Instituting Proceedings) (Specification of Relevant Prosecutors) Order 2016 permit the use of SJP for "railway offences" but the offence under the 1889 Act is NOT included in the definition of a Railway Offence - (see Article 6 of the Order).

The Chief Magistrates' Ruling is published by the Judiciary website - Northern Trains Limited Ruling (judiciary.uk)

The Chief Magistrate chose to state that the prosecutions were a NULLITY rather than apply the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 section 142. The cases should never have been brought using SJP.

See - Magistrates' Association Statement 15 August 2024. The Association said that the ruling " ... supports our call for reform of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). For some time now, the Magistrates’ Association has been calling for it to be more open and transparent, consistent, and fairer particularly for more vulnerable defendants such as those who are elderly or infirm."

Tens of thousands of train fare fines to be quashed in England and Wales | Rail transport | The Guardian

Single Justice Procedure:

SJP is explained in this Factsheet - Fact sheet: Single Justice Service - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

In recent years, Magistrates' Court closures have been extensive. In 2012, there were 25,170 "lay magistrates" (Justices of the Peace) in England and Wales but, by July 2021, this had reduced to 12,651. 

The use of SJP, as opposed to Magistrates sitting in benches of three, is perhaps a more efficient use of the available manpower but it has made justice in the Magistrates' Courts less transparent.

Furthermore, controversy arose over its use in connection with offences under the various Covid-19 Regulations. (At the time, those were discussed extensively both on this blog and elsewhere).

The House of Commons Justice Committee noted - "The use of the single justice procedure to deal with covid-19 offences has been problematic in the wider context of public uncertainty over what was prohibited and what was allowed, caused by the fast-changing nature of the covid-19 regulations. We also appreciate concerns expressed to us about the transparency of the single justice procedure. In a pandemic it is also important for the integrity of offences that justice is seen to be delivered in line with the principles of the rule of law." - Covid-19 and the criminal law - Justice Committee - House of Commons (parliament.uk)