What exactly is the problem with using the SJP for train evasion prosecutions?
Who says there is a problem?
Having scoured a number of articles trying to find out 'why', this is the best I've und so far.
Rail companies were permitted to use the SJP in 2016 to privately prosecute fare evaders, but many of those were brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which is not allowed under the procedure.
A number of rail accompanies have 'acknowledged' the error so it seems genuine, though I'm yet to find out why that act doesn't allow it, presumably some arcane wording that can't be over written by the more modern SJPN 'stuff'.
1889 act
The only bit I see that suggests anything is the "he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine" is not a fine imposed by an SJ a 'summary conviction' (if the defendant plead guilty)? I don't know the answer.
I would imagine it’s because the offence is imprisonable, and as such the SJP can’t be used.
Thanks, wasn’t aware of that, every day is a school day!
I would imagine it’s because the offence is imprisonable, and as such the SJP can’t be used.
I'm going to stick my neck out here, sp and suggest you may not be correct. And that's as strong as I'm going to put it for fear of reprisals!
Here's the Chief Magistrate's ruling:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment.pdfIt's a lengthy read, but the essence of it can be boiled down to this:
"21. 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."In short, offences under those two sections of the RRA were not included in the list of "railway offences" which railway operators could prosecute via the SJP.
However....offences under s5(3)
do carry a custodial sentence (maximum 3 months) so they would be ruled out of the SJP anyway. But those under s5(1) can only be dealt with by way of a fine (Level 2).
Of course it may be that neither was included in the 2016 order precisely because one of them was imprisonable so as to avoid any confusion, in which case you can claim victory (sort of). That's why I wouldn't put my opening remark too strongly!
I hadn’t the benefit of the judgment, but s 5(3) could not have been included for the reason we both recognise. Presumably s 5 was omitted in its entirety for that reason, who knows? 🤷🏻♂️
That said, s 5(1) isn’t an offence of
fare evasion (which is what the OP asked) but rather an offence of failing to give details, so I would in any case claim a technical victory
Agree x 1
View List