out of court settlement

[magic clog]

hello can anybody advise ?

I was wrongly accused of fare evasion on a first capital connect train, a court summons date was sent through and I intended to plead not guilty, however I have communicated with the prosecutions dept and they have agreed to settle out of court. It has been very stressful But I am just so relieved it is all over.............except they inform me that the court case on the said date will still go ahead and that they will have a representative there who will stand up and say case withdrawn when my case comes up. I have had nothing in writing from them and due to how this whole episode has come about am completely distrustful of the justice system, has anybody else had experience of this procedure, because it seems odd to me that they would waste time and money like this when I would have thought it more sensible to just cancel the court case.
any advice would be appreciated

 

[GadgetMan]

They may have agreed to settle out of court, however I assume the 'settlement' hasn't exchanged hands yet. If they withdraw the case before receiving the out of court settlement there is nothing to stop you changing your mind. This would leave the Train Company with no court case AND no settlement from you.

I've reached the above conclusion from a common sense approach. I may well be wrong.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As the Summons has been issued, then we can assume that a number of other, similar, cases will be heard in the same session, prosecuted by the same Solicitor, the whole batch being paid for in one transaction.

Having listed the case and paid the fee, it has become necessary for the Court to agree to hear the matter. It's not uncommon for a prosecuting solicitor to rise and announce that a particular matter has been withdrawn and invite the Court to proceed immediately to the next item.
It would be unusual for the Bench to ask why or make any more inquiry (unless perhaps, the Company was withdrawing a significant number of listed cases).

The payment of the Court Fee has already been made and is not refundable. I will assume that your out-of-court settlement includes an element which compensates the Company for that Fee - the 'waste' of money, if that is what it is, will be yours!

There is nothing wrong in you asking the Company for confirmation that their claim against you will be withdrawn; and it would be wise for you to write to the Clerk to the Court explaining that there has been an agreement between the parties (on whatever date, by whatever person and by phone, email or letter); that you understand that the Company has withdrawn its intention to Prosecute you at a hearing listed for (the Court date); and that as a result, you shall not be attending Court.

I recommend that you do write.

 

[Yew]

What where the 'Wrongly accused' circumstances?

 

[richw]

If you are "wrongly accused" why are you settling out of court? Surely you should be going to court to clear your name?

 

[magic clog]

the reason I settled out of court is because I couldn't risk ruining my career, and through this whole event I have learnt that authority and the system is not as honest and honourable as I previously thought, You are right I am 99% sure that I would have won the case but was not prepared to take the 1% chance of ruining mine and my family's life.

 

[yorkie]

If you are "wrongly accused" why are you settling out of court? Surely you should be going to court to clear your name?

Not everyone has a 4-figure sum of cash spare. Someone on this forum shelled out a figure of around £1000 to defend their daughter who was wrongfully accused (no doubt about it) by FCC. I even had assurances from FCC they would not prosecute her, but they did. FCC withdrew the case at the last minute, but still had to pay costs. But if they withdraw the case too soon, it can leave the defendant with a huge legal bill!

 

[richw]

the reason I settled out of court is because I couldn't risk ruining my career, and through this whole event I have learnt that authority and the system is not as honest and honourable as I previously thought, You are right I am 99% sure that I would have won the case but was not prepared to take the 1% chance of ruining mine and my family's life.

I understand why you did it then. Surely something needs doing about the way TOCS prosecute if an innocent party is potentially better off settling out of court and taking the financial hit, than to clear their name. Definitly shouldnt be like this!

 

[Fare-Cop]

the reason I settled out of court is because I couldn't risk ruining my career, and through this whole event I have learnt that authority and the system is not as honest and honourable as I previously thought, You are right I am 99% sure that I would have won the case but was not prepared to take the 1% chance of ruining mine and my family's life.

But what were the circumstances of the allegation that you say is false and which make you 99% certain that you would have won your case?

I find it a little strange that you come to the forum saying 'any advice would be appreciated', but seem reticent about describing a scenario that you are so confident of winning and could therefore help others in a similar situation.

 

[swj99]

wrongly accused of fare evasion
court summons date was sent
I intended to plead not guilty
agreed to settle out of court.
the court case on the said date will still go ahead
representative ........ who will stand up and say case withdrawn
I have had nothing in writing from them
completely distrustful of the justice system
has anybody else had experience of this procedure

On what terms was the out of court settlement agreed ?
You say you have had nothing in writing from them. Does this mean the out of court settlement was agreed verbally ?

The prosecutor has the right to discontinue the prosecution at any time before trial or up to close of the prosecution case. After that time, the prosecution can only be discontinued with the consent of the court.

Prosecutors can terminate proceedings in the magistrates' court by:

1. using the power in section 23, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 ('s.23');

2. applying to withdraw the summons or charge; or

3. offering no evidence in court.

One way magistrates court proceedings are often discontinued is for the prosecution solicitor to attend the hearing and offer no evidence, after which the magistrates will dismiss the charge.
It's a long time since I did any magistrates court work, but what I've done in the past with situations like this is to request from the prosecution, written confirmation that the case has been, or will be discontinued, with the proviso that in the absence of written confirmation, someone will attend on the day, and an application will be made for costs.

See also part 8 of The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012

......Surely something needs doing about the way TOCS prosecute if an innocent party is potentially better off settling out of court and taking the financial hit, than to clear their name. Definitly shouldnt be like this!

You're absolutely right. I don't know what the solution is, other than perhaps for as many innocent people as possible who get prosecuted to defend any proceedings vigorously, draw as much media attention to the issue as possible, and claim costs (defendants cost order) etc.

** Edited to add -

In view of the number of cases which seem to arise in which people are effectively manipulated into admitting to crimes of which they are innocent, just to avoid the risk of expensive legal fees or worse, it might be worth looking into the question of whether or not proceedings could be brought against TOCs under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and the Supreme Court Act 1981, which can provide protection against vexatious prosecutions.

 

[Fare-Cop]

They may have agreed to settle out of court, however I assume the 'settlement' hasn't exchanged hands yet. If they withdraw the case before receiving the out of court settlement there is nothing to stop you changing your mind. This would leave the Train Company with no court case AND no settlement from you.

I've reached the above conclusion from a common sense approach. I may well be wrong.

In my experience, and knowing many of the various TOCs prosecutors, I would not expect any of them to apply to withdraw a summons until the settlement had been concluded.

If settlement had been agreed, but not finalised before the Court date, it would not be unusual for the prosecutor to apply to adjourn the case 'to allow consideration of late representation', or 'for file review', which will allow time for the settlement to be paid.

If it is not, then the prosecution would proceed

 

[michael769]

I understand why you did it then. Surely something needs doing about the way TOCS prosecute if an innocent party is potentially better off settling out of court and taking the financial hit, than to clear their name. Definitly shouldnt be like this!

If you feel that way I would urge you to contact your MP and ask them what steps they are taking to reign train operating companies in in this regard, and what measures they think need to be put in place to ensure that publicly subsidised ToCs act in the public interest and ensure that accused persons are treated fairly (for example by asking the DPP to take over prosecutions with a view applying the Full Code Test, or changing the law to ensure that accused passengers have fairer treatment by setting up an independent appeals tribunal).

As long as ToCs enjoy extensive pulic subsidy they are accountable to us through our elected members.

 

[island]

To drag things back on topic, I agree with DaveNewcastle that the prosecutor will just advise the Magistrates that the case is not proceeding, assuming the settlement has been paid. Writing to the court might be advisable.

 

[W230]

Not everyone has a 4-figure sum of cash spare. Someone on this forum shelled out a figure of around £1000 to defend their daughter who was wrongfully accused (no doubt about it) by FCC. I even had assurances from FCC they would not prosecute her, but they did. FCC withdrew the case at the last minute, but still had to pay costs. But if they withdraw the case too soon, it can leave the defendant with a huge legal bill!

I'm intrigued by this. I can understand why they shelled out a large figure to defend the case, if FCC appeared to still be prosecuting. But as they then didn't, it would suggest (i'm assuming here) FCC knew they were in the wrong.

While it would be naive of me to think that there are never any incorrect prosecutions, are there really that many*?



*I agree that even one is too many

 

[Fare-Cop]

I'm intrigued by this. I can understand why they shelled out a large figure to defend the case, if FCC appeared to still be prosecuting. But as they then didn't, it would suggest (i'm assuming here) FCC knew they were in the wrong.

While it would be naive of me to think that there are never any incorrect prosecutions, are there really that many*?



*I agree that even one is too many

Yes, one bad prosecution is one too many, but I'm willing to bet that FCC took the decision for an entirely different reason.

They, like other TOCs will have a surfiet of prosecutable cases and where an admin disposal can be justified (first time, low level offence where the alleged offender promptly admits guilt / co-operates with inspector etc.) taking a payment out of court and recording a warning is part of the way that they will manage court lists and reduce pressure on their prosecution management team.

 

[sheff1]

Yes, one bad prosecution is one too many, but I'm willing to bet that FCC took the decision for an entirely different reason.

If it is the case I believe it is, I will take up your bet . What odds are you offering ?

 

[Hellfire]

I don't think anyone can give the OP advice unless we see the details of this case. What prompted the accusation of fare evasion, what were the circumstances and why does the OP think the accusation was wrong?

On what basis does the OP think that there is a 99% chance of winning the case. If he/she truly believes that then why offer to settle out of court? More information please.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If it is the case I believe it is, I will take up your bet . What odds are you offering ?

It appears that perhaps sheff1 can tell us what it is that magic clog hasn't and until then I agree with Hellfire and others who have asked the question that remains unanswered.

I don't think anyone can give the OP advice unless we see the details of this case. What prompted the accusation of fare evasion, what were the circumstances and why does the OP think the accusation was wrong?

On what basis does the OP think that there is a 99% chance of winning the case. If he/she truly believes that then why offer to settle out of court? More information please.

In reality, it seems that until those questions are answered the thread helps no-one in the future at all and the OP has already made their decision, so needs no further assistance

 

[sheff1]

It appears that perhaps sheff1 can tell us what it is that magic clog hasn't

I have absolutely no knowledge of the magic clog case other than what is on this thread.

I took your comment about the bet to relate to the case in post #14 (in turn linked back to post #7) as that was the post you quoted.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I have absolutely no knowledge of the magic clog case other than what is on this thread.

I took your comment about the bet to relate to the case in post #14 (in turn linked back to post #7) as that was the post you quoted.

My apology, yes, I can see where I confused things - thinking about the magic clog case, but relating it to comment on another matter

End of a long day - sorry, I should have paid more attention! :roll:

 

[sheff1]

No problem - bet off then !