Mis-use of Single Justice Procedure - Evening Standard newspaper

[pwharley]

An Evening Standard journalist (Tristan Kirk) has written an article which covers the willingness of certain TOCs to favour Magistrates Court proceedings
He highlights Northern Rail as one of those who readily turned to the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) for alleged fare evasion and how they stopped in January and are now reviewing their use of it.
To quote part of the article: "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."
This is good publicity for those who have campaigned for a change in policy.

Fast-track courts unlawfully convict thousands of fare evasion

‘It’s not a mistake- they’ve done this so many times’

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

He’s just won the Paul Foot Award for investigative journalism, given out every year by Private Eye, for his work on this. A long overdue expose of business practices which are unethical at best and, at worst, should see the Solicitors Regulation Authority taking decisive action against solicitors who are involved in these proceedings.

 

[Enthusiast]

Presumably proceedings are barred under the SJP because the offence is imprisonable. But I understand (though may be wrong) that only a second or subsequent offence carries a custodial sentence. Do all the cases which Mr Kirk has investigated involve a second or subsequent offence, or is there something else which i am missing which makes prosecutions under the 1889 Act ineligible for the SJP ?

EDIT: I've just discovered something about rail operators not being "relevant prosecutors" which probably explains it.

 

[jfollows]

I think the case referred to in the Evening Standard is documented here - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/section-5-1-rora-prosecution.251202/ - if anyone wants to read more details.

 

[island]

Presumably proceedings are barred under the SJP because the offence is imprisonable. But I understand (though may be wrong) that only a second or subsequent offence carries a custodial sentence. Do all the cases which Mr Kirk has investigated involve a second or subsequent offence, or is there something else which i am missing which makes prosecutions under the 1889 Act ineligible for the SJP ?

EDIT: I've just discovered something about rail operators not being "relevant prosecutors" which probably explains it.

An offence is either imprisonable or it isn't.

 

[30907]

I think the case referred to in the Evening Standard is documented here - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/section-5-1-rora-prosecution.251202/ - if anyone wants to read more details.

And the Standard article is being discussed there.

 

[Cowley]

Yes, as above really.