Could a TOC still prosecute after a settlement is paid?

[ChewChewTrain]

As above, really. If a settlement offer is accepted and the amount paid, are the TOC then no longer able to prosecute for the offence(s) “covered” by the settlement? Does that still hold if the TOC subsequently discover additional aggravating factors (but not any new offences)?

I suppose that in practice, a TOC probably wouldn’t want to risk such an action for fear of negative press. But I was just wondering whether anything would stop them in law. I’d have thought that without them entering into some kind of contract, the payment of a settlement wouldn’t legally bind them in any way, but I could be spectacularly wrong about that.

 

[Watershed]

There are several bases on which a settlement offer, once paid, would preclude a TOC later bringing a prosecution. Firstly, a settlement is a form of contract and it would obviously be a breach of contract, thus damages would be available; it's also one of the rare circumstances where damages cannot fully reinstate the potential 'loss' and so an injunction for the TOC to discontinue the case might actually be a realistic remedy.

Moreover, the defendant could apply to have the proceedings stayed as an abuse of process. The CPS website has further information on this, but it's likely that a settlement whereby the TOC agreed not to prosecute would again be one of the rare circumstances where such an application would be warranted and would have reasonable prospects of being successful.

The only kind of circumstance in which a settlement may be 'unwound' would be in the case of some form of fraud. For example, if a TOC was investigating someone who they knew to be a routine fare evader, and the person lied about the number of occasions on which they'd dodged the fare, or the station from which they had travelled. If it's merely the case that the TOC discovers the circumstances are slightly worse than they understood - but the passenger didn't actively mislead them - that wouldn't be grounds for unwinding a settlement.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Not that far a distant cousin, I wonder if the cps could actualy insist on continuing the prosecution even if the toc had settled and wanted to stop it, probably need to be some outlandish reason for doing so but wonder if that would be technically possible also

 

[Watershed]

Not that far a distant cousin, I wonder if the cps could actualy insist on continuing the prosecution even if the toc had settled and wanted to stop it, probably need to be some outlandish reason for doing so but wonder if that would be technically possible also

That would be a possiblity (the CPS can take over any private prosecution), although I doubt it would make much difference to an application for the proceedings to be stayed due to abuse of process.

 

[furlong]

And the settlement binds all other parties too. If TOC B tries to prosecute after TOC A agreed a settlement, it would come up against the same abuse of process barrier - as would a police investigation.

For the CPS or anyone else to take it over and proceed, a court would need to agree that the settlement was unenforceable (i.e. a defence application for abuse of process would fail). This could happen if the settlement contained provisions that were inappropriate for what amounts to an out-of-court disposal of a criminal offence. It could also happen if the settlement was founded on a lie told by the defendant, discovered afterwards. (The onus is on the defendant to prove the abuse - difficult if the defendant tricked them into it.)

(Extreme example: Person A commits murder. Victim's family B agrees an out of court settlement with person A in which they will not be prosecuted in return for a large amount of money. CPS tries to prosecutes person A. You'd expect the court to decide the out of court settlement was unenforceable, probably on multiple grounds.)