Magistrate "in despair" as South West Trains blunders derail nine prosecutions

[bnm]

Oh dear. SWTs prosecution department have rather messed up here. Probably cost them a bit of money as well.

From the Dorset Echo:

Magistrate "in despair" as South West Trains blunders derail nine prosecutions

A MAGISTRATE sat in “despair” as fare-dodging cases were dropped after blunders by South West Trains.

The company withdrew nine prosecutions after failing to serve case details for the second hearing in a row.

Chairman of the bench Ian Sibley, sitting at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court, said the court could not allow the cases to continue.

He said: “As someone who pays for rail tickets, it fills me with despair that these mistakes are made.”

The allegations were all made against people travelling on sections of the Weymouth to Waterloo line.

Successful prosecutions of similar cases have recently resulted in offenders being fined £200 or £400 and ordered to pay costs of £140 each.

James Allan, senior prosecutions manager at South West Trains, told the court that relevant staff had been sick and left the company over the summer.

He told the magistrates: “It will be investigated, I can assure you.

“I have already been sending stinging emails from my Blackberry on the way here.

“I am not in a happy position and I don’t want to be in this position before the court.

“I will be demanding to know what’s happened and speaking to the various directors.

“I know how much it costs the company to bring this to court and this is also wasting precious court time.

“To say that action will be taken is an understatement.”

Mr Sibley said the court had to be consistent with the rules it applied to the police and could not allow a second round of adjournments.

Cllr Michael Filer, Bournemouth’s cabinet member for transport, said: “This is very disappointing news and I hope it is sorted out as quickly as possible.

“As a tax payer I know some of our money is used to support the rail companies and if they are not operating efficiently we will probably be asked for more money in future years.”

Speaking after the case, Matthew Winnie, head of revenue protection at South West Trains, told the Daily Echo: “I am disappointed the magistrates decided not to proceed but understand the reasons given.

“I can only apologise that the correct statements were not made available in time. I will ensure this will not happen again.

“South West Trains does not bring prosecutions lightly as fare evasion costs the railway significant amounts of lost fares.”

...cont.

 

[Monty]

I am rather speechless at what has been allowed to transpire, I know several members of the prosecutions team personally and they are all exceptionally professional in all aspects of their Job. I'm really puzzled how they were unable to present any case infomation (ie MG11 statements, notebook copies etc) twice. I can imagine Mr Allan is not a happy man..

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm not quite as puzzled, (though doubt I have any personal knowledge of the individuals concerned as you do).

The 'back room' work in bringing a succesfull prosecution is not a trivial task (depending on one's point of view, then this is either a consequence of the Company's policies, the Court's procedures, the applicable Legislation - and there's plenty of it! - , or the mass of Case Law which has, by attrition, closed all manner of common sense lines of argument - and there's plenty of that, too - ).

The work of the legal administrative staff, in Law firms, in Companies and in the Courts Service is a considerable burden, and it's easy for any party to make a small but very simple error or omission. They occur every day.

It's my opinion that more Prosecutions could (on purely statistical grounds rather than from evidential failings) be abandoned with impunity, simply on account of avoidable, but burdensome, administrative shortcomings.

 

[TUC]

As much as I have no difficulties with private companies running rail services I do have a real issue with them having prosecution powers. The power to prosecute should only rest with statutory bodies.

 

[455driver]

Dave, SWTs prosecution department is usually very efficient indeed, James Allen will get to the bottom of this and I dont expect it to happen again.

So TUC, if the TOCs are prevented from prosecuting persistent offenders what do you suggest as a workable alternative?

 

[Ferret]

As much as I have no difficulties with private companies running rail services I do have a real issue with them having prosecution powers. The power to prosecute should only rest with statutory bodies.

What complete gibber.

So, for every person without a ticket, the Police have to get involved, then the CPS? Hardly workable is it?

Furthermore, TOCs have the power to launch a private prosecution, as do you and I. If you aren't happy with that, I suggest contacting your MP.

 

[Jatos]

I would also say it very dangerous to remove private prosecution powers....

 

[michael769]

Simple reality is that a police force faced with having to deal with murders, rapes and drug offences are never going to view fare dodging as a high priority.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Simple reality is that a police force faced with having to deal with murders, rapes and drug offences are never going to view fare dodging as a high priority.

.....but (slightly tongue in cheek) they do have the time, money and inclination to investigate and prosecute a certain Mr Huhne and his ex-wife....(case delayed once again until next year, I wonder how much that is costing!)

 

[DarloRich]

i'm not quite as puzzled, (though doubt i have any personal knowledge of the individuals concerned as you do).

The 'back room' work in bringing a succesfull prosecution is not a trivial task (depending on one's point of view, then this is either a consequence of the company's policies, the court's procedures, the applicable legislation - and there's plenty of it! - , or the mass of case law which has, by attrition, closed all manner of common sense lines of argument - and there's plenty of that, too - ).

The work of the legal administrative staff, in law firms, in companies and in the courts service is a considerable burden, and it's easy for any party to make a small but very simple error or omission. They occur every day.

It's my opinion that more prosecutions could (on purely statistical grounds rather than from evidential failings) be abandoned with impunity, simply on account of avoidable, but burdensome, administrative shortcomings.

this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You should never underestimate the importance of the paperwork, administration and deadlines associated with a court case.

 

[Express Link]

Prosecutions for low level non complex cases as this type of offence is are not difficult especially if you are doing them regularly as I do. Non railway by the way.

A TOC should have standard forms based on the MG forms setting out the offence, legislative provisions, day, date, time and place of offence etc. A summary of the case for the use of the prosecutor in court, the decision to prosecute which I have as a series of tick boxes based on the Code for Crown Prosecutors. A list of exhibits, any ticket retained copy of penalty fare notice etc. Statement of the officer who dealt with the matter referred to as MG11 or a section 9 statement. Details of any undisclosed material that is to say material which is in your possession but is not being used as part of the prosecution case, sometimes called disclosure. The review and authorisation by a senior officer who takes the decision to prosecute.

Obviously if the case is contested in other words the accused pleads not guilty then the officer who dealt with the matter will need to come to court to give evidence unless the other side can be persuaded to agree that it will be unnecessary as their evidence is not in dispute. If they are sick or have left the company and cannot be brought back then the case will probably have to be dropped.

This looks to me more like a case of an administrative foul up by the back office.

As a rough guide it cost me between £300 to £400 to bring a case to Court taking into account my lawyers time in preparing the case for summons, obtaining and issuing the summons and attending court to prosecute the case on the day. Whilst the TOC can probably reduce this figure by batching cases together prosecution is not a cheap option and magistrates do not always grant your full costs.

 

[soil]

presumably even if costs are granted the recovery rate would still be rather less than 100%.

 

[TUC]

What complete gibber.

So, for every person without a ticket, the Police have to get involved, then the CPS? Hardly workable is it?

Furthermore, TOCs have the power to launch a private prosecution, as do you and I. If you aren't happy with that, I suggest contacting your MP.

Well, most other areas of business seem to manage without prosecution powers, including bus and coach companies. I'm not sure what makes the railways a special case.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Well, most other areas of business seem to manage without prosecution powers, including bus and coach companies. I'm not sure what makes the railways a special case.

They could launch a private criminal prosecution if they wished. As can every citizen of this country.

 

[TUC]

They could launch a private criminal prosecution if they wished. As can every citizen of this country.

And so could railways, without the need for separate powers. However I think I'm right in saying that for private orosecutions the Director of Public Prosecutions has to be satisfied that its in the public interest for a prosecution to proceed.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing for people to get away without paying fares. I am arguing that in most cases private companies should only be able to deal with this as a civil matter. Perhaps the best analogy is with privately owned car parks. Its possible to issue tickets for those who haven't paid. (The equivilent of penalty fares). If a person does not pay they can be sued through the county court. However its not a criminal matter unless in extreme cases the police or the DPP agree that there was an intent to steal/defraud. That would be the safeguard against the system getting swamped.

 

[Monty]

And so could railways, without the need for separate powers. However I think I'm right in saying that for private orosecutions the Director of Public Prosecutions has to be satisfied that its in the public interest for a prosecution to proceed.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing for people to get away without paying fares. I am arguing that in most cases private companies should only be able to deal with this as a civil matter. Perhaps the best analogy is with privately owned car parks. Its possible to issue tickets for those who haven't paid. (The equivilent of penalty fares). If a person does not pay they can be sued through the county court. However its not a criminal matter unless in extreme cases the police or the DPP agree that there was an intent to steal/defraud. That would be the safeguard against the system getting swamped.

The same could be said for the railways, unpaid penalty fares and offences reported under byelaw 18 are considered civil matters. It's only when the company can prove intend to avoid/defraud does it become a criminal one.

 

[TUC]

The same could be said for the railways, unpaid penalty fares and offences reported under byelaw 18 are considered civil matters. It's only when the company can prove intend to avoid/defraud does it become a criminal one.

But I suspect that the number of prosecutions brought by TOCs in a year is ratherhigher than the number of private prosecutions.

Fundamentally the question is if, aside from private prosecutions, Tesco cannot make a decision to prosecute a shoplifter but rather has to leave that to the police/Crown Prosecution Service, why should a TOC be any different?

 

[Ferret]

But I suspect that the number of prosecutions brought by TOCs in a year is ratherhigher than the number of private prosecutions.

Fundamentally the question is if, aside from private prosecutions, Tesco cannot make a decision to prosecute a shoplifter but rather has to leave that to the police/Crown Prosecution Service, why should a TOC be any different?

Tesco are perfectly at liberty to prosecute privately if they so desire. *facepalm*

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . the question is if, aside from private prosecutions, Tesco cannot make a decision to prosecute a shoplifter but rather has to leave that to the police/Crown Prosecution Service, why should a TOC be any different?

this doesn't make any sense:
Aside from blue things, why can't there be blue things?
Aside from Private Prosecutions, why can't Tesco bring a Private Prosecution?


You appear to be very muddled:

However I think I'm right in saying that for private [P]rosecutions the Director of Public Prosecutions has to be satisfied that its in the public interest for a prosecution to proceed.

A Private Prosecution doesn't go anywhere near the DPP's Office, it goes straight to the Clerk in the front Office with a payment of the Court Fee.

 

[island]

I think some people might be getting a bit confused due to the recent attempt at a private prosecution of Abu Hamza, which required leave of the DPP due to the specific offences involved. Normally, private prosecutions just happen. (The DPP can apply to have the prosecution discontinued under certain circumstances.)

 

[andykn]

Perhaps the best analogy is with privately owned car parks. Its possible to issue tickets for those who haven't paid. (The equivilent of penalty fares).

No, they're not. Private car parks cannot legally impose penalties. All they can do is sue for losses plus costs. So if you don't pay for a parking ticket all they can sue you for is the cost of the ticket you would have bought plus their prosecution costs.

All these official "Parking Charge Notice" things you hear about are them trying it on with the gullible and stupid. They have no legal force. The railways have a unique and privileged position.

 

[island]

That may have changed since Monday due to new laws, but I do not wish to open that discussion here.

 

[Ferret]

All these official "Parking Charge Notice" things you hear about are them trying it on with the gullible and stupid. They have no legal force. The railways have a unique and privileged position.

Explain how they are in a unique and priveleged position?

 

[michael769]

Explain how they are in a unique and priveleged position?

The railway bye laws. Few other private landowners benefit from their own customised laws.

To expand on the PPC example Railway Byelaw 14 means that folks who get "parking tickets" on railway land ignore them at their peril. I suspect that many car park owners would love to be able to enforce their invoices in court the way that a ToC can.

 

[andykn]

Explain how they are in a unique and priveleged position?

If a passenger buys a ticket for a rail journey and gets on the wrong train he can be prosecuted, even if the ticket he has is more expensive than required for the train he's on. If he gets in the wrong pre paid taxi by mistake he can't be.

 

[Ferret]

If a passenger buys a ticket for a rail journey and gets on the wrong train he can be prosecuted, even if the ticket he has is more expensive than required for the train he's on. If he gets in the wrong pre paid taxi by mistake he can't be.

Nothing like comparing like with like is there? *facepalm*.

 

[island]

If a passenger buys a ticket for a rail journey and gets on the wrong train he can be prosecuted, even if the ticket he has is more expensive than required for the train he's on. If he gets in the wrong pre paid taxi by mistake he can't be.

I think you need to take your analogy one step further. Both passengers will be offered the opportunity to pay the fare due for their journey; only if that opportunity is rejected will a prosecution be happening, in all likelihood.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The railway bye laws. Few other private landowners benefit from their own customised laws.
. . .

The Forestry Commission, The Maritime & Coastguard Agency, all U.K. Local Authorities, the Civil Aviation Authority? and then there are others, which are not private landowners, but which have jurisdiction over private land: the Borders Agency, the Financial Services Authority, Health and Safety Executive, etc.

Surely not what you meant by 'private landowners', but the extent of 'privatisation' offered to the Rail Operators or to Network Rail is not exactly normal 'ownership'.
My list does cover a significantly large proportion of the U.K.'s citizens and land.

 

[michael769]

Surely not what you meant by 'private landowners', but the extent of 'privatisation' offered to the Rail Operators or to Network Rail is not exactly normal 'ownership'.
My list does cover a significantly large proportion of the U.K.'s citizens and land.

Fair point, a better analogy for a ToC might be the occupier of rented land - again few private occupiers benefit from byelaws.

The organisations you list are all public bodies (or owned by the state) and thus have a degree of accountability to be public. For example all of those bodies can be referred by an MP to The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (with the exception of Local Authorities who are instead subject to the Local Government Ombudsman and the Audit Comission), as far as I am aware (with the possible exception of DOR) the ToCs as private companies cannot.

I do recognise that the byelaws are subject to approval (and change) by the Secretary of State, but that only impacts the laws themselves not how they are implemented by a TOC - such implementation is entirely unaccountable. I am not claiming that is a bad thing (as the courts are of course accountable), but it is still a privilege that the likes of Tesco and MacDonalds do not have.

 

[Tibbs]

I think you need to take your analogy one step further. Both passengers will be offered the opportunity to pay the fare due for their journey; only if that opportunity is rejected will a prosecution be happening, in all likelihood.

It's the part where you have to qualify it with 'in all likelihood' that your argument totally breaks down.

You're relying on the reasonableness of the TOCs and the staff that enforce the byelaws, something that a significant number of people on here have demonstrated isn't applied consistently.