RoRA S5: Discussion around 'without having previously paid his fare'

[baz962]

The Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR) clearly require a Magistrates Bench to site with the assistance of a Clerk for the overriding objective of administering Justice (CPR VI 24A). Rules 24.A.3 and A.4 allow those functions of the Clerk to be delegated.

However, I suspect that in the incident baz962 is referring to, the Mags were perhaps not hearing a Criminal Prosecution. They may have been receiving a Statement, a request for an Order, considering questions of Case Management, etc. Rule 2.2 does limit that requirement for a Clerk (or their delegated alternative) (my bold) :

That is all beyond my comprehension Dave, it was over child maintenance payments, apparently I could of got prison or lost my driving licence, however it got to that stage because the csa were un communicative and difficult to deal with, hope this help's with the kind of case, also all the other people waiting to be seen were tv license evaders.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What I and others are explaining is this :-
If Magistrates were acting in the administration of Justice (such as hearing a Criminal Prosecution and then convicting the Accused) without a Clerk or other Legal Advisor present, then the procedure was incorrect, and the enforcement of any order or Sentence given by those Magistrates could be challenged.

But, if the absence of the Clerk or Advisor couldn't have made any difference to the outcome (such as hearing a statement of fact where there's no decision to be judged), then it's hard to see that there was any injustice and so there is nothing to be done about it.