I wonder if it might be time to wave this in front of someone like Private Eye (who have form for taking interest in miscarriages of justice)? If those figures for S5(1) prosecutions are accurate I struggle to believe anything other than a minority of the those prosecuted failed to provide an address in which case it would seem thousands, in just one year, have been prosecuted, convicted and fined incorrectly.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Section 5(1) RoRA Prosecution
- Thread starter KirkstallOne
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
John Palmer
Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 399
Northern Trains' obligation is to respond to the FOI request with the information it has recorded, regardless of whether such record is inaccurate. In this context, the guidance from the Information Commissioner is that “To avoid misleading the requester, you should normally be able to explain to them the nature of the information, or provide extra information to help put the information into context.”
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that Northern Trains have responded to @KirkstallOne's request for information about the number of Section 5(1) RoRA prosecutions it began by means of the Single Justice Procedure with an accurate disclosure of what their records say that number is. It's also reasonable to assume that Northern Trains record such information accurately, as there is nothing to be gained by keeping a record that is inaccurate.
So, taken at its face value, the response to the FOI request indicates that in the period covered by it Northern Trains initiated 9,719 prosecutions for offences under Section 5 RoRA by means of a procedure it was not authorised to employ, and correspondingly that there was a total of 9,719 occasions when the magistrates courts concerned failed to discharge their duty to ensure that a company seeking to prosecute by means of the SJP had the necessary authority to do so.
In addition, it is difficult to understand how 9,708 offences can be alleged to have been committed under Section 5(1) where it was evidently possible to send the SJP notice to the alleged miscreant by post. Were there really 9,708 cases where the defendant failed to supply name and address in accordance with Section 5(1), but Northern Trains subsequently undertook sufficient enquiries to establish that defendant's name and address and thereby make possible the service of an SJP notice on the alleged offender? Or is the explanation, as Northern Trains' 19 April letter to @KirkstallOne suggests, that the company remains wedded to the notion that Section 5(1) creates a substantive offence of ticketless travel and that consequently supply of the alleged offender's name and address when requested is no bar to prosecution under the subsection?
The information disclosed in response to the FOI request certainly raises real cause for concern that a substantial number of travellers may have been prosecuted on a charge to which they self-evidently had a good defence, and that in any case there has been systematic abuse of process in the shape of resort to the Single Justice Procedure without the requisite authority, an abuse that the court itself has taken no steps to restrain in accordance with its duty to do so.
The Evening Standard journalist Tristan Kirk has been making a particular issue of shortcomings in the workings of the Single Justice Procedure, and might well take an interest in the situation revealed by Northern's response to the FOI request
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that Northern Trains have responded to @KirkstallOne's request for information about the number of Section 5(1) RoRA prosecutions it began by means of the Single Justice Procedure with an accurate disclosure of what their records say that number is. It's also reasonable to assume that Northern Trains record such information accurately, as there is nothing to be gained by keeping a record that is inaccurate.
So, taken at its face value, the response to the FOI request indicates that in the period covered by it Northern Trains initiated 9,719 prosecutions for offences under Section 5 RoRA by means of a procedure it was not authorised to employ, and correspondingly that there was a total of 9,719 occasions when the magistrates courts concerned failed to discharge their duty to ensure that a company seeking to prosecute by means of the SJP had the necessary authority to do so.
In addition, it is difficult to understand how 9,708 offences can be alleged to have been committed under Section 5(1) where it was evidently possible to send the SJP notice to the alleged miscreant by post. Were there really 9,708 cases where the defendant failed to supply name and address in accordance with Section 5(1), but Northern Trains subsequently undertook sufficient enquiries to establish that defendant's name and address and thereby make possible the service of an SJP notice on the alleged offender? Or is the explanation, as Northern Trains' 19 April letter to @KirkstallOne suggests, that the company remains wedded to the notion that Section 5(1) creates a substantive offence of ticketless travel and that consequently supply of the alleged offender's name and address when requested is no bar to prosecution under the subsection?
The information disclosed in response to the FOI request certainly raises real cause for concern that a substantial number of travellers may have been prosecuted on a charge to which they self-evidently had a good defence, and that in any case there has been systematic abuse of process in the shape of resort to the Single Justice Procedure without the requisite authority, an abuse that the court itself has taken no steps to restrain in accordance with its duty to do so.
The Evening Standard journalist Tristan Kirk has been making a particular issue of shortcomings in the workings of the Single Justice Procedure, and might well take an interest in the situation revealed by Northern's response to the FOI request
How likely is it a journalist for a London-focused media outlet, that's on its knees financially, would be funded to uncover injustice in places like Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle?
Maybe better to focus on whoever remains of the national dailies' Transport Correspondents? Trouble is, that's not a great idea either. These days, anyone appointed as Transport Correspondent on a national is on a happy slipway to retirement and so is very unlikely to rock the boat. This potential scandal will remain hidden unless a smart reporter for an online outlet not only is persuaded of the injustice but can generate enough noise to make those in power to take notice. I'm not hopeful.
Maybe better to focus on whoever remains of the national dailies' Transport Correspondents? Trouble is, that's not a great idea either. These days, anyone appointed as Transport Correspondent on a national is on a happy slipway to retirement and so is very unlikely to rock the boat. This potential scandal will remain hidden unless a smart reporter for an online outlet not only is persuaded of the injustice but can generate enough noise to make those in power to take notice. I'm not hopeful.
Last edited:
And I bet many of them were denied the opportunity to pay their fare from the place whence they started.
Doctor Fegg
Established Member
I’d suggest waving it front of the Mill publications who operate in Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield and are building up a reputation for independent journalism. Possibly not right now though as someone very important in Manchester is threatening to sue them…
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,810
I’d expect “Dr B Ching” to read this forum
Well yes. How else could Northern have commenced legal proceedings against them?
KirkstallOne
Member
I am doing what I can to put this on peoples radars but feels like a uphill battle!
Some good suggestions re: Mill publications but I am going to give Mr Kirk first bite of the cherry. I am also contacting litigation funders as it feels like with the number revealed with this FOI, and the number of years this has been going on, this could be a worthwhile group action. As always I will keep the forum informed of any significant developments.
Some good suggestions re: Mill publications but I am going to give Mr Kirk first bite of the cherry. I am also contacting litigation funders as it feels like with the number revealed with this FOI, and the number of years this has been going on, this could be a worthwhile group action. As always I will keep the forum informed of any significant developments.
Fermiboson
Member
Thanks very much for @KirkstallOne ‘s efforts. I’m in the process of submitting my own broader FOIs as well on the matter, and I’m also in contact with a number of student unions and charities to see if any good can come of it. From the data thus far it seems clear there is a serious and ongoing miscarriage of justice on a massive scale, based on legal misrepresentations from a publicly responsible body.
For what it's worth, I submitted FOIs for the same info as was provided by Northern but to TPE, LNER and Southeastern.
KirkstallOne
Member
Merseyrail is the other TOC we know for sure has done this.
I doubt it. My perception of him is he’s not a details person and he’s more interest in the actual travel itself (usually foreign).
He used to style himself as the man who paid his own way as he wouldnt take any of the freebies offered to travel journalists.
Stuff like this is I think more for consumer rights activists rather than travel journalists.
- Status