Standard Magistrates Court penalties for ticketing infringements

[island]

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (Automatic Online Conviction and Standard Statutory Penalty) (Specification of Offences and Penalties) Regulations have been published in draft today.

The regulations, which are made under new powers from section 3 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, provide the option for prosecutions for certain offences, which are currently handled by way of SJPN, to be processed online. The offences being section 18 of the Railway Byelaws and the corresponding provisions for the T&W Metro, Tramlink, Metrolink, and NET. (There's also one prescribed about salmon fishing which I will not consider further.)

Where a prosecution is dealt with this way, the fine for a defendant pleading guilty to a Railway Byelaws offence is fixed at £66 and the other offences at £80, in each case plus a 40% surcharge. Compensation is capped at £10. A not-guilty plea would drop the case out of the online system and be dealt with as it is at present.

The regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament to take effect.

 

[75A]

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (Automatic Online Conviction and Standard Statutory Penalty) (Specification of Offences and Penalties) Regulations have been published in draft today.

The regulations, which are made under new powers from section 3 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, provide the option for prosecutions for certain offences, which are currently handled by way of SJPN, to be processed online. The offences being section 18 of the Railway Byelaws and the corresponding provisions for the T&W Metro, Tramlink, Metrolink, and NET. (There's also one prescribed about salmon fishing which I will not consider further.)

Where a prosecution is dealt with this way, the fine for a defendant pleading guilty to a Railway Byelaws offence is fixed at £66 and the other offences at £80, in each case plus a 40% surcharge. Compensation is capped at £10. A not-guilty plea would drop the case out of the online system and be dealt with as it is at present.

The regulations must be approved by both Houses of Parliament to take effect.

Interesting, thanks for putting them on here.

 

[John R]

Where a prosecution is dealt with this way, the fine for a defendant pleading guilty to a Railway Byelaws offence is fixed at £66 and the other offences at £80, in each case plus a 40% surcharge. Compensation is capped at £10. A not-guilty plea would drop the case out of the online system and be dealt with as it is at present.

These figures appear surprisingly low? Does compensation being capped at £10 mean that for any fare evaded over £10, the railway cannot claim the full cost of the ticket (on any definition of "full")?

 

[furlong]

These figures appear surprisingly low? Does compensation being capped at £10 mean that for any fare evaded over £10, the railway cannot claim the full cost of the ticket (on any definition of "full")?

They can still take it to the civil court (with or without a conviction) for fares due under the contract formed when the person travelled.

 

[island]

These figures appear surprisingly low? Does compensation being capped at £10 mean that for any fare evaded over £10, the railway cannot claim the full cost of the ticket (on any definition of "full")?

Correct, or at least they cannot claim it via this streamlined procedure. Existing procedures remain available.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

There's also one prescribed about salmon fishing which I will not consider further.)

Please do.

I hadn't realised that salmon fishing offences were so widespread that putting the penalties online would save the courts substantial time and effort....

Leaving the facetiousness aside, assuming that this is implemented it will mean we
- need to be even more careful in identifying penalty fares Vs online byelaw fines (I'm sure a proper name for them will emerge) Vs Merseyrail/Northern etc. 'penalty charges'/out of court settlements etc
- will have to clarify our advice over whether to accept the online fine or go to court.

And given the size of the fine etc., does that explain the deflation we've recently seen in the costs elements of some TOCs out of court settlements?

 

[fandroid]

So, a fine + surcharge of £92.40 for a railway byelaw offence plus costs of £10 max. A roundish sum of ca. £100.

I wonder if the Dept of Justice thought that was a handy benchmark?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, a fine + surcharge of £92.40 for a railway byelaw offence plus costs of £10 max. A roundish sum of ca. £100.

I wonder if the Dept of Justice thought that was a handy benchmark?

An encouragement to use the Penalty Fares system instead, perhaps? Though it is an interesting coincidence that the admin fee for a settlement is almost always, er, £100.

 

[AdamWW]

Correct, or at least they cannot claim it via this streamlined procedure. Existing procedures remain available.

Would you have an idea why they have limited it like this?

I've had it explained on this forum that magistrates have no power to challenge the sum that the railway asks for and that it is up the defendant to raise a challenge if they think it's excessive.

I don't think I've heard of anyone doing so without a lawyer though - and can this be done while pleading not guilty, particularly via the SJPN process?

 

[island]

Would you have an idea why they have limited it like this?

I can only speculate that it is part of operating a streamlined process.

I've had it explained on this forum that magistrates have no power to challenge the sum that the railway asks for and that it is up the defendant to raise a challenge if they think it's excessive.

I don't think I've heard of anyone doing so without a lawyer though - and can this be done while pleading not guilty, particularly via the SJPN process?

This isn't relevant to the topic at hand, which is the future automated online processing of SJPN railway offences. Feel free to open a new thread if you'd like to discuss it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

An encouragement to use the Penalty Fares system instead, perhaps? Though it is an interesting coincidence that the admin fee for a settlement is almost always, er, £100.

That bit, I think, *is* an interesting coincidence and nothing more. It seems to me that the more relevant comparison is between total costs of settlement under this system when compared to the current Penalty Fare/informal settlement/prosecution regime . And my impression is that GTR (in particular) are moderating their costs claims in out of court settlements such that the total settlement package is now coming in around £100 - just as the new system will produce.

 

[Cantab26]

So, a fine + surcharge of £92.40 for a railway byelaw offence plus costs of £10 max. A roundish sum of ca. £100.

This is not correct: the compensation (for the avoided fare) is capped at £10.

The prosecutor’s costs are recoverable in addition under section 16I(6) and (7) at a level determined by the prosecutor.

 

[Haywain]

This is not correct: the compensation (for the avoided fare) is capped at £10.

The prosecutor’s costs are recoverable in addition under section 16I(6) and (7) at a level determined by the prosecutor.

Would you expect that lower costs would result from this process compared to the existing process?

 

[Cantab26]

About the same as the figure that gets put into SJPNs at the moment - the preparatory work will be much the same

 

[fandroid]

This is not correct: the compensation (for the avoided fare) is capped at £10.

The prosecutor’s costs are recoverable in addition under section 16I(6) and (7) at a level determined by the prosecutor.

Sorry, that was just laziness on my part, although I'm puzzled as to why it's this way around. I would have thought that the DoJ would have been more interested in capping costs (including those of private prosecutors) than in stopping rail companies recovering avoided fares. But it could be that they see the the civil courts as a more appropriate route for the latter.

 

[AdamWW]

Sorry, that was just laziness on my part, although I'm puzzled as to why it's this way around. I would have thought that the DoJ would have been more interested in capping costs (including those of private prosecutors) than in stopping rail companies recovering avoided fares. But it could be that they see the the civil courts as a more appropriate route for the latter.

Would this new process be optional for the railway companies?

If so what would the benefit be to them for a process which severely limits the compensation they can claim?