UK court's ruling on unlawful prosecutions impacts over 74,000 cases
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court recently ruled that railway operators improperly used the single justice procedure (SJP) to prosecute over 74,000 cases involving fare-related offences and declared these prosecutions invalid.
The SJP was a legal process that allowed a single magistrate to deal with certain non-imprisonable summary offences without a formal court hearing. The SJP required the service of the correct legal documents on the accused and required that the accused did not opt for a full trial.
The procedure, introduced as part of efforts to streamline the justice system, was generally used for minor offences such as fare evasion.
The Department for Transport of the U.K. informed the Ministry of Justice that four train companies had been using the SJP despite it not being legally permissible for certain railway offences under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
SJP used in error: court
In Northern Trains Limited -v- Ballington, Wylie and Cooke and Greater Anglia -v- Baggaley and others, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court issued a decision noting that the railway operators conceded that offences under ss. 5(1) and 5(3) of the Railways Act had not been validly prosecuted through the SJP. The use of SJP in these cases amounted to a jurisdictional error, they conceded.
For these offences, concessions made in the parties’ submissions declared invalid the convictions and sentences imposed using the SJP. The court should set them aside under s. 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 and should order the refund of any fines or costs paid in connection with these convictions, the concessions stated.
The court ruling – declaring the relevant prosecutions void ab initio – impacted more than 74,000 cases. “There are serious questions that the prosecuting authorities, in this case the train companies, need to answer as to how this was allowed to happen,” Tom Franklin, chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association, said in an article of the Law Society Gazette.
Franklin noted that the decision supported the association’s call to reform the SJP. “For some time now, the Magistrates’ Association has been calling for it to be more open and transparent, consistent, and fairer particularly for more vulnerable defendants such as those who are elderly or infirm,” Franklin said in the article.
“While many aspects of the SJP work well, we would like to see measures put in place to protect the most vulnerable defendants,” Franklin added in the article. Franklin suggested increasing transparency on data about the SJP and allowing accredited journalists to observe SJP sittings.
