Around 75,000 criminal prosecutions brought by train companies against passengers in controversial fast-track courts were “probably unlawful” and could now be quashed.
Alleged fare dodgers can be taken to court through the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) - a process where magistrates convict and sentence defendants in private hearings – if they are accused of breaching a railway byelaw.
But 2016 legislation which set up the SJP courts did not permit rail firms – as private prosecutors - to use the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 in the special fast-track court process.
An Evening Standard investigation last week revealed that vast numbers of criminal cases had unlawfully been brought against alleged fare dodgers in this way between 2020 and 2024.
Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring has now stepped in to deal with the mess, after private crisis talks between the Department for Transport, court officials, and train companies.
He indicated he could now cancel all the convictions, and warned that train companies would have to decide how to tackle fines that have already been paid and bailiff action brought as a result of unlawful prosecutions.
“My initial view which has crystalised over a week of research is that all of the offences not covered by the 2016 order and prosecuted in the Single Justice Procedure are void and therefore a nullity”, he told a hearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday, revealing that at least 74,860 criminal cases are believed to be involved.
The senior judge ordered the train firms involved, including government-owned Northern Rail and Greater Anglia, to decide if they are challenging his view, ahead of a final hearing on July 19.
“There is no doubt that, had the 2016 order allowed this process, the vast majority of cases would have been properly convicted. But innocent until proven guilty is only really as good as the process, and you can’t have undue process to get there.”
Laura Addy, a barrister for Northern Rail, said the company is still gathering information on the scale of the issue, and added: “We don’t want to rush it, we want it to be done properly.”
The role of private prosecutors like rail firms is under the spotlight in the wake of the Post Office scandal, where hundreds of subpostmasters were taken to court by the organisation over faulty accusations of theft and fraud.
The explosion of publicity of that scandal, including ITV’s Mr Bates versus the Post Office TV drama, is understood to have triggered an internal review among train operators of the use of the SJP process.
The fast-track courts have also been under-fire for the last year thanks to a Standard investigation exposing how vulnerable, elderly, and sick people are harshly treated in hearings that take place behind closed doors.
Judge Goldspring is set to examine six “test cases” involving alleged fare dodging, before deciding whether to hand down a quashing order on all the tens of thousands of cases involved.
He said those six people have received a letter from the head of legal operations for London, informing them of the court process underway and telling them: “The process was probably unlawful”.
However, tens of thousands of other people caught up in the scandal could be unaware that their conviction could be about to be cancelled.
“There is the added problem afterwards of what happens with fines collected, costs collected, they have got bailiffs out looking to enforce debts”, the judge added.
“There are a lot of moving parts to it. I would hope companies have already de-instructed those distress warrants, but that is out of the court’s hands.”
Both Labour and the Conservatives have signalled a willingness to reform the SJP courts after the General Election.
When the story broke last week, DfT (Department for Transport) OLR Holdings Ltd – DOHL - which runs Northern for the government, defended its right to pursue alleged fare dodgers, but acknowledged “potential procedural issues with the prosecution process”.
“DOHL Train operators stopped using the Single Justice Procedure for offences under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 in January and are reviewing its previous use", a spokesperson said.
