In a significant legal development, the UK’s chief magistrate, Judge Paul Goldspring, has ruled that the single justice procedure (SJP), enabling magistrates’ hearings to be conducted behind closed doors, was misapplied in thousands of rail fare evasion cases.
This decisive ruling follows the declaration of six test cases as void, which has prompted a comprehensive review of similar prosecutions. Authorities, including the Department for Transport (DfT) and various rail operators, are now tasked with compiling a list of those affected by the end of September. The primary objective is to contact the individuals involved and resolve their cases accordingly.
The SJP, generally reserved for minor offences such as the non-payment of television licences, was inappropriately utilised by train companies to expedite fare evasion cases. Introduced under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, the SJP bypasses public hearings, a practice that has been criticised for its lack of transparency and fairness. Both Northern Trains and Greater Anglia, rail operators implicated in the improper prosecutions, have issued public apologies. Northern Trains specifically welcomed the judgment, underlining their commitment to fair treatment of all passengers.
Christian Waters, a passenger who had contested a similar charge over a £3.50 fare, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, referring to it as a “complete vindication.” His case, along with thousands of others, has spotlighted the inherent flaws of the SJP process. The effort to refund fines and overturn convictions is anticipated to span several months as courts and train companies work to identify and contact those impacted.
Legal experts underscore that this ruling does not exonerate individuals from fare evasion; train companies retain the ability to prosecute through alternative legal avenues. The judgment has incited calls for reform of the SJP, with the Magistrates’ Association recognising the necessity for improvements to protect vulnerable individuals from potential drawbacks posed by the existing system.
This landmark ruling sets a precedent for future legal proceedings and highlights the imperative need to reform judicial processes to ensure fairness and transparency.
