Straight to court?

[Fawkes Cat]

In another thread, I wrote

Most likely, some time in the next six months, the railway will write to you.
(...)
As I say, that’s the most likely course of events. It’s also possible that the railway (...) could go straight to court.

I'm now wondering if this is actually true - both

(a) in law, and
(b) in practice

If it's not true in law, then obviously I shouldn't be suggesting that going straight to court might happen. But even if a prosecutor is allowed to do this, do they (in particular do the railway) ever do this? I can well imagine that if I was the prosecuting officer - even for a batch of fare-dodgers at the magistrate's court - I would not be too happy if there was the possibility that one of them might show up with an unbeatable argument that I hadn't previously known they were going to use. And I doubt if the magistrates would be too impressed either.

So does anyone have any knowledge that might help clarify the advice that we give?

 

[Haywain]

While it's not a railway matter, I have personal experience of going straight to court. Many years ago now, I received a summons for non-payment of vehicle excise duty (or whatever it was called at the time). I had received no previous correspondence or contact on the matter (which arose from a wrongly dated cheque for renewal due in January) so going straight to court clearly can happen. My case was dropped after a strongly worded letter from a solicitor friend citing case law of procedural errors, but no apology was issued.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

While it's not a railway matter, I have personal experience of going straight to court. Many years ago now, I received a summons for non-payment of vehicle excise duty (or whatever it was called at the time). I had received no previous correspondence or contact on the matter (which arose from a wrongly dated cheque for renewal due in January) so going straight to court clearly can happen. My case was dropped after a strongly worded letter from a solicitor friend citing case law of procedural errors, but no apology was issued.

Thanks. So it's true in law that cases can be taken straight to court. In which case, is this something that the railways ever now do (or from the point of view of giving advice, would consider doing)?

 

[Enthusiast]

In England & Wales, if you are to be taken to court for a "summary" offence without any previous indication that you will, the prosecution (the train operator or whoever) must begin proceedings within six months of the date of the offence. This is usually done under the "Single Justice" procedure. The prosecutor has to issue a "written charge" to the court and at the same time produce a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" (SJPN) which is sent to the defendant.

If the defendant wants to defend the matter he should respond to the SJPN by pleading Not Guilty. As part of that response he will be asked to state the basis of his defence (though he does not have to do so). However, if he turns up for his trial with a defence that the prosecutor has not had time to consider, an adjournment may be requested and probably granted to give them time to do so. The defendant cannot "ambush" the prosecution by putting forward a defence that they have had no opportunity to consider, so in reality your scenario would not arise. If the magistrates were to be unimpressed by anybody in such circumstances, it would be the defendant to whom their wrath would be directed. Under the Criminal Procedure Rules all parties have a duty to ensure that court time is not wasted and that matters listed for trial are fully prepared. This includes identifying what is agreed and what is disputed so that only the issues in dispute are put before the court.

A prosecution without prior warning certainly can be launched and might well be if any earlier approaches from the prosecutor are ignored. The alternative would be to ignore everything you receive so that no court action can be taken.

 

[Haywain]

The alternative would be to ignore everything you receive so that no court action can be taken.

It would seem to be rather bold to assume that ignoring correspondence will prevent court action taking place.

 

[Enthusiast]

It would seem to be rather bold to assume that ignoring correspondence will prevent court action taking place.

Indeed it would. I was trying to explain that claiming that no prior warning had been given for court action (and suggesting it was thus invalid) is not a viable strategy (leaving aside the offences which require a "Notice of Intended Prosecution").

 

[island]

I think some confusion may arise from the fact that parties engaged in civil litigation are expected to make reasonable efforts to settle their dispute before resorting to court, such as by sending a letter before action and engaging in one of the various pre-action protocols.

These do not apply to criminal prosecutions and a prosecuting authority is within its rights to take a case "straight to court" if it sees fit. In so doing, it is not subject to adverse consequences from the court.

A TOC which has detected an offence may well, however, end up with a better financial result for itself by attempting to procure an out of court settlement – which would be paid in full to the TOC, as opposed to criminal fines which go to the Treasury.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks everyone for the clarifications. There seems no doubt that a prosecutor can take a case straight to court (my question (a).

But do the railways actually do this (my question (b))?

 

[island]

I haven'y seen any evidence that they do.

 

[Haywain]

But do the railways actually do this (my question (b))?

In the vast majority of cases it would seem prudent on the part of the railways to seek additional information or mitigation, and the evidence we have is that they do exactly that.