Can a rail company reopen a case that has already settled over 7 months ago

[Railway124]

Good morning,
Next Monday I have my statutory declaration hearing in magistrates court. In 2023 I traveled between two stations (home station) and Manchester Piccadilly that morning I bought a railcard and a ticket however in my ush to make it to a job interview I didnt notice that the railcard purchase did not go though instead going though about 2 hours after I got off the train. I was caught at the station where I could not get the railcard up when asked.

Cut to one year later after moving 3 times in the past year I received an email from my ex landlord saying I had letters from HMCTS upon opening it I saw that it was a fine for £480 as the courts had found me guilty in my absence. I applied though the single justice system for a statutory declaration and now I have my appointment.

I am being prosacuted under section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The case details as sent to me are below On Thursday, 07 September 2023 from (home station) to MANCHESTER PICCADILLY did travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare of £14.50 and with intent to avoid payment thereof. Contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. I did pay the fair and was not actively trying to avoid it. I personally believe this more aliens with bylaws.

At the moment I cannot afford legal advice and just want this over and done with. I plan to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity as I do not have legal help. Is this the best plan of action? Also does anyone have advice on what to take to a statutory declaration appointment.

 

[SussexMan]

Next Monday as in the 16th November, not today?

What are you wanting to achieve if you simply plan to plead guilty? You have already been found guilty.

 

[Railway124]

Next Monday as in the 16th November, not today?

What are you wanting to achieve if you simply plan to plead guilty? You have already been found guilty.

Less of a fine as they have taken the average weekly wage when I'm on much less than that.

Next Monday as in the 16th November, not today?

What are you wanting to achieve if you simply plan to plead guilty? You have already been found guilty.

And or a out of court settlement with northan i would rather max the credit card for no criminal record. I have already rung them and they have said if my statutory declaration is accepted there is a good chance of an out of court settlement.

 

[Hadders]

If you want an out of court settlement then you must contact Northern today and tell them what has happened and ask them if they will withdraw the case from court in return for an out of court settlement.

If you aren't able to negotiate an out of court settlement and the matter is dealt with at court then the outcome will be the same, ie. you will be guilty although you should get a smaller fine because a 30% discount is normally given if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity and they will base the level of the fine on your actual income rather than average income.

 

[Railway124]

If you want an out of court settlement then you must contact Northern today and tell them what has happened and ask them if they will withdraw the case from court in return for an out of court settlement.

If you aren't able to negotiate an out of court settlement and the matter is dealt with at court then the outcome will be the same, ie. you will be guilty although you should get a smaller fine because a 30% discount is normally given if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity and they will base the level of the fine on your actual income rather than average income.

Thank you I'm going to go to bed (joys of the night shift) and ring them first thing and try to negotiate with them. Thank you for you advice

 

[pedr]

Do you now have all of the paperwork which Northern and the courts sent to your previous address? Or just the fine collection notice? Do you know whether this case was initially begun by summons or was it by the Single Justice Procedure? You should try to find that out as soon as possible.

If you don’t get a response from Northern before the hearing you are likely to be asked to enter a plea. If you plead guilty then what Northern would or wouldn’t be willing to do would be irrelevant as the guilty plea accepts that you will be convicted of the offence and Northern can’t do anything about that. You may have to plead not guilty and aim to speak to Northern or the prosecutor before a trial then takes place. You do have at least an arguable case that you’re not guilty of the offence actually charged so this isn’t just stalling for time.

 

[island]

A prosecution under section 5 (3) cannot be commenced under the single justice procedure as it is an imprisonable offence.

Does any of the paperwork you have received refer to the single justice procedure or is that just a term you have brought in yourself?

 

[railpigeon]

Assuming there were originally two transactions, one for the ticket and one for the railcard, can you get details from the debit/credit card provider showing the exact time of each transaction? Could be worth a try, because if they were within a couple of minutes of each other then it would demonstrate the absense of any “intent to avoid payment” (in the words of 5.3c) of the railcard cost.

 

[jumble]

Next Monday as in the 16th November, not today?

What are you wanting to achieve if you simply plan to plead guilty? You have already been found guilty.

We have seen at least 2 cases with Different TOCs here recently where people have been offered an out of court settlement following an SD
This is a pretty good reason in my book
Whether Northern would do this is another kettle of fish
It is still my view that nice TOCs are not particularly wanting to ruin peoples lives who engage over a £14.00 fare

 

[itznonbine]

I agree with RailPigeon, you could not actually be guilty.
The charge is claiming that you tried to not pay the correct fare for your journey, whereas you have proof that you did definitely try to pay for the right ticket.
It is a rare chance, I would look for those bank statements and provide proof of such, and I would still say "I'm sorry, it was a genuine mistake and thought this was the correct ticket, as I had purchased the railcard at the same time, however it took time to go through, but I did naievely think it would come through immediately"
Now that's not me calling you naieve, but the way to word it to potentially have the better outcome of not having to pay quite so much if at all.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you I'm going to go to bed (joys of the night shift) and ring them first thing and try to negotiate with them. Thank you for you advice

Hope you get a decent nights rest.

I don't usually advise ringing up about things like this for various reasons (hard to actually get through to someone with decision making ability, no written record of what either party says etc etc...) - but given time is of the essence in terms of trying to get this settled out of court it may be worth giving them a call to see if that works - but the following may help you in terms of what you need to try and achieve by such a call.

I also think that anything agreed on the phone needs to be followed up in writing (eg e-mail and / or post) - by you

This list might help you get your thoughts in a row so that you know what you need to say to them

- Do not ring Customer Services. They won't help and it will be a waste of time. You need to be dealing with the Revenue Protection and Prosecution team. You need a phone number for them to start with. I think their e-mail address is:

[email protected]

- anything agreed on the phone needs following up and confirming in writing after the call

- You need to prepare what you are asking them to do and what the objective of the call is

- I think that is to
a) advise them that you did not know of the original prosecution and as a result you have made Statutory Declaration. It has been re-listed for court on x date
b) Apologise for what happened ref your ticketing and Railcard payment not having gone through (or whatever the original cause of this was)
c) do not actively admit to being guilty of this offence, but don't get into a debate on the phone about not being guilty either. Simply focus on saying something like 'you were sorry for unknowingly not having the correct ticket when you travelled but at no time did you have any intention of travelling without a valid ticket / Railcard' (you need to convince them that you are not a deliberate fare evader
d) Ask them if they would be kind enough to be prepared to consider settling the matter out of court and withdrawing the court case listed for Monday 18 November (? is this the correct date?) - this is your key 'ask' if you want to try and avoid court fines and criminal record etc

if they say yes, then :

e) you need to get that confirmed to you in writing by them including the sum to pay
f) you will need to be ready to pay it in full as fast as possible*
g) you need to keep proof of payment
h) you need them to confirm in writing that they have contacted the court to withdraw the case (and if you can get a copy you can then show that to the court in case they don't do it quickly enough)

If when you ring you are told eg someone will ring you back - then you need to ask politely when you can expect them to call - you can't afford to wait a few days in the hope someone will ring you back given where things are - so all of the above might be better carried out by e-mail first, then ring them later to follow that up.

Others here may be able to correct or add to this advice.

Head back here for more advice as you need it ahead of the deadline set by the court as you appreciate time is of the essence.


* this would be for an out of court settlement. If it went to court and you were found or pleased guilty then as well as being able to potentially reduce the fine due to you make an accurate income declaring, you can request payment of court fine in instalments (which isn't an option for a settlement) - if I have this correct.

 

[Railway124]

It has been brought to my attention that a magistrates judge ordered in 2024 that cases like mine under the regulation of the railway act of 1899 are now void if they were brought using the single justice prosidure which mine was. Now I'm unsure of what to do as I'm pretty sure my case falls into that category as the maximum sentence is 3 months imprisonment (which is why they are not allowed to use the SJP) Please advice as if this is the case I will try and motion for it to be dismissed. Many thanks again all.
Previous post for context below
(Please ignore misspelling I'm a dyslexic who works the night shift)




Good morning,
Next Monday I have my statutory declaration hearing in magistrates court. In 2023 I traveled between two stations (home station) and Manchester Piccadilly that morning I bought a railcard and a ticket however in my rush to make it to a job interview I didnt notice that the railcard purchase did not go though instead going though about 2 hours after I got off the train. I was caught at the station where I could not get the railcard up when asked.

Cut to one year later after moving 3 times in the past year I received an email from my ex landlord saying I had letters from HMCTS upon opening it I saw that it was a fine for £480 as the courts had found me guilty in my absence. I applied though the single justice system for a statutory declaration and now I have my appointment.

I am being prosacuted under section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The case details as sent to me are below On Thursday, 07 September 2023 from (home station) to MANCHESTER PICCADILLY did travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare of £14.50 and with intent to avoid payment thereof. Contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. I did pay the fair and was not actively trying to avoid it. I personally believe this more aliens with bylaws.

At the moment I cannot afford legal advice and just want this over and done with. I plan to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity as I do not have legal help. Is this the best plan of action? Also does anyone have advice on what to take to a statutory declaration appointment.

 

[Railway124]

I'm really sorry I have just logged back into the forms. It is under the single justice prosidure and I'm 99% sure it should be nullified I have another thread open now however I will be ringing the courts in the morning

 

[Hadders]

Prosecutions for a Regulation of the Railways Act offences via the SJPN are not allowed. There was lots of coverage about this in the media over the summer.

As far as I know only six test cases have currently been declared invalid, the rest of them (upto 75,000 cases) will be declared invalid. See this update from HMCTS about these cases.

Train company prosecutions

www.gov.uk

On Thursday 15 August 2024 the Chief Magistrate made a judgment on a small number of these cases to decide how erroneous proceedings and convictions are dealt with. He decided that these cases should be declared invalid, and anything paid for that offence should be reimbursed.

The first stage will be to list other cases of this type before the court so that a decision can be made as to whether they too should be declared invalid. People involved in these cases will not be required to attend those hearings.

HMCTS will use court records and case information held by rail providers to contact those affected over the coming weeks about the hearing and decision. If you think you may be affected, you should wait to be contacted directly and told what will happen next including if you have paid some or all of a financial penalty. For those who haven’t yet paid anything relating to their offence we will be writing to inform them that the conviction is declared invalid and to confirm the court record has been corrected

If a case you are worried about does not meet all of the following criteria then we can already confirm that you are not affected. Affected cases were prosecuted:

• by Northern, Transpennine, Avanti West Coast, Greater Anglia, Great Western Railway, Arriva Rail Northern, Merseyrail or C2C
• between 2018 and 2023 (with the vast majority of affected cases prosecuted from 2020)
• under Section 5(1) or 5(3) of Regulation of Railways Act (and the wording of one of these would have appeared on the single justice notice you would have received)

If you believe that your address or payment information has changed since you last provided this to HMCTS, please make contact via email at [email protected] or telephone on 0300 303 0656 to provide updated information. You will also need your case number or account number so that we can update your details.

Background​

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) allows those who plead guilty to low-level, non-imprisonable crimes to resolve their case without going to court.

Train companies and various other bodies are authorised by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (New Method of Instituting Proceedings) (Specification of Relevant Prosecutors) Order 2016 to institute proceedings by a SJP Notice.

The decision to use SJP is a matter for prosecutors. When cases come to court, magistrates decide on conviction and sentence, advised by legal advisers.

Rail fare offences​

HMCTS, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice are aware that several train companies have prosecuted in error some specific offences through SJP in circumstances where:

• the offence was not included in the 2016 Order or
• the offence was imprisonable (albeit no prison sentence was passed for these offences through SJP)

Any procedural error of this type would only relate to specific rail fare offences and does not affect any other type of SJP prosecution.

 

[Railway124]

Prosecutions for a Regulation of the Railways Act offences via the SJPN are not allowed. There was lots of coverage about this in the media over the summer.

As far as I know only six test cases have currently been declared invalid, the rest of them (upto 75,000 cases) will be declared invalid. See this update from HMCTS about these cases.

Train company prosecutions

www.gov.uk

Northern has dropped their case and have offered for me to pay the original fine however I will contact the court as it is an illegal trial. I cannot believe this tbh and I have been extremely nervous about this

 

[some bloke]

Just to be sure - you are aware that you still need to make the declaration (unless you are told by the court that the case is being/has been annulled and you don't need to)?

If Northern are proposing to drop the case because of a significant failure to take a procedural step required by the Criminal Procedure Rules, then the Rules also oblige them to tell you and the court at once of that failure.

The Criminal Procedure Rules say,

"1.2.—(1) Each participant, in the conduct of each case, must
... (c) at once inform the court and all parties of any significant failure (whether or not that participant is responsible for that failure) to take any procedural step required by these Rules..."

They can't just drop the case - they have to apply to the court for permission.

"Withdrawal of Proceedings

Offences can be withdrawn by the prosecutor in the magistrates' court (only) at any time before adjudication by the court. If proceedings are withdrawn in anticipation that they may be re-instituted if additional evidence comes to light, this should be made clear in court.

Leave to withdraw is required. The court has complete discretion whether to grant leave. The prosecuting advocate will need to give sufficient reasons to satisfy the court that the application is a proper one. The defendant is entitled to make representations as to whether they should be entitled to an acquittal."

Termination of Proceedings (Including Discontinuance) | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

By your account, you aren't guilty of this offence involving intent to avoid a fare.

If you upload all the correspondence and if available, evidence of having ordered the railcard before the journey (with identifying details obscured), there may be more that people on here can advise on.

In theory at least they might argue that although the SJP notice wasn't valid, the original charge was, and they want to amend it to a strict-liability byelaw charge.

Whether they want to try that, especially when the court also failed to spot that 1889 Act prosecutions can't lawfully be dealt with by a single justice, is another matter.

 

[Railway124]

Just to be sure - you are aware that you still need to make the declaration (unless you are told by the court that the case is being/has been annulled and you don't need to)?

If Northern are proposing to drop the case because of a significant failure to take a procedural step required by the Criminal Procedure Rules, then the Rules also oblige them to tell you and the court at once of that failure.


They can't just drop the case - they have to apply to the court for permission.

"Withdrawal of Proceedings

Offences can be withdrawn by the prosecutor in the magistrates' court (only) at any time before adjudication by the court. If proceedings are withdrawn in anticipation that they may be re-instituted if additional evidence comes to light, this should be made clear in court.

Leave to withdraw is required. The court has complete discretion whether to grant leave. The prosecuting advocate will need to give sufficient reasons to satisfy the court that the application is a proper one. The defendant is entitled to make representations as to whether they should be entitled to an acquittal."

Termination of Proceedings (Including Discontinuance) | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

By your account, you aren't guilty of this offence involving intent to avoid a fare.

If you upload all the correspondence and if available, evidence of having ordered the railcard before the journey (with identifying details obscured), there may be more that people on here can advise on.

Thank you for your advice I hope I never have to post again on here but next time I'm going to really look at my wording. I have paid the 14:50 to northern as I do not have any correspondence of the original case this was advised to me by citizens advice as the case in August 2024 does not include my case. I do not think I am guilty of this offense due to the technical error of the railcard purchase however I do think this is a David and Goliath case in which I as a 19 year old student will struggle to argue this in court I am also in the middle of starting a new job and university coursework. I will still be attending my stat Dec on Monday and presenting all my evidence to the magistrates including paying the 14:50 to the prosecution.

The worry is if I don't they will argue to change it to be within the bylaws by all accounts I think the offer of £14:50 compared to the £500 I did owe and the £100 original penalty fare is a miracle and a offer I cannot pass up.

 

[island]

They can't just drop the case - they have to apply to the court for permission.

"Withdrawal of Proceedings

Offences can be withdrawn by the prosecutor in the magistrates' court (only) at any time before adjudication by the court. If proceedings are withdrawn in anticipation that they may be re-instituted if additional evidence comes to light, this should be made clear in court.

Leave to withdraw is required. The court has complete discretion whether to grant leave. The prosecuting advocate will need to give sufficient reasons to satisfy the court that the application is a proper one. The defendant is entitled to make representations as to whether they should be entitled to an acquittal."

This isn't how it works in the real world. The prosecutor tells the court they're withdrawing the case and the court says okay then.

Just to be sure - you are aware that you still need to make the declaration (unless you are told by the court that the case is being/has been annulled and you don't need to)?

It is important to ensure the court, Northern, and the defendant are on the same page.

I would advise against paying anything to Northern at the current time, as they have made a hash of the proceedings.

 

[some bloke]

This isn't how it works in the real world. The prosecutor tells the court they're withdrawing the case and the court says okay then.

When the prosecutor makes the application at court, the defendant may want to clarify any failures.

"the prosecutor was going to withdraw the charge as the first step but I said I wanted to speak first.

I said three things:

1) that they had no authority to charge RoRA offences via an SJP notice, quoting the name of the relevant legislation and saying they are only allowed to charge bye-law offences...."

Section 5(1) RoRA Prosecution

In order to start proceedings correctly under the Single Justice Procedure the prosecutor must issue a document charging a person with an offence (the “written charge”) together with either a “Requisition” (a document requiring the accused to attend court to answer the written charge – not...

www.railforums.co.uk

It is important to ensure the court, Northern, and the defendant are on the same page.

I think in that email, Northern may have failed in their duty to make clear "what is to be done, by whom, and when".

"The duty of the parties​

3.3.—(1) Each party must―

(a)actively assist the court in fulfilling its duty under rule 3.2, without or if necessary with a direction; and

(b)apply for a direction if needed to further the overriding objective.

(2) Active assistance for the purposes of this rule includes―

(a)at the beginning of the case, communication between the prosecutor and the defendant at the first available opportunity and in any event no later than the beginning of the day of the first hearing;

(b)after that, communication between the parties and with the court officer until the conclusion of the case;

(c)by such communication establishing, among other things―

...

(iv) what is to be done, by whom, and when..."

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020:consolidate the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, S.I. 2015/1490, with the amendments made by S.I. 2016/120, 2016/705, 2017/144, 2017/282, 2017/755, 2017/915, 2018/132, 2018/847, 2019/143, 2019/1119 and 2020/32; andinclude the further amendments listed beneath.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[John Palmer]

... this was advised to me by citizens advice as the case in August 2024 does not include my case.

On what basis has Citizens Advice said that yours is not one of the cases covered by the August 2024 case? You have indicated that the Single Justice Procedure was used to begin proceedings against you, and that the charge is one brought under Section 5(3)(a) Regulation of Railways Act 1889. If that is the case then yours does indeed appear to be one of the 74,000-odd cases covered by the Chief Magistrate's decision in August, in which he held that train operators had no authority to prosecute RoRA 1889 cases by means of the Single Justice Procedure and that such cases consequently had to be treated as nullities.

If the prosecution under RoRA 1889 is nullified I see no basis on which it can be revived as the prosecution of a byelaw offence because the incident giving rise to any such alleged offence occurred more than six months ago.

Is the £14.50 you have just paid the full undiscounted fare for your journey, or the difference between that full fare and the discounted fare to which the railcard you purchased would have entitled you? If the former, then arguably you have not received appropriate credit for the fare you actually paid.

 

[some bloke]

I think in that email, Northern may have failed in their duty to make clear "what is to be done, by whom, and when".

At the time, the case was already "concluded", so the point may be better made in terms of the spirit of the rules, or as regards an ongoing failure when the case automatically restarts after the declaration.

 

[Railway124]

On what basis has Citizens Advice said that yours is not one of the cases covered by the August 2024 case? You have indicated that the Single Justice Procedure was used to begin proceedings against you, and that the charge is one brought under Section 5(3)(a) Regulation of Railways Act 1889. If that is the case then yours does indeed appear to be one of the 74,000-odd cases covered by the Chief Magistrate's decision in August, in which he held that train operators had no authority to prosecute RoRA 1889 cases by means of the Single Justice Procedure and that such cases consequently had to be treated as nullities.

If the prosecution under RoRA 1889 is nullified I see no basis on which it can be revived as the prosecution of a byelaw offence because the incident giving rise to any such alleged offence occurred more than six months ago.

Is the £14.50 you have just paid the full undiscounted fare for your journey, or the difference between that full fare and the discounted fare to which the railcard you purchased would have entitled you? If the former, then arguably you have not received appropriate credit for the fare you actually paid.

As the cases are between the years of 2018-2023 my case was in 2024 thus not covered by this timeline however yes it is under the single justice system and the regulation of the railways act of 1889 section 5(3). The 14:50 is the full price of the fair between the two stations. Northan is horrible to communicate with and I cannot get though to the prosecutor on the phone and everyone on the phone is extremely rude. Either way I have to attend the stat Dec on Monday and will present all the evidence that is applicable.

 

[some bloke]

If the prosecution under RoRA 1889 is nullified I see no basis on which it can be revived as the prosecution of a byelaw offence because the incident giving rise to any such alleged offence occurred more than six months ago.

I thought the relevant convictions were being listed to be nullified in future in a batch - is there any clarity on how courts are meant in the meanwhile to deal with cases like this which occurred after the assumed period and/or are reactivated through a statutory declaration?

 

[John Palmer]

As the cases are between the years of 2018-2023 my case was in 2024 thus not covered by this timeline however yes it is under the single justice system and the regulation of the railways act of 1889 section 5(3). The 14:50 is the full price of the fair between the two stations. Northan is horrible to communicate with and I cannot get though to the prosecutor on the phone and everyone on the phone is extremely rude. Either way I have to attend the stat Dec on Monday and will present all the evidence that is applicable.

It appears, then, that you have paid more than your due fare.

In your first post you quoted the case details as saying that the alleged offence took place on Thursday 7th September 2023, placing it within Citizens Advice's 2018-2023 timeline. Not that this matters because the train operator had no authority to commence a RoRA prosecution by means of the Single Justice Procedure whether within the 2018-2023 timeline or otherwise. On the face of it, a RoRA charge brought against you by means of this procedure ought to be declared to be a nullity by the court and the record of your conviction expunged as a consequence. However...

I thought the relevant convictions were being listed to be nullified in future in a batch - is there any clarity on how courts are meant in the meanwhile to deal with cases like this which occurred after the assumed period and/or are reactivated through a statutory declaration?

There is no such clarity so far as I am aware. The provisions for re-activating proceedings where the defendant was not aware of them are set out in Part 44 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, but they envisage the original charge retaining its validity where proceedings are revived following the requisite statutory declaration being served on the court. But if the Chief Magistrate's August judgment is correct in holding RoRA charges to be a nullity when issued by a railway operator in conjunction with a SJPN, to what proceeding can any application for revival under Part 44 attach? So far as I am aware, no clarification has yet emerged of the basis in law on which affected cases that have been the subject of final disposal are to be relisted to be declared a nullity en masse.

 

[Railway124]

To my knowledge

It appears, then, that you have paid more than your due fare.

In your first post you quoted the case details as saying that the alleged offence took place on Thursday 7th September 2023, placing it within Citizens Advice's 2018-2023 timeline. Not that this matters because the train operator had no authority to commence a RoRA prosecution by means of the Single Justice Procedure whether within the 2018-2023 timeline or otherwise. On the face of it, a RoRA charge brought against you by means of this procedure ought to be declared to be a nullity by the court and the record of your conviction expunged as a consequence. However...

There is no such clarity so far as I am aware. The provisions for re-activating proceedings where the defendant was not aware of them are set out in Part 44 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, but they envisage the original charge retaining its validity where proceedings are revived following the requisite statutory declaration being served on the court. But if the Chief Magistrate's August judgment is correct in holding RoRA charges to be a nullity when issued by a railway operator in conjunction with a SJPN, to what proceeding can any application for revival under Part 44 attach? So far as I am aware, no clarification has yet emerged of the basis in law on which affected cases that have been the subject of final disposal are to be relisted to be declared a nullity en masse.

To my knowledge (very limited and only around my own case) It is for convictions brought in that timeframe which my conviction was in 2024 I do feel that I have paid over my fair and if my case is nullified I will be asking for a refund due to this. I just want to be absolutely covered and not get a criminal conviction. Im pretty sure it will be dealt as an individual case but that is up to the magistrates on Monday to decide.

 

[island]

When the prosecutor makes the application at court, the defendant may want to clarify any failures.

"the prosecutor was going to withdraw the charge as the first step but I said I wanted to speak first.

I said three things:

1) that they had no authority to charge RoRA offences via an SJP notice, quoting the name of the relevant legislation and saying they are only allowed to charge bye-law offences...."

Section 5(1) RoRA Prosecution

In order to start proceedings correctly under the Single Justice Procedure the prosecutor must issue a document charging a person with an offence (the “written charge”) together with either a “Requisition” (a document requiring the accused to attend court to answer the written charge – not...

www.railforums.co.uk

I think in that email, Northern may have failed in their duty to make clear "what is to be done, by whom, and when".

"The duty of the parties​

3.3.—(1) Each party must―

(a)actively assist the court in fulfilling its duty under rule 3.2, without or if necessary with a direction; and

(b)apply for a direction if needed to further the overriding objective.

(2) Active assistance for the purposes of this rule includes―

(a)at the beginning of the case, communication between the prosecutor and the defendant at the first available opportunity and in any event no later than the beginning of the day of the first hearing;

(b)after that, communication between the parties and with the court officer until the conclusion of the case;

(c)by such communication establishing, among other things―

...

(iv) what is to be done, by whom, and when..."

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020:consolidate the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, S.I. 2015/1490, with the amendments made by S.I. 2016/120, 2016/705, 2017/144, 2017/282, 2017/755, 2017/915, 2018/132, 2018/847, 2019/143, 2019/1119 and 2020/32; andinclude the further amendments listed beneath.

www.legislation.gov.uk

I will repeat only that nothing in the above has any bearing on what happens in the real world, or what will happen in the OP's case.

I would suggest you put the CrimPR away and focus on helping the OP.

 

[Railway124]

Good news please see attached!

 

[Railway124]

I have another thread that has gone dead northan rail has said that they will re open and dismiss my case however I don't think that is legally possible (the date they give is a statutory declaration meeting) I really don't want to get into anymore trouble by not turning up.
Many thanks to all the super knowledgeable users on here your doing God's work.

The picture below is from the DPRU after I have paid the £14:50 this was their response.

 

[KirkstallOne]

As I understand it you have reopened the case via statutory declaration. Northern and yourself were due to attend on 18th November for a hearing but now Northern have accepted settlement and agreed to withdraw it. I think you can rely on that and there is no need for you to attend.

 

[Railway124]

As I understand it you have reopened the case via statutory declaration. Northern and yourself were due to attend on 18th November for a hearing but now Northern have accepted settlement and agreed to withdraw it. I think you can rely on that and there is no need for you to attend.

The appointment on the 18th is the statutory declaration I have not reopened the case and that is my question can northan reopen it without a statutory declaration