Merseyrail prosecution

[jumble]

This is what baffles me they could have withdrawn the charger in any points including this week in court but they chose not to.

I used to go and watch a relative who was a barrister in courrt
On many occasions a question was phrased so the only possible answer was some variant of
"Because I am a cretin"

 

[Puffing Devil]

Interesting to read your update.

As a lay person it seems odd that Merseyrail - who would mainly be dealing in magistrates court with travel related issues presumably - outsource their legal work to a council legal dept without specialists in railway law to deal with the cases in the court (maybe this is not uncommon tho, with most cases not requiring such specialist knowledge?)

Quite typical - 80% of cases don't show up and simply need a statement of facts reading out for a proof in absence. The other 19% show up and need a statement of facts reading out as they plead guilty. The other 1% go to trial, when an "expert" can prepare and attend.

I never saw a railway trial in 15+ years in court.

 

[WesternLancer]

Quite typical - 80% of cases don't show up and simply need a statement of facts reading out for a proof in absence. The other 19% show up and need a statement of facts reading out as they plead guilty. The other 1% go to trial, when an "expert" can prepare and attend.

I never saw a railway trial in 15+ years in court.

Thanks for that insight!

 

[John Palmer]

Quite typical - 80% of cases don't show up and simply need a statement of facts reading out for a proof in absence. The other 19% show up and need a statement of facts reading out as they plead guilty. The other 1% go to trial, when an "expert" can prepare and attend.

I never saw a railway trial in 15+ years in court.

@Puffing Devil's post shows just how easy it could be for a company to take advantage of magistrates' unfamiliarity with railway law by reliance, as in this case, on a misleading Statement of Facts that refers only to the failure to produce a ticket and omits any mention of the other responses available to a passenger to avoid default under Section 5(1) RoRA.

In this case the penalty fare was issued last November but the Section 5(1) offence wasn't charged until four months later in March. “You have been sent multiple letters with increased administration costs each time” seems to have been the real reason, however unjustifiable, for resort to prosecution after Merseyrail had become exasparated by the OP's refusal to pay the penalty fare.

I do find it suprising that Merseyrail has persisted with its prosecution after the OP had filed a 'not guilty' plea and written to the prosecutor to explain why, having given her name and address, she cannot be convicted of such an offence. Could it be that Merseyrail has become so accustomed to charging a Section 5(1) offence as a means of recovering unpaid penalty fares (and administration charges) that it has no qualms about an occasional challenge to such a practice?

It is noteworthy, too, that no magistrate or court official dealing with the OP's case seems to have taken the point that Merseyrail had no authority to start proceedings for a Section 5(1) offence by means of the Single Justice Procedure. Apparently there has been no effective scrutiny by the court of the prosecutor's authority to begin such proceedings or, by extension, whether there are any prima facie grounds for a belief that they are warranted. The absence of such scrutiny gives further cause for concern that the criminal justice system is vulnerable to exploitation as a means for recovering civil debt by criminal law process.

Whether the OP's is an isolated case of the criminal law being used improperly to serve a railway company's commercial interest or whether it is symptomatic of more extensive malpractice, I wish her success in her efforts to unearth the truth of the matter. If local media attention helps to induce the Metro Mayor to obtain details of Merseyrail's practices so as to ensure that there is no widespread abuse of its powers of prosecution then so much the better.

 

[gray1404]

If due process has not been followed then judicial review would be appropriate? Failing that a formal complaint to the court or about the person within the court who allowed the prosecution may be appropriate and may bring about a positive outcome.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The court service has been cut beyond the bone in recent years - there is no slack at all in the system. It's not surprising things go unchecked and unchallenged, even if they did have a knowledge of railway law.

Many staff are simply trying to keep their heads above water - including the prosecutors.

 

[Nottingham59]

If due process has not been followed then judicial review would be appropriate

If Merseyrail have been prosecuting people when they knew or should have known that they were mis-stating the law, then it's a matter of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

EDIT: And whoever actually used their legal qualifications to bring such prosecutions before the court should be struck off.

 

[gray1404]

It may also be worth putting pressure on Sefton Council at this point if Merseyrail are using their legal services team for unlawful prosecutions.

Be that pressure directly to the council or for the OP to contact their local councillors. It would be interesting if the council stops doing work for merseyrail as a results as it was increased Merseyrail legal costs significantly.

And it may also be worth looking up the registration details for the person who brought the prosecution before the Magistrates Court as well.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've removed a few posts which went into details and comments about the Merseyrail prosecutor that aren't really directly relevant to this thread. I would ask that we don't link or refer to Twitter/LinkedIn or similar unless they are directly relevant to the OPs situation.

 

[Lloyds siding]

It may also be worth putting pressure on Sefton Council at this point if Merseyrail are using their legal services team for unlawful prosecutions.

Be that pressure directly to the council or for the OP to contact their local councillors. It would be interesting if the council stops doing work for merseyrail as a results as it was increased Merseyrail legal costs significantly.

And it may also be worth looking up the registration details for the person who brought the prosecution before the Magistrates Court as well.

My understanding is that Sefton Council's legal 'team' of solicitors consists of the minimum number required by law....i.e. one person. Services are largely provided by 'contract' firms of private solicitors. As always: willing to be corrected on this.

 

[Hodgs0]

Happy Friday everyone… guess who have decided to drop the case!!!!!

They couldn’t even spell trial correctly

 

[Watershed]

Happy Friday everyone… guess who have decided to drop the case!!!!!

They couldn’t even spell trial correctly

Great news!

Hope you will now be pursuing them for all of your costs and investigate the possibility of a claim (or prosecution!) for malicious prosecution...

 

[Vespa]

Well done, it goes to show standing your ground and knowing what you're talking about helps.

I would be claiming for costs and inconvenience done to you, after all it's just another day in the office for them and a massive disruption to yourself

 

[Hodgs0]

Great news!

Hope you will now be pursuing them for all of your costs and investigate the possibility of a claim (or prosecution!) for malicious prosecution...

Indeed I will

Well done, it goes to show standing your ground and knowing what you're talking about helps.

I would be claiming for costs and inconvenience done to you, after all it's just another day in the office for them and a massive disruption to yourself

Will do thanks for all your help on here

Indeed I will


Will do thanks for all your help on here

Thanks everyone who helped on here. It really did help me understand the law & how their application of it was wrong.

 

[gray1404]

That's amazing! Please keep this thread open so you can update us on recovering your costs/compensation from Merseyrail.

 

[Hodgs0]

Will do. I spoke to court today regarding all this & I will action next week. I have also contacted a journalist from the echo. I have also written back to Merseyrail to ask them how they have come to the decision to
file “no evidence” after zealously pursuing this for 9 months.

 

[Western Sunset]

"We apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused you."

Oh, so everything's alright now then is it?. Just love the sincerity of that phrase.

Keep up the fight. Well done.

 

[D821]

Hopefully Merseyrail learn from this, it is frustrating to think how much effort has been wasted on this.

 

[Wolfie]

Great news!

Hope you will now be pursuing them for all of your costs and investigate the possibility of a claim (or prosecution!) for malicious prosecution...

Absol-bloody-lutely. Cynical old me thinks that they didn't want their dubious claims exposed publicly (which, with a few exceptions, all Court papers are). I have to say that my likely attitude would be "screw you" followed by seeking to do them as much damage as possible.

 

[507020]

Will do. I spoke to court today regarding all this & I will action next week. I have also contacted a journalist from the echo. I have also written back to Merseyrail to ask them how they have come to the decision to
file “no evidence” after zealously pursuing this for 9 months.

Thanks for updating us on the good news as I’m sure it’s not your top priority at the moment.

I note this Chelsea Thompson who has chosen to abandon the “trail” against you is a separate person from the “Michelle McLachlan” who’s personal belief about the law under which she sought to prosecute was utterly incorrect. Merseyrail seem to have purged some of their least competent staff in recent months, including an alcoholic who coerced her way into a job as a guard, a role she fully intended to keep even after being caught guzzling a bottle of red wine in the cab by a manager…

That these injustices and outrages are being righted is renewing my faith in the railway to find the right way forward. Merseyrail may not be taking any further action against you, but will you be taking any further action against them? I’m sure the Echo can be of assistance.

 

[Hodgs0]

Hopefully Merseyrail learn from this, it is frustrating to think how much effort has been wasted on this.

Absolutely ridiculous isn’t it

 

[gray1404]

I think it would be worth the opp doing a subject access request to Merseyrail now as well.

 

[John Palmer]

I'm delighted to hear that the Sarah Hodgson's personal exposure to the risk of conviction has been ended, however unjustifiable any such conviction would have been.

I suspect that the prospects of success in any action for malicious prosecution will be low, as one of the matters that would need to be proved is that Merseyrail's prosecution was maintained with malicious intent. That's a high bar to surmount, and I suspect that any court hearing such a claim will be inclined to attribute Merseyrail's atrocious conduct to an excess of prosecutorial zeal that does not cross the threshold into malice.

That in no way alters the fact that there are a number of disturbing features in the way that Merseyrail has dealt with the case. It began with Merseyrail's unconscionable practice of providing ticket sale facilities at the end of passengers' journeys, encouraging the belief that it was acceptable to defer payment of the fare until the journey was complete, then penalising them for doing so. Merseyrail then proceeded on the footing that the right response to a passenger who dared to challenge the penalty fare imposed as a civil law sanction was to double down by institution of a criminal law prosecution.

Merseyrail commenced its prosecution for a Section 5(1) RoRA offence by means of the Single Justice Procedure. It had no authority to do so, and the effect of its improper use of the SJP was to bypass the protection against abuse of prosecutorial powers that scrutiny by the justices of an information laid in the time-honoured way is supposed to provide. That was the correct way for Merseyrail to have proceeded, and its failure to do so prompts inquiry into whether it is habitually exceeding its authority to invoke the SJP.

The magistrates court doesn't emerge from this with any credit, either, as it patently failed to note and act (as it should have) upon Merseyrail's abuse of the SJP when the case first came to the court's attention.

Extraordinarily, after Sarah Hodgson had made perfectly clear the basis on which she would defend, Merseyrail's prosecutor insisted that the prosecution was going ahead. This was despite the fact that the Penalty Fare Notice in Merseyrail's hands already demonstrated (by inclusion of the Sarah's name and address) that she had met one of Section 5(1)'s requirements and that consequently the prosecution was bound to fail. Merseyrail's defiant disregard of Section 5(1)'s correct interpretation begs the question: was this an isolated error confined to Sarah's case, or is it indicative of a widespread but mistaken belief in Merseyrail Enforcement that Section 5(1) makes ticketless travel a substantive offence? Furthermore, even if this was nothing more than an isolated error, the fact that it has been perpetuated beyond a case management hearing at Sefton Magistrates Court indicates that Merseyrail does not have in place appropriate mechanisms to detect and correct such errors – or, for that matter, its abuse of the Single Justice Procedure.

Railway operators enjoy the privilege of recourse to industry-specific criminal law provisions as part of their revenue protection toolkit. Their passengers are entitled to expect that this privilege will be exercised lawfully and responsibly. When, as in this case, it is apparent that the operator has not been doing so, it's legitimate to ask whether the privilege should be removed. In the present case, short of such removal there should at least be a searching inquiry into whether Merseyrail Enforcement is being properly managed so as to prevent the abuse of its powers as a prosecutor that this case has brought to light. Sarah Hodgson has told us that the Metro Mayor Steve Rotherham has expressed a willingness to pursue the concerns she has raised about Merseyrail's conduct in her case. I hope she will persevere in her efforts to make the Mayor honour the assurances he has given her, and that this will ultimately lead to the changes in Merseyrail's practices that are clearly needed.

 

[Western Sunset]

Very well put, John.

 

[MotCO]

I'm delighted to hear that the Sarah Hodgson's personal exposure to the risk of conviction has been ended, however unjustifiable any such conviction would have been.

I suspect that the prospects of success in any action for malicious prosecution will be low, as one of the matters that would need to be proved is that Merseyrail's prosecution was maintained with malicious intent. That's a high bar to surmount, and I suspect that any court hearing such a claim will be inclined to attribute Merseyrail's atrocious conduct to an excess of prosecutorial zeal that does not cross the threshold into malice.

That in no way alters the fact that there are a number of disturbing features in the way that Merseyrail has dealt with the case. It began with Merseyrail's unconscionable practice of providing ticket sale facilities at the end of passengers' journeys, encouraging the belief that it was acceptable to defer payment of the fare until the journey was complete, then penalising them for doing so. Merseyrail then proceeded on the footing that the right response to a passenger who dared to challenge the penalty fare imposed as a civil law sanction was to double down by institution of a criminal law prosecution.

Merseyrail commenced its prosecution for a Section 5(1) RoRA offence by means of the Single Justice Procedure. It had no authority to do so, and the effect of its improper use of the SJP was to bypass the protection against abuse of prosecutorial powers that scrutiny by the justices of an information laid in the time-honoured way is supposed to provide. That was the correct way for Merseyrail to have proceeded, and its failure to do so prompts inquiry into whether it is habitually exceeding its authority to invoke the SJP.

The magistrates court doesn't emerge from this with any credit, either, as it patently failed to note and act (as it should have) upon Merseyrail's abuse of the SJP when the case first came to the court's attention.

Extraordinarily, after Sarah Hodgson had made perfectly clear the basis on which she would defend, Merseyrail's prosecutor insisted that the prosecution was going ahead. This was despite the fact that the Penalty Fare Notice in Merseyrail's hands already demonstrated (by inclusion of the Sarah's name and address) that she had met one of Section 5(1)'s requirements and that consequently the prosecution was bound to fail. Merseyrail's defiant disregard of Section 5(1)'s correct interpretation begs the question: was this an isolated error confined to Sarah's case, or is it indicative of a widespread but mistaken belief in Merseyrail Enforcement that Section 5(1) makes ticketless travel a substantive offence? Furthermore, even if this was nothing more than an isolated error, the fact that it has been perpetuated beyond a case management hearing at Sefton Magistrates Court indicates that Merseyrail does not have in place appropriate mechanisms to detect and correct such errors – or, for that matter, its abuse of the Single Justice Procedure.

Railway operators enjoy the privilege of recourse to industry-specific criminal law provisions as part of their revenue protection toolkit. Their passengers are entitled to expect that this privilege will be exercised lawfully and responsibly. When, as in this case, it is apparent that the operator has not been doing so, it's legitimate to ask whether the privilege should be removed. In the present case, short of such removal there should at least be a searching inquiry into whether Merseyrail Enforcement is being properly managed so as to prevent the abuse of its powers as a prosecutor that this case has brought to light. Sarah Hodgson has told us that the Metro Mayor Steve Rotherham has expressed a willingness to pursue the concerns she has raised about Merseyrail's conduct in her case. I hope she will persevere in her efforts to make the Mayor honour the assurances he has given her, and that this will ultimately lead to the changes in Merseyrail's practices that are clearly needed.

A very good summation, I presume from someone who practices law. It is a complete catalogue of errors, and the obvious question is what can be done about this. In particular:

1. Some compensation to the OP is surely appropriate.
2. How does Merseyrail ensure it does not happen again.
3. How can Merseyrail ensure that any previous episodes can be corrected.

I will leave the first point for others to consider, but for the last two points, surely this is something which should be brought to the attention of the Board of Merseyrail, assuming there is such a body. The Board will want to know if there is a corporate risk arising from such actions. The question is how to achieve this. The Mayor and journalists may well have an interest, but I wonder if a body such as the National Audit Office (is Merseyrail a de facto public body?) might want to take an interest. I'm not convinced that a simple complaint to Merseyrail would produce the desired effect. Any other suggestions to achieve the required change?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

(is Merseyrail a de facto public body?)

No. It's a private company (Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd) owned by Merseyrail Services Holding Company Ltd that in turn is owned by Serco and Abellio.

 

[Nottingham59]

an excess of prosecutorial zeal that does not cross the threshold into malice.

It might not cross the threshold into malice, but does it constitute an attempt to pevert the course of justice?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did this incident take place at Liverpool Central? If so it has been resolved - sort of - in that there is no longer, that I could see, an excess fares window inside the gate line.

 

[Haywain]

Did this incident take place at Liverpool Central? If so it has been resolved - sort of - in that there is no longer, that I could see, an excess fares window inside the gate line.

The OP’s incident took place at Moorfields and stated it was a ‘desk’ rather than a window which suggests a temporary and removable arrangement.

 

[AntoniC]

There are two exits at Moorfields - there is the Moorfields exit and the Old Hall St exit.
I have seen a desk at the Moorfields exit being used during a block and passengers being sold tickets as they have been unable to buy a ticket at theor origin station.

(I regularly commute to Moorfields)