Reopening a case already settled

[ice_cube]

Hi,

This hasn't happened to me and I haven't seen this on any thread before, but just out of curiosity: what is the likelihood of a train company reopening a case that has already been settled out of court and the file closed? I understand that this can happen if they catch you fare evading again, but are there any other reasons they would reopen a closed case? Have there been any examples?

 

[furlong]

Once there's an out-of-court agreement for a criminal offence, I think that's the end of the matter unless a court decides it's unenforceable. Highly unlikely in practice but examples might include any agreement deemed to be contrary to public policy such as sufficiently outside the bounds of what a court might have decided if proceedings had continued, or a third party impacted by the offence but not compensated by the agreement objecting to it, or the agreement depending on information concealed by one party which the other party later discovers and which would not have led to that agreement if known.

 

[ice_cube]

Once there's an out-of-court agreement for a criminal offence, that's the end of the matter unless a court decides it's unenforceable. Highly unlikely in practice but examples might include any agreement deemed to be contrary to public policy such as sufficiently outside the bounds of what a court might have decided if proceedings had continued, or a third party impacted by the offence but not compensated by the agreement objecting to it, or the agreement depending on information concealed by one party which the other party later discovers and which would not have led to that agreement if known.

Thanks for this - one question: how can a court decide it is unenforceable if the matter was settled between the person and the company before reaching court stage?

 

[furlong]

This is getting very hypothetical but some party would start some court action related to the matter and then the agreement would be presented by one party to it for some purpose related to the case and then the agreement would get challenged by the other (or another) party. Example: Another party (not involved in the agreement) prosecutes, defendant says 'abuse of process' and cites the agreement, third party prosecutor argues the agreement should never have been made because it failed to take account of their interest in the matter, court has to decide what to do.

Another hypothetical example, the passenger who made the agreement studies the amount of money they paid closely and believes they were asked to pay a disproportionate amount such that the company has a made a profit out of the incident and was using the threat of court action to extract an amount of money to which it was never entitled and so they invite a court to tear up the agreement as contrary to public policy and to order the train company to repay (an appropriate proportion of) the funds.

 

[Jamiescott1]

What if you recieved written confirmation from the toc that they will not prosecute, can they then reverse this decision ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

What if you recieved written confirmation from the toc that they will not prosecute, can they then reverse this decision ?

Agreements are generally binding. The Courts have upheld the “comfort letters” issued to IRA and UVF as binding, and terrorism is many magnitudes more serious than fare evasion.

If new information comes to light- that the TOC couldn’t have known before- then decisions can be revisited.

 

[LondonExile]

I don't think it will happen, as the TOC's who prosecute are either the victim, or have a clear agreement with the victim allowing mutual enforcement/investigation/prosecution.

Theoretically - anyone (both natural persons and companies/organisations) can lay information with the Magistrates and look to bring a private prosecution, they don't have to be the victim to do so. Where I'd guess it may be possible for a case to be re-opened, is if the "railway" wasn't the primary victim, but it still went through the usual processes around out of court settlement, and then the victim themselves complained to the Police.

An example might be if someone assaulted another passenger, was charged under Byelaw 6(2), and then the prosecutions team didn't realise before offering an out of court settlement. The victim actually assaulted could almost certainly argue that settling the matter with the railway doesn't make it an abuse of process for them to report the crime to the Police.

I think this is all very very hypothetical, and would rely on enforcement of byelaws not typically prosecuted (vs prosecution for assualt in my example.), and mistakes to then be made during that process as well.