. . . . what is to stop a TOC coming to a settlement, and then some other interested body (maybe another TOC, CPS, some concerned citizen with too much money) pushing a seperate prosecution forward?
The provisions of the 1985 Prosecutions of Offences Act.
That Act not only ratifies the Common Law right for a person to bring a Prosecution, but it also authorises the DPP (i.e. the CPS) to intervene to cause a Private Prosecution to be abandoned, (by taking it over and then presenting no Evidence). In addition, the Criminal Procedure Rules issue specific guidance to Magistrates Courts in cases where a Prosecution is attempted which is, either, already underway, or, has already been discontinued.
Depending on the details of such an incident as you're envisaging, it might also engage the rules on 'double jeopardy' and/or an 'abuse of process'.
An 'Out-of-Court Settlement' is so called because it 'settles' the matter. That doesn't leave it open to another attempt at a prosecution! The terms of the 'Settlement' should leave no doubt about this. [So called 'settlements' with certain statutory bodies such as HMRC and the CPS will not preclude re-opening the matter if evidence becomes available in the future which justifies a prosecution.]
Furlong said:
Haywain said:
Perhaps you could explain how the courts could regulate a matter that doesn't come before them?
Two scenarios as examples:
a) The person agrees the settlement but doesn't pay (part or all), so the company sues, seeking the court's assistance to enforce it (in full);
or
b) The person pays initially, but then judges that the courts would probably not enforce it in full and sues for the return of the (excess) money paid.
In the first 'example', the Company would not be likely to succeed in their action to recover the amount, as it is not 'loss' or 'damages' or any other 'debt', it is a settlement to achieve an agreed outcome INSTEAD of another outcome (the Prosecution). In default of the settlement not to Prosecute, resuming the original Prosecution is the remedy.
In the second 'example', I'm unclear what you are proposing and what the passenger guesses that the Courts would not enforce. If I understand you correctly, then it seems to me that if a person enters into a 'bad bargain' and changes their mind, then the two most obvious approaches are: a) to revert to the default position (recover the amount paid and elect for a trial on the facts), or b) to accept the misfortune of having paid for a 'bad bargain' (with no recovery of the amount paid and benefit from the assurance in perpetuity that the Offence will not be prosecuted).