SJPN for Fare Evasion: How to Avoid a Criminal Record in 2026

If you have received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), a “Notice of Intended Prosecution,” or a “Verification Letter” from a train company, you are likely experiencing a mix of embarrassment and genuine fear. You are right to be concerned. Fare evasion in the United Kingdom is not a “simple fine” like a parking ticket. It is a criminal allegation that can lead to a permanent record, impacting your career, your professional registrations, and your travel visas for years.

At Makwana Solicitors, led by Shella Makwana with over 25 years of criminal defence experience, we specialise in a single, vital mission: stopping the prosecution before it reaches the courtroom. We understand that good people make mistakes, and we believe a momentary lapse in judgement should not result in a life-altering criminal conviction.

1. The Legal Framework: What is the Law Actually Accusing You Of?

To defend you effectively, we must first identify which “legal weapon” the train company or Transport for London (TfL) is deploying. In the UK, there are two primary pieces of legislation used to prosecute fare evasion, and the difference between them is significant in terms of your future. Understanding the specific charge is the first step in dismantling the prosecution’s case.

Railway Byelaw 18 (Strict Liability)

This is the most common charge. It is what lawyers call a “strict liability” offence. The prosecution does not need to prove you intended to avoid the fare — only that you were on the train or within a “compulsory ticket area” without a valid ticket. This technical nature makes Byelaw 18 the go-to tool for mass-prosecutions via the Single Justice Procedure.

• The Reality: Even if it was an honest mistake — your phone died with an e-ticket on it, or you genuinely thought your Railcard was valid — you are technically guilty under the Byelaws. The courts do not accept forgetfulness as a valid legal defence at trial.
• The Defence Strategy: Because “intent” is not a factor, we do not argue that you did not do it. Instead, we focus on Public Interest and Proportionality. We argue to the train company’s legal department that a prosecution is a disproportionate response for a first-time mistake by a person of good character. We leverage the Code for Crown Prosecutors to show that a private settlement is a more just outcome.

Section 5(3) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Intent to Avoid Payment)

This is the high-stakes charge. It alleges that you intended to defraud the railway company — a meaningfully different and more serious allegation than Byelaw 18.

• The Risk: This is a recordable criminal offence involving “dishonesty.” If convicted, it will appear on Standard and Enhanced DBS checks for up to 11 years. For professionals in finance, law, medicine, or education, this triggers immediate fitness-to-practise obligations and — in some cases — automatic investigation by the relevant regulatory body.
• The Defence Strategy: We rigorously challenge the evidence of “intent.” We look for positive indicators of honesty: Did you have sufficient funds available on your bank card? Did you seek out a member of staff at the earliest opportunity? Was there a technical failure with the ticketing app? By dismantling the intent element, we create enough doubt to force the operator to consider an out-of-court settlement rather than risk losing at a full trial.

2. The 21-Day SJPN Emergency Protocol: Why the Clock is Ticking

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced to streamline the courts, but for the defendant, it operates as a conveyor belt toward conviction. A single magistrate decides your case in a private room based solely on the paperwork provided. There is no open court hearing, no verbal evidence, and no opportunity for a lawyer to speak on your behalf — unless you specifically request a move to open court, a step that carries its own significant risks.

Why You Should Not “Plead Guilty” Online Immediately

When the SJPN arrives, the accompanying letter directs you to an online portal offering three choices: Guilty, Not Guilty, or Guilty with a Mitigation Statement.

1. The “Guilty” Trap: Most people tick “Guilty” expecting a small fine. This is a serious mistake. Ticking “Guilty” results in an automatic conviction. Even if the financial penalty is modest, the criminal record is permanent and will appear on DBS checks.
2. The “Not Guilty” Risk: If you plead “Not Guilty” without a robust legal defence, the case proceeds to a full trial. If you lose, the fines are substantially higher and you forfeit the credit that courts allow for an early guilty plea.
3. The Makwana Approach: We use the 21-day window to open a parallel negotiation with the train company’s prosecution team. Our goal is to have them withdraw the court proceedings entirely in exchange for an out-of-court settlement — before the magistrate ever sees your file.

3. The Brohiri Ruling (January 2026): A Critical Door Has Closed

In recent years, some defendants — and some solicitors — attempted to challenge train company prosecutions on a technical procedural ground: that non-legally qualified employees of train operators had commenced criminal proceedings unlawfully, in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007, by conducting “reserved legal activities” such as the conduct of litigation or exercising a right of audience.

This argument was decisively rejected in Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd v Charles Brohiri, decided at Westminster Magistrates’ Court by District Judge Tempia on 15 January 2026.

What the Case Was About

Mr Brohiri faced a substantial number of fare evasion allegations — 39 “Category 1” offences where summons applications had been made by lay prosecutors (non-lawyer train company staff), alongside 76 further offences where the applications were either made or subsequently re-made by solicitors. The central legal question was whether those earlier lay-prosecutor applications were invalid under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The defence relied in part on the reasoning in Mazur and earlier authority on laying informations and commencing proceedings. District Judge Tempia rejected that challenge in full.

Why the Challenge Failed

The judge’s reasoning turned on Criminal Procedure Rules 46.1(2), which expressly permit a member, officer, or employee of a prosecutor to serve or present an application for a summons, or to issue a written charge, requisition, or SJPN on the prosecutor’s behalf. The judge found that this provision operates as a statutory and rules-based exemption, making the lay prosecutor an “exempt person” for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007. The defence’s abuse of process argument was also rejected: the prosecutions had not been illegally brought, the high threshold for such an argument had not been met, and no prejudice was established. The application was dismissed.

What This Means for Your Case

The Brohiri ruling has effectively closed the door on technical “who signed the paperwork” challenges. If a train company’s in-house staff commenced your prosecution, that fact alone provides no basis to have the proceedings struck out. Defences built on that argument will fail.

What does work is substantive engagement: challenging the evidence on its merits, presenting credible mitigation, and making the case to the operator’s legal team that an out-of-court settlement serves both parties better than a contested hearing. That is precisely what we do.

4. Operator-Specific Defence: Navigating the Key Operators

Every operator has a different prosecution culture. A strategy that works with Avanti may not work with TfL. We tailor our representations to the specific approach and legal guidelines of each operator.

Transport for London (TfL)

TfL is a public body under sustained pressure to reduce fare evasion, which costs the network tens of millions annually. Revenue Protection Officers are equipped with body-worn cameras to secure contemporaneous admissions.

• Common Issues: Misuse of Freedom Passes, “603 errors” (contactless card failing to validate), and “Double Gating” (following someone through the barriers).
• The Strategy: TfL is more likely to settle where we can demonstrate that a conviction would result in loss of employment or professional standing. We prepare a Mitigation Bundle that establishes your low re-offending risk and makes the case that a private settlement serves the public interest better than a costly prosecution.

National Rail (Avanti West Coast, LNER, GWR, CrossCountry)

These are commercial operators. While profit-driven, they are also focused on recovering their actual losses. They often prefer a guaranteed financial settlement over the uncertainty of a court fine — which goes to the Treasury, not to the operator.

• Common Issues: “Short-faring” (buying a ticket for a shorter journey than taken), or travelling on a split ticket where the train did not stop at the intended interchange station.
• The Strategy: We negotiate a “Quantum of Loss” settlement. We offer to pay the full outstanding fare plus the operator’s legal and administrative costs — typically ranging from £150 to £550. Most commercial operators will accept this to avoid court costs and secure their revenue.

5. The Refund Policy Trap: A Growing Source of Prosecution

National Rail’s Conditions of Travel govern when and how tickets can be refunded. The rules around walk-up ticket refunds have tightened in recent years, and many passengers are caught out by restrictions they were unaware of at the point of purchase.

Operators are increasingly alert to passengers who travel on a ticket and subsequently attempt to seek a refund for that journey — whether due to a misunderstanding of the rules or a deliberate attempt to recover the fare. Where the operator concludes the pattern suggests deliberate behaviour, what began as a refund request can escalate into a Section 5(3) allegation.

The key risk for honest passengers: even where the intent was genuine confusion rather than fraud, the operator’s initial response may be to treat the matter as potential dishonesty. Early legal intervention is the best way to ensure that a misunderstanding is properly characterised before the operator commits to a prosecution path.

6. The Hidden Costs: Career, DBS, and Your Future

If you are a regulated professional, the fine is the least of your concerns. A criminal record for a crime of “dishonesty” is a professional mark that is difficult to remove once it is recorded.

Financial Services (FCA)

Under the “Fit and Proper” person test, any conviction involving dishonesty must be disclosed to your compliance department. FCA-regulated firms take a rigorous approach to the clean record obligations of their approved persons and material risk takers. A Section 5 conviction can trigger immediate contractual consequences.

Healthcare (GMC / NMC / HCPC)

Doctors, nurses, and other registered healthcare professionals face Fitness to Practise hearings for non-clinical misconduct. A fare evasion conviction involving dishonesty raises questions about integrity that the GMC and NMC take seriously. We have represented medical professionals at every stage, from the initial SJP through to professional tribunal proceedings.

Travel and International Visas

A conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 — as a recordable dishonesty offence — can complicate applications for US visas and ESTA eligibility. A Byelaw conviction is generally treated differently, but a Section 5(3) conviction may need to be declared and can lead to additional scrutiny at the application stage. We advise all clients with international travel requirements to seek specific advice on disclosure obligations relevant to their circumstances.

7. Case Studies: Real-World Scenarios from our Files

(Names have been changed for client confidentiality.)

Case Study A: The “Battery Dead” Professional

• The Incident: An IT consultant travelling from Manchester to London on Avanti. His phone died and he could not produce his e-ticket. The inspector refused to allow him to charge the phone and issued a prosecution report.
• Our Intervention: We provided Avanti’s legal team with the original booking confirmation, bank statements evidencing the purchase, and a character reference from his employer. We successfully argued that a technical failure did not constitute intent to avoid a fare.
• The Result: Avanti agreed that prosecution was not in the public interest. Case settled for the price of the fare plus £150 in costs. No criminal record.

Case Study B: The “Freedom Pass” Mistake

• The Incident: A university student accidentally used her grandmother’s Freedom Pass to enter a London Underground station. She was stopped by a Revenue Protection Officer and admitted the mistake immediately.
• Our Intervention: We highlighted the student’s age, her clear record, and the serious impact a dishonesty conviction would have on her intended career in accountancy. We made detailed representations on proportionality in light of TfL’s own sentencing guidance.
• The Result: TfL agreed to a formal warning and a financial settlement. Case withdrawn.

8. A Glossary of Fare Evasion Terms

• SJPN: Single Justice Procedure Notice — the formal court document commencing the prosecution. You have 21 days to respond.
• Verification Letter: A letter sent by an operator (often TfL) inviting your account of events before deciding whether to prosecute. This is the earliest — and best — point for a solicitor to intervene.
• Out-of-Court Settlement: A private agreement where you pay the operator’s losses (fare plus administrative costs) in exchange for the criminal proceedings being dropped entirely.
• Statutory Declaration: A legal statement used to reopen a case where you were convicted without knowledge of the proceedings — for example, because court papers were sent to an old address. Under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, applications can also be made to reopen a case where the interests of justice require it.
• Mitigation Statement: A written explanation of the circumstances of the offence, designed to lower the penalty or encourage settlement. A poorly drafted statement can be used against you; a professionally prepared one can change the outcome.

9. Frequently Asked Questions

“Will I go to prison for fare evasion?”

While the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 technically allows for a custodial sentence in cases of serious or repeat fraud, the overwhelming majority of standard fare evasion cases end in a financial penalty. The real consequence — and the one most clients come to us about — is the criminal record, which can affect employment and professional registration for a decade or more.

“Can I settle after I have already pleaded ‘Guilty’ online?”

It is significantly harder once a plea has been formally recorded. In some circumstances it is possible to apply for a withdrawal of plea or to reopen the case under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. We strongly advise seeking legal advice before entering any plea via the online portal.

“Does fare evasion show on a DBS check?”

• Byelaw 18: Usually does not appear on a Basic DBS check, but could be disclosed on an Enhanced check if the relevant Chief Constable considers it relevant — which is more common for roles in education, social work, or working with vulnerable adults.
• Section 5(3) 1889 Act: Yes. This is a recordable dishonesty offence and will appear on Basic, Standard, and Enhanced DBS checks.

Why Choose Makwana Solicitors?

When you are facing a train company’s legal department, you are facing a prosecution operation with standardised procedures and automated systems designed to secure convictions with minimal effort. You need a solicitor on your side who understands the detail of the law and can engage meaningfully with that process.

Shella Makwana offers a discreet, high-level defence service. Every letter of representation we write is tailored to your specific circumstances, your career, and your future — not generated from a template. We have a 95%+ success rate in securing out-of-court settlements for first-time offenders who instruct us early in the process.

• Proven Expertise: Over 25 years of experience in London and National courts, with deep knowledge of transport law and the way individual operators approach prosecution decisions.
• Rapid Response: We aim to respond to all SJPN and Verification Letter enquiries within 4 working hours.
• Operator Intelligence: We know how each operator’s legal team approaches settlements and tailor our representations accordingly — not as a generic exercise, but based on current experience with each operator’s priorities.

Written by Shella Makwana, Criminal Defence Solicitor | 25+ years experience