SJPN Fare Evasion: 21-Day Guide to Out-of-Court Settlements

Receiving a Single Justice Procedure Notice from Transport for London or a National Rail operator is not a minor administrative event. In 2026, the SJP processes a very high volume of fare evasion cases as a streamlined criminal proceeding — not a civil fine system. Many professionals who receive an SJPN believe it to be the equivalent of a fixed penalty notice. It is not. An SJPN is a formal criminal prosecution, and how you respond determines whether it results in a conviction on your permanent record or disappears entirely.

At Makwana Solicitors, led by Shella Makwana with over 25 years of specialist criminal defence experience, our mission is to ensure the case never reaches the magistrate’s desk. We secure a formal withdrawal of prosecution — protecting your DBS record, your professional registration, and your reputation.

1. What Is a Single Justice Procedure Notice?

The Single Justice Procedure was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to handle high-volume, low-level non-imprisonable summary offences. Train companies including Northern Rail, Avanti, and GWR use it as their primary prosecution mechanism for fare evasion.

An SJPN means a single magistrate reviews your case in a closed session — not an open court — based solely on the written evidence provided by the prosecution. There is no hearing, no verbal evidence, and no opportunity to speak in your defence unless you specifically request a transfer to open court.

Is an SJPN a Criminal Record?

Not yet — but it is the gateway to one. If you plead guilty via the online portal or are found guilty in your absence, the outcome is a formal criminal conviction. Where the charge is Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, that conviction is recordable on the Police National Computer as a dishonesty offence. It will appear on Basic, Standard, and Enhanced DBS checks. For regulated professionals, it triggers mandatory disclosure obligations to their regulatory body.

For a detailed breakdown of how convictions appear on different DBS levels, see our DBS and Criminal Record guide.

2. The August 2024 Prosecutions Scandal: Why Expert Legal Help Matters More Than Ever

In August 2024, over 59,000 fare evasion convictions were quashed after Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring ruled that Northern Rail, TransPennine Express, and Greater Anglia had been using the Single Justice Procedure unlawfully. The mass quashing represented one of the largest judicial interventions in transport prosecution history.

The scandal triggered a government-commissioned independent review by the Office of Rail and Road, which found that train operators had been prosecuting passengers in cases where:

• There was no possible revenue loss to the operator
• Passengers had made genuine, unintentional errors with tickets
• Technical rules were broken but circumstances showed no intent to defraud
• Passengers were unable to buy tickets due to broken machines or closed ticket offices

The review’s findings provide powerful ammunition for public interest representations. When we argue to an operator’s legal team that your case mirrors the exact scenarios the government review criticized — disproportionate enforcement against passengers who made innocent errors — we cite official government findings, not just legal opinion.

3. The Brohiri Ruling (January 2026): Why Technical Arguments No Longer Work

On 15 January 2026, the ruling in Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd v Charles Brohiri at Westminster Magistrates’ Court confirmed that lay prosecutors — non-lawyer employees of train companies — have lawful authority to initiate and sign SJPN proceedings under Criminal Procedure Rules 46.1(2).

The defence had argued that the prosecutions were unlawful because non-qualified staff had commenced them, relying on reasoning from Julia Mazur & Ors v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). District Judge Tempia rejected this argument, finding that CPR 46.1(2) operates as a statutory exemption, making lay prosecutors “exempt persons” under the Legal Services Act 2007.

While the procedural error that led to the 2024 mass quashing has now been corrected (confirmed in Brohiri), the underlying issue remains: operators still prosecute cases they shouldn’t. Our strategy is to intervene early, before the automated prosecution machinery runs its course, and make the case that your matter falls into the category the ORR review specifically criticized.

4. The Critical 21-Day Window

From the date the SJPN is issued, you have 21 days to respond. If you ignore the notice, the magistrate will proceed to a finding of guilt in your absence — typically resulting in a higher fine and an immediate, irreversible entry on your criminal record. Hoping it will go away is among the most costly mistakes defendants make.

If you instruct us within this window, we contact the rail operator’s legal department immediately to confirm the case is legally represented. This opens a negotiation channel for an out-of-court settlement — before the automated prosecution system runs its course.

5. The Online Portal Trap

The SJPN arrives with a link to an online government portal offering three options: Guilty, Not Guilty, or Guilty with Mitigation. The portal is straightforward to use — deliberately so. Its design encourages quick resolution by guilty plea.

• Pleading Guilty: Produces an automatic criminal conviction. Most people who do this believe they are paying a fine. They are not — they are creating a permanent dishonesty record on their criminal file.
• Pleading Not Guilty: Transfers the case to a full court hearing. If you lose at trial, the fine increases substantially and you are ordered to pay prosecution costs.
• Guilty with Mitigation: A mitigation statement submitted via the portal is reviewed by the magistrate alongside the prosecution evidence. A poorly drafted statement — one that contains inadvertent admissions about your state of mind at the time — can be used against you.

At Makwana Solicitors, we advise clients not to submit any response via the online portal without legal advice. We provide the representation that the portal does not accommodate — a formally drafted legal submission that presents your evidence, addresses the intent question, and proposes a settlement directly to the prosecution team.

6. Section 5(3) vs Railway Byelaw 18 — Which Charge Is on Your Notice?

The legislation cited on the face of your SJPN determines the severity of the consequences and the most effective defence strategy. Check the notice before taking any action.

• Railway Byelaw 18 (Strict Liability): A technical offence requiring no proof of intent — only that you were travelling without a valid ticket. Generally not recordable on the PNC. Usually does not appear on Basic or Standard DBS checks. Can appear on Enhanced checks at the Chief Constable’s discretion. Still a criminal conviction requiring careful management for regulated professionals.
• Section 5(3) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Intent to Defraud): The serious charge. Requires proof that you intended to avoid payment. A recordable dishonesty offence appearing on all DBS check levels for up to 11 years. Triggers mandatory disclosure to professional regulators. The most common charge for Railcard misuse, Freedom Pass misuse, and short-faring cases.

We specialize in negotiating Section 5(3) charges down to Byelaw 18 settlements — removing the dishonesty element — or securing a complete withdrawal.

7. The Withdrawal Strategy: The Only True Victory

For a professional, a Byelaw conviction is still a criminal conviction. For a regulated professional, even a non-recordable conviction creates disclosure obligations. The only outcome that fully protects your record is a formal withdrawal of the prosecution — producing no conviction of any kind.

We achieve this through a structured three-stage process:

1. Evidence Audit: We request the inspector’s contemporaneous notes and body-worn camera footage. We examine whether the caution was administered correctly under PACE, whether the technical infrastructure at the relevant station was functioning, and whether your bank and payment records support the case against deliberate intent.
2. Public Interest Representations: We draft a comprehensive legal submission to the operator’s prosecution team applying the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We make the case that prosecution is not in the public interest — evidenced by your good character, your professional standing, and the specific consequences a conviction would have for your career and DBS record. We cite the ORR review findings where your case mirrors the scenarios government reviewers specifically criticized.
3. The Settlement: We negotiate a Quantum of Loss settlement — the outstanding fare plus the operator’s administrative costs, typically £300 to £700 — in exchange for a formal withdrawal of the prosecution. No court hearing. No conviction. No record.

8. Background Checks and Court Records

Professional background screening companies including Sterling, Checkr, and HireRight regularly monitor public court records as part of their screening services. Once a case is listed at the Magistrates’ Court — which happens at the summons stage — it enters the public domain and can be identified by these monitoring services.

This is one of the most significant reasons why resolving a matter during the 21-day SJPN window — before any court listing occurs — is so important for professionals whose employers use background screening. An out-of-court settlement means the matter never enters a court list. A case that proceeds to hearing becomes a public record regardless of the outcome.

9. FCA, GMC, and SRA Consequences

For regulated professionals, an SJPN is not a personal matter — it is a potential regulatory event. Most professional regulatory bodies require self-reporting of criminal charges and convictions, with specific obligations and timelines that vary between regulators.

The FCA’s Fit and Proper assessment, the GMC’s Good Medical Practice obligations, and the SRA’s Character and Suitability requirements all engage when a professional receives a criminal charge for a dishonesty offence. Failure to disclose when required is itself treated as a further act of dishonesty — often more serious in regulatory terms than the original charge.

By securing a settlement before the case is formally charged, we aim to resolve the matter in a way that does not trigger the mandatory disclosure obligations in the first place. Where disclosure is unavoidable, we provide formal written confirmation of the administrative resolution that can be presented to a compliance department or regulator.

10. International Visa and Immigration Impact

For international residents in the UK, a Section 5(3) conviction is a serious suitability concern under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules. A dishonesty conviction will be assessed against the Good Character requirement at the point of any ILR or citizenship application, and can result in refusal or a significant delay to the settlement timeline.

For those who travel regularly to the United States, a Section 5(3) conviction may need to be declared on ESTA applications and can engage the Crime Involving Moral Turpitude provisions of US immigration law — potentially affecting ESTA eligibility.

An out-of-court settlement produces no criminal conviction and therefore creates no disclosure obligation on visa or immigration applications. We advise every international client specifically on their visa position as part of our service.

11. Mental Health and Public Interest Mitigation

The public interest test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to consider the personal circumstances of the defendant when assessing whether proceeding to trial serves a legitimate purpose. Mental health, documented personal crisis, bereavement, and acute situational stress are all recognized mitigating factors in the Code’s framework.

Where fare evasion occurred during a period of documented mental health difficulty, we present this as a primary mitigation pillar — not as a bare assertion, but as a clinically evidenced account supported by GP letters, therapy records, or psychiatric assessments where available. We demonstrate that the incident was a product of a specific set of circumstances that are unlikely to recur, and that proceeding to prosecution would not serve the public interest.

This approach is particularly effective in cases involving students experiencing exam-related pressure, individuals navigating significant personal loss, and professionals who were managing acute workplace stress at the time of the incident.

12. Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still settle after I have already received the SJPN papers?

Yes — receiving the SJPN is the beginning of the 21-day window, not the end of the opportunity. This is when most clients contact us. We have a 95%+ success rate in securing withdrawals after the SJPN has been issued, provided we are instructed within the 21-day response period. Contact us immediately on receiving the notice.

What happens if I already pleaded Guilty on the portal?

It is significantly harder once a guilty plea is recorded, but not necessarily without remedy. Under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, it may be possible to apply to reopen the case where the conviction was unjust or the defendant did not understand the consequences of the plea. Contact us immediately — before any sentence is finalized — if you have entered a guilty plea without legal advice.

Is an SJPN fine the same as a Penalty Fare?

No — they are entirely different. A Penalty Fare is a civil administrative charge — the equivalent of a parking fine — issued at the point of travel. It is not a criminal matter, creates no criminal record, and does not need to be disclosed to employers or regulators. Once the matter has been referred for prosecution and an SJPN issued, you are in the criminal justice system. The fine that follows a conviction can be substantially higher than a Penalty Fare, and comes with a permanent criminal record.

Will anyone I know find out about the SJPN?

As an adult, your legal case is confidential and we correspond directly with you. The risk is not a direct notification to family or colleagues — it is that once a case is listed at court, it enters the public record, and once a conviction is recorded it appears on DBS certificates. By securing an out-of-court settlement we ensure the matter never enters the court list and remains entirely private.

How much does it cost to hire a solicitor for an SJPN?

Our fixed fee for out-of-court settlement negotiation is £360-£2,000 depending on complexity. This includes initial consultation, operator contact, formal representations, and settlement negotiation. If the case cannot be settled and proceeds to court, full magistrates’ court representation starts from £1,200. Initial discovery calls are free. See our full pricing and service details.

What if my case mirrors the scenarios from the 2024 scandal?

If your case involves broken ticket machines, closed ticket offices, genuine confusion over ticketing rules, or situations where there was no revenue loss, you have particularly strong grounds for settlement. The ORR review specifically criticized these prosecutions as disproportionate. We cite the government findings directly in our representations to the operator’s legal team.

Related Guides:

• ▶ Fare Evasion Solicitors — Main Service Guide (Pricing, Process, Case Studies)
• ▶ What Does Fare Evasion Mean? (Legal Definition & Types)
• ▶ Is Fare Evasion a Criminal Offence? (Legal Framework Explained)
• ▶ Will Fare Evasion Show Up on a DBS Check?

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