Defendant argues rail charges should fail because the litigation was conducted by a non-lawyer
A defendant accused of repeated fare evasion is attempting to rely on the High Court’s Mazur ruling to challenge the legality of private prosecutions brought against him, arguing that some charges should be dismissed because the litigation was conducted by a non-lawyer.
Charles Brohiri, aged 28, formerly of Hatfield, is alleged to have been caught travelling without a valid ticket on 180 occasions over the past 2 years. At a hearing before Westminster magistrates’ court on Tuesday, his barrister challenged 36 fare evasion charges brought by Govia Thameslink Railway, according to a report by the Telegraph.
Appearing for Mr Brohiri, Eleanor Curzon of 23ES argued that the prosecutions breached the Legal Services Act 2007 in light of the High Court’s decision in Mazur, handed down by Mr Justice Sheldon in September. That ruling held that the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity that may only be carried out by authorised persons, and not by unauthorised individuals, even where they are supervised.
Embed from Getty Images
The judgment has attracted widespread attention within the legal sector, as it appeared to contradict advice and guidance that had been relied upon by many firms. It also raised questions about business models that depend heavily on the work of unauthorised legal executives and paralegals.
In the Westminster case, Govia Thameslink Railway admitted that it had used a lay prosecutor in some of the proceedings against Mr Brohiri. Ms Curzon submitted that this amounted to a breach of section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
She told the court that the actions of the lay prosecutor, in conducting litigation without authorisation, meant the prosecutions were unlawful. Ms Curzon argued that such conduct constituted a criminal offence under the Act and that, as a result, the relevant charges should be dismissed.
Representing Govia Thameslink Railway, Peter Ratliff of 6KBW rejected that interpretation. He argued that a lay prosecutor was permitted to act on behalf of a qualified prosecutor under Rule 46 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.
Mr Ratliff also told the court that the defendant had identified no prejudice or unfairness arising from the way the prosecutions had been brought. He submitted that the charges should therefore be allowed to proceed.
The magistrates’ court adjourned the matter until January. Mr Brohiri was granted bail on the condition that he does not enter any Govia Thameslink Railway property, including its trains, pending the next hearing.
The case is among the first reported attempts to deploy the Mazur ruling in the criminal courts and may be closely watched by both prosecutors and defence lawyers as its implications continue to unfold.