Unlawful Use of SJPN by Train Companies for Section 5(1) RoRA Prosecutions

[KirkstallOne]

Still no explanation made available of the procedural basis on which these 28,000+ cases were revived, presuming all to have been subject to final disposal at some earlier date.

Agree, not clear either how they can re-list all these cases without informing the defendants, them being informed after the fact of the outcome.

The CM said at the time there was ‘no prejudice to the defendants’ from just auto-quashing everything but it certainly seems irregular.

 

[island]

Also, presumably TOCs will be 'encouraged' to refund penalties paid. I do not think it is acceptable for a future FOI to discover that the TOCs are still sitting on loads of money resulting from the SJPN misjustice because they can't try hard enough to find the injured parties.

It is for His Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service to refund fines, not the TOCs.

Still no explanation made available of the procedural basis on which these 28,000+ cases were revived, presuming all to have been subject to final disposal at some earlier date.

I agree. It is somewhat unsatisfactory.

 

[Haywain]

Also, presumably TOCs will be 'encouraged' to refund penalties paid. I do not think it is acceptable for a future FOI to discover that the TOCs are still sitting on loads of money resulting from the SJPN misjustice because they can't try hard enough to find the injured parties.

Fines, compensation and costs are paid through, and collected by bailiffs appointed by, the courts. It must, therefore, be for the courts to trace those people and refund them.

 

[soil]

Still no explanation made available of the procedural basis on which these 28,000+ cases were revived, presuming all to have been subject to final disposal at some earlier date.

Exactly the same way as the previous cases:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment-1.pdf

"Parliament did not envisage these offences being prosecuted through the SJP , they should never have been brought through SJP in the first place: that is a paradigm Nullity,"

"the nullity is in the written charge itself and so if that is nullity ab initio, there is in fact nothing left ... the prosecutors had no power to issue a charge. That contrasts with a situation where the police issue a written charge and Single Justice Notice (SJN) for an imprisonable offence, they can issue a written charge, only the SJN is wrong, so the charge survives"

It is similar to a nullity in marriage - if I marry a woman is already married, then the marriage does not exist. It is "void ab initio".

It is a declaration by the court that the proceedings were never valid, and no conviction ever took place.

Fines and costs are to be refunded, the same as they would be in successful appeals.

 

[Hadders]

Presumably any compensation paid by the defendants to the court, and then passed on to the TOCs will need to be repaid by the TOCs.

 

[Haywain]

Presumably any compensation paid by the defendants to the court, and then passed on to the TOCs will need to be repaid by the TOCs.

To the courts, I would expect.

 

[bubieyehyeh]

Will the defendants just get their fine refunded or will it also include interest on the money to cover the loss of value due to inflation?

 

[mrmartin]

Would someone who lost their job over this conviction be able to claim damages? I suspect there will be more than a handful of very well paid professionals that lost their career over this (in law, medicine, finance etc). The value of lost earnings could be absolutely staggering.

Also what about people who failed to get a job because they failed DBS checks etc? Would they have a case for compensation?

 

[John Palmer]

Exactly the same way as the previous cases:

...

It is a declaration by the court that the proceedings were never valid, and no conviction ever took place.

I think I follow the argument you are making, but, although the issue could be of nothing more than academic interest, it's one which does not seem to me straightforward.

In the first place, the 28,000+ cases forming the subject of yesterday's declaration differ from the six test cases forming the subject of the August decision. The six cases dealt with in August were all 'live' cases yet to be subject to final adjudication, and were re-assigned from the courts that were originally dealing with them to the Chief Magistrate for hearing as test cases. So it was straightforward enough with the test cases to hold the charges giving rise to them to be nullities, and to dismiss the cases accordingly.

By contrast, the cases forming the subject of yesterday's declaration had until that declaration been treated as valid proceedings that were concluded with valid convictions for RoRA offences in respect of which appropriate penalties had been imposed. The magistrates who originally sat in judgment in those cases arrived at their decisions in good faith and would not expect those decisions to be overturned otherwise than following a conventional appeal, or re-hearing in the exceptional circumstances envisaged by Section 142(2) Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

The government web page at https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/chief-magistrate/ describes the role of the Chief Magistrate. It states that “the Chief Magistrate has no authority over lay magistrates, or over the several hundreds of district judges who sit in the county courts of England and Wales.” I take that to mean that the Chief Magistrate has no appellate or other jurisdiction that entitles him to set aside a conviction imposed by a fellow magistrate other than in a case involving exercise of the power conferred by Section 142(2). Yet, whilst accepting that the Section 142 power is “arguably available” as a way to re-open the cases where the SJP was wrongfully used, he seems to have set his face against doing so and instead determined that all that is needed is “a simple declaration by the court and that is all, the court could even list all relevant cases together and do so.” (paragraph 66 in the judgment)

For me, that raises two questions which I have yet to see answered:

1. If not by exercise of the Section 142 power, on what procedural basis are these SJP cases being re-opened by the Chief Magistrate?
   
2. If, as the Chief Magistrate's remarks in the August judgment suggest, he is not conducting a rehearing following exercise of the Section 142 power, by what authority does he substitute his decision on these SJP cases for those of his fellow magistrates who heard them originally?

 

[soil]

The government web page at https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/chief-magistrate/ describes the role of the Chief Magistrate. It states that “the Chief Magistrate has no authority over lay magistrates, or over the several hundreds of district judges who sit in the county courts of England and Wales.” I take that to mean that the Chief Magistrate has no appellate or other jurisdiction that entitles him to set aside a conviction imposed by a fellow magistrate other than in a case involving exercise of the power conferred by Section 142(2). Yet, whilst accepting that the Section 142 power is “arguably available” as a way to re-open the cases where the SJP was wrongfully used, he seems to have set his face against doing so and instead determined that all that is needed is “a simple declaration by the court and that is all, the court could even list all relevant cases together and do so.” (paragraph 66 in the judgment)

For me, that raises two questions which I have yet to see answered:

1. If not by exercise of the Section 142 power, on what procedural basis are these SJP cases being re-opened by the Chief Magistrate?
   
2. If, as the Chief Magistrate's remarks in the August judgment suggest, he is not conducting a rehearing following exercise of the Section 142 power, by what authority does he substitute his decision on these SJP cases for those of his fellow magistrates who heard them originally?

I think you're saying that the Chief Magistrate is just a particular species of judge, and isn't really 'chief magistrate' at all.

The judiciary website is not law, but it does suggest here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/notes/division/6/5/2

that that is the case.

However, that isn't necessarily fatal to the exercise of power here. The argument, as I said, is that if you, a single man, marry a woman who is already married, then your marriage never exists. It is void. It never came to pass. However, you might possess a marriage certificate which says otherwise. In certain circumstances, it would be necessary to disprove the evidentiary value of that marriage certificate (which relates to a void ab initio marriage) using some other proof. The proof here is a declaration of the chief magistrate.

The logical conclusion here is that, while this was made by the chief magistrate in respect of tens of thousands of convictions, it is an inherent power of the magistrate's court to make such a declaration specifically when the decision was void, as distinct from when it was wrong. Therefore, lay magistrates could presumably have made a similar declaration, it's just convenient to give the task to Chief Magistrate, even though, as it turns out, the quality of the judgment is quite poor, and not up to the standard of a more senior judge.

 

[tspaul26]

The argument, as I said, is that if you, a single man, marry a woman who is already married, then your marriage never exists. It is void.

Such a putative marriage is presumed to be valid unless the matter is put in issue and impediment found.

It never came to pass. However, you might possess a marriage certificate which says otherwise. In certain circumstances, it would be necessary to disprove the evidentiary value of that marriage certificate (which relates to a void ab initio marriage) using some other proof.

Even if the marriage is invalid, this does not automatically invalidate every other act which flowed from it.

The proof here is a declaration of the chief magistrate.

The logical conclusion here is that, while this was made by the chief magistrate in respect of tens of thousands of convictions, it is an inherent power of the magistrate's court to make such a declaration specifically when the decision was void, as distinct from when it was wrong.

There is no such inherent power in the magistrates’ courts - Chief Magistrate or no Chief Magistrate.

 

[soil]

There is no such inherent power in the magistrates’ courts - Chief Magistrate or no Chief Magistrate.

As has been noted, it must be "no chief magistrate", insofar as he appears to have no special powers.

However, your statement that there is no such inherent power is contradicted by the fact that exactly such a declaration has been made, and will clearly have such effect. So even if "there wasn't", there certainly appears to be one now.

 

[John Palmer]

However, your statement that there is no such inherent power is contradicted by the fact that exactly such a declaration has been made, and will clearly have such effect. So even if "there wasn't", there certainly appears to be one now.

Well, that rather neatly encapsulates the concerns I have about what has taken place. Recourse to what is apparently a non-existent power in order to correct a legal wrong seems unwise.

 

[island]

Well, that rather neatly encapsulates the concerns I have about what has taken place. Recourse to what is apparently a non-existent power in order to correct a legal wrong seems unwise.

Indeed. It results in an unstable equilibrium of sorts, with everything staying put only as long as nobody becomes dissatisfied and gives it a push in some direction.

 

[Belperpete]

As has been noted, it must be "no chief magistrate", insofar as he appears to have no special powers.

However, your statement that there is no such inherent power is contradicted by the fact that exactly such a declaration has been made, and will clearly have such effect. So even if "there wasn't", there certainly appears to be one now.

Unless at some future date it is determined that the chief magistrate had no authority to issue such a declaration, in which case the declaration will be nullified. Making a double negative? More pertinently, however, the CM has given quite a lengthy explanation of why he believes section 142 of the MCA and associated legal precedent gives him the authority.

 

[soil]

Unless at some future date it is determined that the chief magistrate had no authority to issue such a declaration, in which case the declaration will be nullified. Making a double negative? More pertinently, however, the CM has given quite a lengthy explanation of why he believes section 142 of the MCA and associated legal precedent gives him the authority.

Section 142 is specifically not being used and isn't the source of power.

The point is that the initial charge, of RoRA via SJPN, was not valid. therefore the ensuing convictions are also void. They never existed.

The reason this has been declared is that Parliament specifically set out the list of SJPN offences, and RoRA isn't on there. Therefore, rather than just say "let's allow people to be convicted anyway, making a mockery of the rule of law", the convictions must be void.

They clearly are not going to cancel this decision and reinstate tens of thousands of dodgy convictions for petty crimes, so it's entirely an academic discussion - unless we argue that the convictions were valid despite the railway companies riding roughshod over the law, which is something they themselves haven't suggested, trying to question the chief magistrate's decision doesn't seem to affect the invalidity of the convictions

 

[tspaul26]

As has been noted, it must be "no chief magistrate", insofar as he appears to have no special powers.

He has none.

However, your statement that there is no such inherent power is contradicted by the fact that exactly such a declaration has been made, and will clearly have such effect. So even if "there wasn't", there certainly appears to be one now.

That is the whole point: the declarator exists as a matter of fact and can accordingly have consequential effects, but there is no legal basis for it.

I share the concerns of @island and @John Palmer : purporting to resolve one procedural irregularity by means of another procedural irregularity is bad lawyering and bad law.

Unless at some future date it is determined that the chief magistrate had no authority to issue such a declaration, in which case the declaration will be nullified. Making a double negative? More pertinently, however, the CM has given quite a lengthy explanation of why he believes section 142 of the MCA and associated legal precedent gives him the authority.

You are referring here to the omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta principle which is not in itself controversial.

Quite who would bring such a legal challenge remains veiled: the accused have no reason to because their convictions are wiped; the prosecution won’t because they’re complicit in the whole affair; the court won’t judicially review itself; and a third party interloper has no locus and would receive short shrift at permission stage.

As to the length of the opinion, the length does nothing to improve its quality or correctness.

 

[MotCO]

Would someone who lost their job over this conviction be able to claim damages? I suspect there will be more than a handful of very well paid professionals that lost their career over this (in law, medicine, finance etc). The value of lost earnings could be absolutely staggering.

Also what about people who failed to get a job because they failed DBS checks etc? Would they have a case for compensation?

It's a tough one. In all probability, there was an offence committed, and the perpetrator could well be guilty of that offence. Had they been tried correctly, they would be in the same position as now - i.e. lost their career etc. Because the legal process was flawed, they are 'not guilty'.

I'm not a lawyer, and am willing to be shot down, but isn't there usually a 6 month limit in bringing some cases to Court, but isn't there something about this deadline being extended in extenuating circumstances? Or could a case of fraud be brought which may not have rhe same restrictions?

If someone tries to claim compensation when they were technically guilty but mis-tried, there may be other ways of bringing the case back to Court.

 

[tspaul26]

The point is that the initial charge, of RoRA via SJPN, was not valid. therefore the ensuing convictions are also void.

This does not necessarily follow as a matter of law.

They never existed.

They existed as a matter of fact.

Therefore, rather than just say "let's allow people to be convicted anyway, making a mockery of the rule of law", the convictions must be void.

It also makes a mockery of the rule of law for judges to issue sweeping declarations loosey-goosey with no proper legal basis.

As far as I can see, the only proper forum to have dealt with this mess would have been a petition to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court - and even then there would have been fairly good arguments that permission should not be granted and that any relief should be with-held.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The government web page at https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/chief-magistrate/ describes the role of the Chief Magistrate. It states that “the Chief Magistrate has no authority over lay magistrates, or over the several hundreds of district judges who sit in the county courts of England and Wales.” I take that to mean that the Chief Magistrate has no appellate or other jurisdiction that entitles him to set aside a conviction imposed by a fellow magistrate other than in a case involving exercise of the power conferred by Section 142(2).

I'm not convinced that this is what the website is trying to say (and this is before getting on to whether a government website is a statement of the law). I suspect that what it means is that if you have a gripe about Les Bloggs JP, an email to the Chief Magistrate asking the CM to sack Mx Bloggs won't have any effect.

 

[soil]

I'm not convinced that this is what the website is trying to say (and this is before getting on to whether a government website is a statement of the law). I suspect that what it means is that if you have a gripe about Les Bloggs JP, an email to the Chief Magistrate asking the CM to sack Mx Bloggs won't have any effect.

I think that's right.

Our constitution exists by long-standing principle or by legislation.

The magistrates court has paid judges and unpaid judges.

The paid judges are called 'district judges', and were previously known as 'stipendiary magistrates'.

There were previously 'stipendiary magistrates' and 'metropolitan stipendiary magistrates'. There was a 'chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate'. He supervised the administration and appointment of London magistrates.

In 2000 the stipendiary magistrates were unified, and the role of 'Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)' was required to be filled.

Access to Justice Act 1999

www.legislation.gov.uk

The Chief Magistrate was also appointed one of the members of the magistrates' court rules committee.

In 2005 the Chief Magistrate role was made optional, and he was removed from all his administrative positions. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/enacted

In previous Criminal Procedure Rules the CM was given specific powers relating to extradition, but now they can be exercised by any DJ.

It's clear that the Chief Magistrate is nothing more than a designated stipendiary magistrate (district judge) for high-profile cases.

 

[John Palmer]

In all probability, there was an offence committed, and the perpetrator could well be guilty of that offence.

The Chief Magistrate certainly appeared to believe that the convictions in most of the SJP cases would have been correct were it not for the error of commencing them by means of that procedure, but I have strong doubts as to whether that was the case in the light of what follows.

The paperwork @KirkstallOne uploaded in his own case shows that Northern Trains (a) set out a misleading impression of the Section 5(1) RoRA charge's nature by omission of the words “or give the officer or servant his name and address” and (b) exhibited to their supporting evidence a copy of the penalty fare notice bearing his name and address. Such evidence would have suggested to a person in possession of Section 5(1)'s full wording that, without more, the requirements for conviction of the offence created by the subsection had not been satisfied.

Since he gave his name address at the time a penalty fare notice was issued to him, I see nothing to suggest that @KirkstallOne was likely to have been convicted of the Section 5(1) offence had his case gone to trial. Northern Trains' formulation of the Section 5(1) charge in his case and inclusion of the PFN as an exhibit to the witness statement lodged as supporting evidence appears, in the light of similar cases reported on this board, to be representative of the way it has presented such cases. This raises the possibility that a good defence to the charge may have been available in a large proportion of the Section 5(1) prosecutions wrongly instituted by means of the SJP.

That prompts the question of how many of the 74,000-odd cases under the spotlight actually arose in circumstances similar to those in @KirkstallOne's. Since the Single Justice Procedure involves postal service of originating process on the defendant, it is necessary for the prosecutor to have such defendant's name and address. Whilst there may have been a few cases in which name and address was not given in accordance with Section 5(1) and Northern Trains consequently had to track the offender down, there seems to be an overwhelming likelihood that Northern Trains were able to post charges and SJPNs to the vast majority of their recipients precisely because the required names and addresses were already to hand, probably because they were given at the time a PFN was issued to the defendants concerned.

I would prefer not to trigger again a discussion of the kind that took place in this thread about whether a Section 5(1) offence can be committed notwithstanding that the passenger gave his name and address. However, it is worth pointing out that if Northern Trains nonetheless thought such an offence had been committed then (a) you would have expected the company to have included the “or give the officer or servant his name and address” element of the subsection when specifying the charge, (b) you would wonder why the company had left the penalty fare in place rather than moving immediately to prosecution of the Section 5(1) offence and (c) you would expect the “request” element of Section 5(1) to have been satisfied by an indication from the official concerned that he required the passenger's name and address so that a penalty fare might be issued.

If, then, a large proportion of the alleged Section 5(1) offences wrongly prosecuted by means of the SJP involved defendants who had a defence by virtue of having given their name and address upon request, you are bound to wonder why Northern Trains (and, possibly, other TOCs) with knowledge of that defence's availability chose to omit the “or give the officer or servant his name and address” element of the subsection from the charge. For me, that omission calls to mind the maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi”: omission of a relevant part of Section 5(1)'s wording is apt to mislead the uninformed as to its true scope and conceal the potential availability of a defence. If that is what lay behind Northern Trains' failure to cite Section 5(1) in full in the charges it brought by means of the SJP, it was a thoroughly reprehensible practice on the part of a prosecutor that puts a question mark against its fitness to act as such.

I'm not convinced that this is what the website is trying to say (and this is before getting on to whether a government website is a statement of the law). I suspect that what it means is that if you have a gripe about Les Bloggs JP, an email to the Chief Magistrate asking the CM to sack Mx Bloggs won't have any effect.

Happy to concede that this may well be the intention that underlies that web page. Nonetheless, so far as I am aware the Chief Magistrate possesses no greater power than any other magistrate to override a fellow magistrate's decision, and if he did enjoy any such additional power then I would have thought this would have been made apparent on the government web page under discussion.

 

[some bloke]

The six cases dealt with in August were all 'live' cases yet to be subject to final adjudication

Apart from Sarah Cook's (unless the settlement was not followed by a withdrawal/offering no evidence)?

Ms Cook was convicted without her knowledge and fined £475. The £4 is the settlement after she had the case reopened.

This raises the possibility that a good defence to the charge may have been available in a large proportion of the Section 5(1) prosecutions wrongly instituted by means of the SJP.

Yes, and people including in the media should be wary of assuming that just because someone pled guilty to a (misleading) charge, they must have been guilty of an offence.

Perhaps we might also say, even before considering who may have had complete defences, that the Statements of Facts failed to set out proper grounds in the first place for believing that the offence had been committed?

I don't think there's a need to speculate that any company may have deliberately misrepresented s5(1), especially given that it's similarly misrepresented in the Sentencing Guidelines and the Chief Magistrate's judgment.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Apart from Sarah Cook's (unless the settlement was not followed by a withdrawal/offering no evidence)?

Some of the cases had been reopened by statutory declaration and hence were live cases again. Sarah Cook's was one of these. She agreed the £4 settlement then it got yanked out of the provincial courts and sent to Westminster.

I don't think there's a need to speculate that any company may have deliberately misrepresented s5(1), especially given that it's similarly misrepresented in the Sentencing Guidelines and the Chief Magistrate's judgment.

I disagree, there are obvious questions that should be answered by whoever was involved in drawing up these policies, particular whatever changes were made when the 2018 penalty fares act came in.

 

[some bloke]

there are obvious questions that should be answered by whoever was involved in drawing up these policies

Yes - are we agreed that the error in the guidelines and the judgment probably makes it harder to demonstrate deliberate misrepresentation?

 

[KirkstallOne]

Yes - are we agreed that the error in the guidelines and the judgment probably makes it harder to demonstrate deliberate misrepresentation?

It is certainly not making it easier. Although I will repeat the various wordings since they are under discussion:

the sentencing guidelines clearly aren't helpful, but we can compare the wording of this charge in different places:

Northern charge sheet - "failed, on request by an officer or servant of the railway company, to produce and deliver up a ticket showing that your fare was paid or to pay the fare. Contrary to S.5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889."

Merseyrail charge sheet - "failed to produce a valid ticket. When asked by an officer or servant of the railway company, failed to either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that your fare was paid"

2008 sentencing guidelines - "Failing to produce ticket or pay fare on request"

2017 sentencing guidelines - "s.5(1) (failing to produce ticket)"

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 s.5(1) - "Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address;"

 

[some bloke]

There might be various concerns about the Chief Magistrate's error on s5(1).

not only did the Chief Magistrate not mention this problem in his judgment, but he repeated the error in paragraph 4:


One effect of that error is that it could mislead journalists and the public, some of whom may be directly concerned - they have been wrongly convicted and now the CM is in effect again misleading them that they were guilty. It was clear that the existence of this judgment would be widely reported.

The Chief Magistrate wrote in paragraph 4,

"Section .5(1), ‘fail to produce a ticket for inspection’..."

 

[John Palmer]

It's also worth quoting from Northern's 19 April 2024 letter to @KirkstallOne following withdrawal of the charge he faced:

“Travelling on a train without a valid ticket, including on Northern's services, is an offence under both Section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and under the Railway Byelaws.” (https://www.railforums.co.uk/attachments/northern-complaint-response-2024-04-20-redacted-png.156765/)

Make no mistake, throughout @KirkstallOne's case Northern Trains had remained wedded to the flawed notion that Section 5(1) created an offence on the basis quoted. It is a grossly oversimplified exposition of the offence created by Section 5(1) that becomes hard to sustain once the full terms of the subsection are made apparent – for example in the specification of a charge.

Whilst you might hope for better comprehension of the subsection from the Chief Magistrate and those, presumably professional lawyers, who drew up the Sentencing Guidelines, they are unlikely to have been as intimately acquainted with its nuances as the TOCs for whom Section 5 RoRA forms a central part of their revenue protection toolkit. I find it hard to understand how a company having detailed knowledge of the subsection might have thought it could justify the proposition I have quoted above from its letter.

 

[Taunton]

There's a lot of "lawyers dancing on the head of a pin" in the comments above, but a key issue is the regulations, the rules, and indeed the punishments all seem to envisage, and were doubtless drawn up in, the days of staffed ticket offices to buy tickets, staffed ticked barriers at both ends, to check you had a valid one to go in, the railway fare from x to y just being £n, and such like. What has happened since is the railway has moved on, done away with most of these personnel, introduced the most extraordinary complexity to ticket validity, bought machines from 101 different suppliers with 101 (if not 202) different interfaces, and so on. But they still seek to use the traditional legal framework against anyone without the "right" ticket, to the extent as seen recently of taking to court someone with a ticket for the journey visibly printed as "Anytime" for using it at the wrong time.

We may notice that airlines have likewise moved on to modern self-service methods of ticket purchase and validity, but have no issues at all arising from air passengers found mid-flight with the wrong or no ticket.

 

[melevittfl]

We may notice that airlines have likewise moved on to modern self-service methods of ticket purchase and validity, but have no issues at all arising from air passengers found mid-flight with the wrong or no ticket.

Indeed. Airlines don’t like people split ticketing or buying a cheaper return ticket, but only travelling one way.

The difference is airlines don’t have laws available to prosecute people for it. So the best they can do is refuse service in the future.

The whole concept of a for-profit company having the power to bring criminal proceedings against their own customers is abhorrent, unjust, and inherently corrupt.

Just like in the Post Office cases, greed will lead to deception.