Okoturo, R (on the application of) v London Tramlink

Passengers using public transport must possess and produce a valid ticket or Oyster card when required during the journey. A later production of evidence that a valid card had been purchased does not, without more, invalidate a penalty fare issued when no valid ticket was produced. In a straightforward penalty-fare dispute, consideration on the papers may be fair and proportionate. The absence of an oral hearing, legal representation, or extensive reasons does not itself establish a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Judicial review will not succeed where the relevant rules were correctly applied and the appeal procedure disclosed no legal unfairness or conflict of interest.

The claimant sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Panel’s decision of 19 September 2011. The panel had dismissed his appeal against a penalty fare issued after he travelled on a Tramlink tram without being able to produce his Oyster card. He had left the card at home and later produced evidence that he had purchased a card valid for the day of travel.

His grounds included the alleged absence of evidence that he intended not to pay, breaches of Article 6 arising from the refusal of an oral hearing and legal representation, inadequate reasons, and an alleged conflict of interest arising from the panel’s Transport for London representative. The issue was whether those matters disclosed any arguable legal basis for challenging the panel’s decision.

1. Permission refused. The application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings was dismissed.
2. The applicable public-transport rules required a passenger to have and produce a valid Oyster card or other ticket while travelling. The claimant had not been able to produce such a ticket when challenged. His later evidence that he had purchased a valid Oyster card did not provide a legal basis for setting aside the penalty fare.
3. The panel’s procedure was fair and proportionate to the issues. It was entitled to determine the appeal on the written material without allowing the claimant to appear in person or through legal representation.
4. The complaints concerning the absence of reasons, the alleged Article 6 breach, and the participation of a Transport for London representative disclosed no arguable legal error or unfair conflict of interest.
5. The claimant’s intention to pay and his actual purchase of an Oyster card did not alter the legal consequence of failing to produce a valid ticket during the journey. The court concluded that there was no reason in law to challenge the panel’s decision.

The judgment describes the underlying administrative process. Tramlink rejected the claimant’s representations on 13 July 2011. A further appeal was dismissed by Tramlink’s Operational Director on 4 August 2011. The Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Panel dismissed the appeal on 19 September 2011. The High Court then dismissed the application for permission to seek judicial review.