In Govia Thameslink Railway v Charles Brohiri, Charles Brohiri, 29, from Hatfield, pleaded guilty to 76 offences, having been convicted in his absence of 36 offences at an earlier hearing.
However, his lawyer sought to have the 36 convictions overturned on the basis the proceedings commenced by a lay prosecutor were invalid and in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. Brohiri’s lawyer cited Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), which held litigation can only be conducted by an authorised person, such as a solicitor.
The prosecution countered that Mazur was not relevant because the proceedings were commenced by an employee of Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) who was ‘an exempt person’ under the Act. They contended the Criminal Procedure Rules ‘had allowed for some time’ for a non-legally qualified person to apply to issue a summons and, further, that it ‘was not the intention of Parliament’ that such a breach would invalidate proceedings.
Ruling in favour of GTR last week, District Judge Tempia held that a lay prosecutor is an exempt person and can commence proceedings, therefore Mazur had no relevance to the case.
DJ Tempia said: ‘I agree with the prosecution’s analysis that it was not Parliament’s intention and I agree that it was GTR’s understanding that those individuals addressing the court were permitted to do so because of the long-standing practice in the magistrates’ court allowing them to conduct advocacy... Here, the conduct of rights of audience has been available after years of appearing in the magistrates’ court without a formal application being made every time and it appears to me that the court has granted rights of audience through practice and convention.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7bf1005b_1)
