Charles Brohiri, a 28-year-old homeless man with a string of previous convictions, has become the unlikely face of a legal storm that could shake Britain’s entire approach to prosecuting fare evasion. On August 20, 2025, Brohiri shuffled into Westminster Magistrates’ Court, facing a staggering 113 counts of travelling on a railway without paying. But what began as a routine sentencing for one of the country’s most prolific fare-dodgers quickly spiraled into a test case that could upend thousands of similar prosecutions.
Brohiri’s story reads like something out of a Dickens novel—except the trains are modern, the sums are eye-watering, and the legal questions are very much of the moment. According to Metro, Brohiri racked up over £30,000 in penalty fares after being caught 113 times by Govia Thameslink ticket inspectors. Despite bail conditions imposed in April that banned him from entering any Thameslink station, prosecutors told the court he had been caught fare dodging 30 more times since then, with the most recent offense occurring just two days before his latest court appearance.
“It’s only right we make the court aware that since that case, there have been 30 further offences. The first was on May 9 and the most recent was two days ago on Aug 18. That is also set in the context of putting aside 83 further offences,” said barrister Alistair Richardson, representing Thameslink, as reported by The Telegraph. Brohiri, who has seven previous convictions for similar offenses, did not speak during the hearing aside from confirming his email address and that he is of no fixed abode.
Yet, the case is no longer just about one man’s repeated fare dodging. Instead, it’s about whether the railway’s long-standing practice of using non-legally qualified staff—so-called "lay prosecutors"—to bring fare evasion cases before the courts is lawful. The Department for Transport (DfT) recently sounded the alarm, warning train companies that only qualified lawyers, such as solicitors and barristers, are allowed to conduct criminal prosecutions. For decades, however, train fare evasion prosecutions have routinely been brought by lay prosecutors, a practice now under intense scrutiny.
In a letter sent earlier this summer, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander wrote to train operators, “We would not expect you to use lay prosecutors to present cases in court and carry out other regulated legal activities until you are confident that it is lawful to do so, having taken advice as appropriate.” The warning was clear: letting non-lawyers act as prosecutors in court cases with passengers accused of not buying the correct ticket could be a criminal offense.
According to BBC News, District Judge John Zani, presiding over Brohiri’s case, ordered a full inquiry into whether the proceedings against Brohiri began with a lay prosecutor and whether they were valid. “There needs to be an inquiry here,” Judge Zani stated, explaining that the court would have to rule on whether Brohiri’s convictions were lawfully obtained. Only then, he said, could the court proceed with sentencing. The judge acknowledged the complexity, saying the court “has to battle with these arguments” as the review continues.
The implications could be vast. If Brohiri’s challenge is successful, it may open the floodgates for other accused fare-dodgers to argue their convictions were also unlawfully obtained. As The Telegraph notes, this test case could determine whether thousands of others have their convictions for fare evasion wiped clean—potentially costing rail companies millions and throwing their prosecution strategies into chaos.
Meanwhile, Brohiri’s own fate hangs in the balance. Despite Thameslink’s request that he be remanded in custody (given his repeated breaches of bail conditions), Judge Zani declined, granting him bail but tightening the restrictions. Brohiri is now explicitly banned from accessing any train owned or operated by Govia Thameslink. “It’s very important you take these bail conditions seriously,” Judge Zani warned him. “You don’t get on any train without having the money.”
Brohiri’s legal team is challenging his convictions on the grounds that Gareth Ring, the previous prosecutor in charge of his case, was a lay prosecutor rather than a qualified lawyer. This argument, if accepted, could undermine not just Brohiri’s convictions but also a significant portion of the rail industry’s fare evasion prosecutions. The court has adjourned sentencing until December 16, 2025, to allow for legal arguments on this critical issue.
The stakes for the rail industry are high. Fare evasion remains a persistent and costly problem, with the Rail Delivery Group estimating losses between £350 million and £400 million annually. “Fare evasion remains a significant challenge for the industry, costing the railway between £350-400m each year. That’s money that can’t be used to improve services, which increases the burden on customers and taxpayers,” a spokesperson for the Rail Delivery Group told The Telegraph. The group emphasized that all train operators “take their legal responsibilities very seriously, and make sure they always act fairly towards customers.” In light of new legal advice, train companies are reviewing their prosecution processes to ensure compliance with the law and fairness to passengers.
Govia Thameslink, the operator at the center of Brohiri’s case, declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings. A spokesperson told BBC News, “These are matters before the court and GTR does not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”
The Department for Transport’s intervention has cast a spotlight on the broader issue of how train companies pursue fare evaders and prosecute passengers who may have made honest mistakes. The practice of using lay prosecutors has been common across the industry, but the recent legal warning has prompted a reevaluation. As the DfT made clear last week, train companies must ensure that only qualified lawyers handle criminal prosecutions, or risk breaking the law themselves.
For Brohiri, the coming months will be pivotal. He is scheduled to return to Westminster Magistrates’ Court on December 16, 2025, when the court will hear from lawyers on whether his convictions were lawfully obtained. Until then, he remains out on bail, barred from the trains that have landed him in so much trouble, and at the center of a legal drama that could reshape how the UK’s railways tackle fare evasion for years to come.
As the legal wrangling continues, the case is being watched closely by both rail operators and passenger advocacy groups. The outcome could determine not only Brohiri’s fate, but also the fate of countless others prosecuted under similar circumstances. With millions of pounds—and the integrity of the railways’ prosecution system—at stake, all eyes will be on Westminster this December.
