A woman fined in Newcastle for failing to justify being at a railway station during the Covid-19 lockdown has been arrested again in Scotland.
Marie Dinou, 41, was the first person arrested and fined on the railways under Covid-19 rules introduced a month ago.
It later emerged that she had been wrongly charged and the conviction and £660 fine would be set aside.
However, she was arrested again after arriving in the Tayside area, nearly 300 miles from her York home, earlier this week.
She spent Wednesday night in custody in Dundee and at one point stripped off to stage a naked protest about her treatment by the police.
Dinou had been scheduled to appear at Dundee Sheriff Court yesterday but was given a fiscal’s release and faced no further sanction.
On March 28 she was found loitering between platforms at Newcastle Central Station. Police tried to establish why she needed to travel but Dinou refused to explain what she was doing and was arrested.
Coronavirus: Woman fined £660 for breaching lockdown by ‘loitering between train platforms’
Dinou appeared at North Tyneside Magistrates’ Court on March 30 and was fined £660 for failing to comply with requirements imposed under the Coronavirus Act 2020.
However, British Transport Police subsequently admitted she had been wrongly charged under the emergency legislation.
A police and Crown Prosecution Service review said she was wrongly charged and the court has been asked to set the conviction aside.
British Transport Police Deputy Chief Constable Adrian Hanstock said: “We fully accept that this shouldn’t have happened and we apologise.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: “The procurator fiscal received a report relating to a 41-year-old woman and an incident said to have occurred in Dundee on 29 April.
“After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the available admissible evidence, the procurator fiscal decided that there should be no proceedings taken at this time.
“The Crown reserves the right to proceed in the future should further evidence become available.”
