What is the Single Justice Procedure?
The Single Justice Procedure (‘SJP’) is a method of dealing with more minor criminal matters in a manner intended by HM Government to ensure expediency, rigour, fairness and transparency. SJP was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and is a system whereby a prosecutor has the power to review the facts of low-level criminal matters and recommend that they are dealt with by the scheme, as opposed to the traditional process whereby the matter is listed and a hearing takes place.
The type of offences dealt with by this scheme vary, from minor road traffic offences (speeding tickets, for example) to fare evasion and TV licence evasion. These are offences which inherently do not carry a custodial term of imprisonment and often do not involve complex points of law that require hashing out in open court.
HM Government at the time intended to remedy the overcrowded magistrates’ court case list by introducing this system to ‘sort the wheat from the chaff’ in terms of which cases actually required a physical hearing attended by multiple legal professionals, and which cases were simple enough to have been dealt with without, otherwise known as ‘on the papers’. This means, unlike with a usual magistrates’ court hearing, the matter is dealt with behind closed doors without a prosecution or defence representative present. This means that SJP cases are often more efficient in terms of duration and cost, requiring fewer individuals to be present to make progress.
Once a charge is authorised by a prosecuting body, the Defendant is issued with a Single Justice Procedure Notice (‘SJPN’). They are then required to read and consider the charge(s) pursued, including a summary of the evidence supporting those charges. They must return a form detailing whether they wish to plead Guilty or Not Guilty to some or all of the charges, usually within 21 days. Failure to do so results in a case being adjudicated without any say from the Defendant as to whether they accept the charge(s), or whether there are any important mitigating features which the tribunal must consider.
This process is dealt with almost entirely by post, with a Defendant pleading Guilty often receiving notification of the sentence passed by post, too. Should a Defendant seek to notify the court of circumstances which might explain the reasoning behind an offence, they can do so by writing in a prescribed box on the form, or appending further written material.
A Defendant can also request that a hearing is held in relation to their case. The court should, as a result, list the matter for the Defendant to attend and formally enter pleas in the traditional manner. In the majority of SJP cases, however, the matter is then handed to a single magistrate, sitting with a legal professional to advise them, for a decision based on the prosecution evidence and the Defendant’s response and chosen plea.
Avoiding court listings in these cases has the obvious benefit of preventing a defendant from being dragged to court, reducing prosecutor’s lists and avoiding precious court time being spent on the most low level offences. This naturally saves on costs and frees up already crowded court lists. The question remains, however, as to how rigorous, fair and transparent this procedure really is.
It is undeniable that the SJP is cutting down on case backlogs in the lower courts, given that Government statistics show 535,000 cases were dealt with by this process in 2020 alone. These are all cases which would otherwise have required a hearing in order to progress or conclude them, occupying precious time and real estate within the already struggling and under-funded court system.
Meanwhile, the Magistrates’ Association (representing over 12,000 magistrates in England and Wales) estimated in March this year that the courts deal with around 40,000 SJP cases per month . Amongst these prosecutions are those brought by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, but also government bodies such as the DVLA and TV Licensing Authority.
The question is, however, whether the Defendants in receipt of these notices understand the gravity of what they are doing when responding. Do they, for example, appreciate that some charges will lead to a criminal record? An endorsement of their driving licence, and potential increase in insurance premiums as a result? Do they understand the procedure in general, and are they properly considering the evidence against them? Recent reports lead one to assume that things are going gravely wrong somewhere.
Rigorous, Fair and Transparent vs. Slap-dash, Unjust and Obscure
The government intends for SJP to deal with cases rigorously, fairly and transparently. It may come as a shock, therefore, to find that some SJP decisions have led to unconscionable and reprehensible outcomes. Recently, a pensioner from Portsmouth received a criminal record for failing to pay £20 worth of unpaid car tax, at a time his eyesight was deteriorating, and his wife was dying of cancer.
Is it fair that a Shropshire man dealing with palliative-stage COPD has received a criminal record for failing to insure a van he had not been well enough to drive for years ? Is there ‘rigour’ in procedures where defendants who plead guilty, and subsequently set out that they unwittingly have a defence, have that information ignored by prosecutors and tribunals and instead are given a criminal record? Rigour would surely dictate that the courts stay proceedings in order for the defendant to come to court and explain themselves. Instead, cases are being forced through as guilty pleas regardless of the logic behind those pleas.
Earlier this year, I attended a hearing at a South London Magistrates’ Court. In front of my client’s matter in the list was an elderly, frail Defendant who had travelled to court that morning to request that the magistrates re-open a decision which had been made following the return of his SJPN. He was accused of dodging payment of a TV licence and had written to the court on numerous occasions to have his case heard at a contested hearing. It became apparent during those proceedings that the court had erroneously recorded his Not Guilty plea as one of Guilty and had then failed to respond to his panicked requests for reconsideration for numerous months thereafter. One wonders, in cases such as these which happen more often than initially thought, whether the process in its current state is rigorous enough.
Is transparency afforded to the public in cases where public interest arguments are disregarded, and cases are again dealt with just because a box has been ticked? It does not seem that the current system is upholding the tenets upon which it was based, nor delivering on the aims set out by legislators. It could also, perhaps most concerning of all, suggest that prosecutors in these cases are not observing their legal obligations in disregarding the various public interest arguments surrounding some of these cases.
Conclusion
Amongst renewed calls for the SJP mechanism to be looked at again, it is glaringly obvious as each day passes and new cases break headlines, that the process is not fit for purpose. It is apparent that legislators must undertake an urgent, immediate overhaul of the entire SJP system before countless other members of the public fall victim to injustices which, in some cases, could have disastrous effects.
A solution? Incorporate more humanity in the process. Whilst it will cost money to implement, dedicated teams trained in the SJP and the criminal law need to be deployed to review the contents of these documents and verify whether they should proceed, or whether further information and clarification ought to be sought. This scrutiny should apply equally to those laying the charges, and those being charged. Are charges justified? Does the evidence support the prosecution case to such a degree that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction? Has the defendant pleaded guilty on cogent grounds? These are all questions which are asked in any other case where a criminal record could be imposed, and it is beggars’ belief that the same is not afforded to the Single Justice Procedure. Indeed, it may be that the initial outlay in expenditure is remedied by the avoidance of inevitable hearings where cases must be re-opened and heard a second time to correct mistakes.
One cannot help but take the view that the reasons behind the beleaguered SJP are exacerbated by the incumbent, and countless previous governments’, lack of attention to the criminal justice system as a whole. These cases are perhaps examples of the ‘writing on the wall’ to the public, showcasing an under-funded, forgotten criminal justice system.
The very individuals adjudicating these cases seem to agree, with the Magistrates’ Association this year calling for increased transparency and a more accountable mechanism for dealing with these cases to be implemented. Amongst their recommendations, they seek the introduction of training setting out the power for a tribunal to return a case to the prosecutor for reconsideration where they feel something has been missed, simplified paperwork for defendants to complete to ensure the procedure and its implications are properly understood, and for SJP sittings to be attended by a journalist to ensure accountability and transparency in line with the usual standards of criminal proceedings.
Criminal law reform, especially concerning the question of increased investment and funding, has never been a vote winner. It begs the question – if each government prioritises populism over making tough decisions, where will our justice system be in a year? 5 years? One must ask how much longer this can go on, before total collapse. Some say the collapse has already begun. Indeed, the government appears to take an approach of ‘high number of cases dealt with = high number of criminals brought to justice’, but the reality is that the system has evidently become so undermined that those numbers are no longer a measure of success.
Legal disclaimer: Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein is accurate at the date of publication but please note that the law is ever changing and evolving. If you require advice in relation to any matter raised in this article please contact a member of the team.