SECRET REVEALED AND SECRET CONCEALED

I have opined previously that the Single Justice Procedure is [to mix metaphors] a noisy scandal in plain sight.  It is only a matter of time before those decorated with 18th century wigs, supposedly still in use to add some anonymity to the users` identities, prick up their ears  to the cacophony around them.  By its very nature the results are secret and far from the public view. However, at DerbyshireLive,  a report has been published which seems to include the results of a SJP; at least that`s what the preamble suggests.

"Every week at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court the cases of drivers who have broken the law on our roads are dealt with. Their offences are usually decided in their absences and the amount of money they are issued to pay in fines, costs and more can stretch into four figures. The following people have had their misdemeanours recently handled by the justice system". (my bold). 
The full report is available here. 

Recently the Oxford Mail reported that " A prolific cycle thief' has been sentenced for a spate of bike thefts in Oxford."  Quoting from that report; "He was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years. Denton was also given a criminal behaviour order with several conditions to reduce the likelihood of him reoffending."  It seems the assumption is that the suspended jail sentence and a CBO is enough to deter this person from committing further criminal behaviour.  The only caveat is that we, the public, have no idea if this "reduce or do not increase the prison population" policy works.  Do such banning orders do what they say on the tin?  A Freedom of Information request on this subject received the following reply from the Ministry of Justice:- 

"For the last five years for which there is information on all or some of the various banning orders available to magistrates courts:-
1. How many offenders have been subject to each type of such orders?
2. Of those offenders above how many subject to such orders have been subsequently convicted of a criminal offence?

Your request has been handled under the FOIA. I can confirm the MoJ holds all of the information you have requested. However, to provide this as the request currently stands would exceed the cost limit set out in the FOIA. Section 12(1) of the FOIA means a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information. Where section 12 applies to one part of a request we refuse all of the request under the cost limit as advised by the Information Commissioner’s Office. We believe that the cost of locating, retrieving and extracting the requested information by manually checking through all relevant cases would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, we are not obliged to comply with your request."

So the conclusion is that neither police at a local level nor magistrates who are directed to apply such sentences have any idea if they deter offenders from further criminality.  Of course it`s possible that senior police officers and crime commissioners not to mention senior judiciary have not been aware of such statistics. That we never hear so much as whispers on the subject from such high ranking people is uncanny.  Perhaps they have never asked the question because they don`t wish to know the answer which suits the MOJ which doesn`t want to reveal the reality of yet another facet of a broken justice system.