My post today is on a subject upon which I first commented 15th June 2016 and on which my last comment before today was 24th January 2023. The subject is the Single Justice Procedure. The above comments and others can be viewed by writing Single Justice Procedure in search box. The background will assist in realising that from the start this supposed "improvement" in dealing with simple summary matters was misconceived from the outset.
This is a topic which to be fully understood requires perhaps more reading time than a blog post usually demands. Some of the posts revealed by "search" offer viewpoints from a variety of sources. The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 in England and Wales. The procedure was designed to be an accessible, speedy, effective and more efficient means of delivering justice when dealing with the most minor summary offences. Until recently, with very few exceptions, there has been almost no criticism of the process. The body that makes few attempts to truly represent its J.P. members; the Magistrates Association has, by and large, been silent on this issue since its inception. That truly is unsurprising since many of its "guiding lights" see a gong on the horizon as a fitting tribute to toadying to government. It has also helped that persistent posts by Tristan Kirk [@kirkkorner] Courts correspondent for the Evening Standard and Penelope Gibbs [@PenelopeGibbs2] and [@transformjust1] have brought this legal anomaly to a wide audience through X. Belatedly the M.A. have yesterday 25th March issued an opinion which for the sake of simplicity I have copied in full below but the original release is available for those who choose; here.
The Single Justice Procedure—which handles around 40,000 criminal cases every month—needs reform if it is to be seen as fair and transparent, according to the Magistrates’ Association, the organisation that represents over 12,000 magistrates in England and Wales.
The Magistrates’ Association (MA) today published its new position on the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). This reflects hundreds of its members’ insights into hearing SJP cases over the last eight years since it was introduced and responds to recent interest from the media on the SJP’s impact on defendants, especially vulnerable and elderly people. It also includes 12 recommendations to improve the operation, transparency and fairness of the SJP.
The MA found that many of its members are uncomfortable with the SJP process as it currently works, and a significant proportion feel they do not always get as much time as they need to properly consider each case.
Although training on the SJP for magistrates is available, MA members feel that it is largely focused on how to use the system and does not emphasise that the SJP is a judicial process in which magistrates can exercise their discretion, as they do with cases heard in court.
Mark Beattie JP, National Chair of the Magistrates’ Association, said:
“We believe that the principle of the Single Justice Procedure is good. Every year it spares thousands of defendants the ordeal of having to attend court for minor offences, and it allows for more efficient use of court time, which means speedier justice and a focus on more serious offences.
“However, it is not a perfect system. While the vast majority of cases are handled effectively by the SJP, our members—magistrates who decide on SJP cases—have told us about flaws in the way it operates and the harm that this can have on some of society’s most vulnerable people. It is clear to us that reform, as well as additional investment in training and transparency, is needed, to restore public confidence in the Single Justice Procedure.
“This is why we have made a total of 12 recommendations today, to change the Single Justice Procedure and make it fairer, more consistent and more open.”
The Magistrates’ Association’s recommendations include:
Making it a requirement that prosecutors (the agency that is prosecuting someone, for example, TV Licensing or the DVLA) see all pleas and mitigations from defendants before the cases are heard by the magistrate.
Reviewing and improving the training that magistrates receive before they can sit on SJP cases. Training must emphasise the ability of magistrates to use their discretion fully and without reservation, including the ability to refer cases back to the prosecuting authority.
Safeguarding the SJP process so that neither magistrates nor their legal advisors feel any pressure to process cases more quickly than they want to.
The government should make provision for SJP sittings to be observable by accredited journalists.
Boosting transparency by publishing more data on the SJP, such as how many defendants plead guilty, how many make no pleas, and how many ask to come to court, nationally and broken down by region.
Undertaking research on how improvements can be made to the process for the vulnerable, including those with learning difficulties, communication challenges, or who may be less able to engage with the process.
Improving communication, through a review of the paperwork sent to defendants, to make it simpler and easier to understand.
My general comments are that whilst the above points have merit they are too little too late. Over 3 million cases up to 2020 have gone through the procedure; one of the search revealed posts (6th July 2021) has exact numbers 2015-2020. Between 1st April 2019 and 30th September 2023, 3,102,392 criminal cases were received into the Single Justice Service, which includes 609,164 receipts through the reformed digital service. Note the name change; a symptom of the MOJ in its various departments when it wishes to demonstrate "improvement". The Magistrates Association claims that its members have spoken of flaws and where they have been disturbed by outcomes. Yet for years it has been noticeably reticent about making waves where it should have: Petty France. From the above the M.A. has perhaps unwittingly revealed its desire not to upset its governors. Consider, "and it allows for more efficient use of court time, which means speedier justice and a focus on more serious offences." It should not be for magistrates to be considering "use of court time" or "speedier justice". The delivery of Justice alone is what they are appointed for. Managerial concepts are for others since magisterial courts committees were abolished by the MOJ over 20 years ago. The M.A. refers to "training" which it implies could be improved. Part of its remit as a charity is to provide training for magistrates. "reform, as well as additional investment in training and transparency, is needed, to restore public confidence in the Single Justice Procedure."
It should be questioned as to why, by this observation, its members [and nowhere near all J.P.s are members] are lacking in the ability or knowledge to function to a higher required standard. A lack of accountability has been built into the system since its inception. Those law makers and the M.A. should be answerable for the diliteriness in approving the legislation in the first place. It was apparent from the start that the SJP was an affront to open justice. The House of Common debate in which this whole fast forwarding of justice was discussed on 25th March 2014 is available here.
The Magistrates Association is a registered charity governed by the rules of the Charity Commission for England and Wales on the website of which is written,
"ROYAL CHARTER OF 12 NOVEMBER 1962 AS AMENDED 1 JANUARY 1971, 9 DECEMBER 1980, FEBRUARY 1995 AND 9 FEBRUARY 2005.
Charitable objects
THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE ASSOCIATION IS ESTABLISHED AND INCORPORATED ARE TO PROMOTE THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: (A) EDUCATING AND INSTRUCTING MAGISTRATES AND OTHERS IN THE LAW, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS AND THE BEST METHODS OF PREVENTING CRIME; AND (B) ISSUING PUBLICATIONS AND PROMOTING CONFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS ON DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE." {my bold}
It would appear in my humble opinion that the M.A. has failed to live up to its own charitable objects.
Readers will by now, I hope, have enough information from which they can make their own informed opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment