THE AUGEAN STABLES OF JUSTICE

 

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose,"

"What goes around comes around"

"Same soup, just a different ladle."

Three common adages to which, the longer one lives, the more often one can relate.  With regard to revolving doors scandals  the relationship becomes narrower.  Refine that narrow connection to those where separate legal scandals collide and we have what can be termed a confluence of scandals.  

This commentary on this site [earlier posts can be found at  https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/ ] began in 2013 and it is a post from 16th August that year which is regularly the most visited post apart from whatever happens to be the current offering and which readers might visit to appreciate the nature of this long standing complicity by HMCTS in what was, is and possibly will continue to be a carbuncle on the face of British justice. Thirteen years is quite a long time for any topic to be a reference for present day problems or questions.  That problem was a situation I encountered in my first few weeks on the bench.  Those posts within 16/08/2013 apparently have not changed the substance of this scandal; namely the rights of consumers versus the rights of utility companies to force fit pre payment energy meters.   

I, and some of my then colleagues and a sympathetic legal advisor,  did our best within the very narrow limits available to bring this injustice to higher levels with the system.  We failed except when I was active I made it known to the Deputy Justices Clerk that I would insist in processing at an "applications court" in the manner that I and my colleagues thought appropriate.   The Magistrates Association for ever loyally toadying to government was useless and disinterested.  It would appear by all accounts that since my retirement procedures that a few of my colleagues and I tried to expose and eradicate  were allowed to continue unchanged. 

It takes two (scandals) to tango ( conflu).  I objected to the second activity before it became a "procedure" and retired before that "procedure" became the norm; namely The Single Justice Procedure of which many posts have been made over the last decade.  As I understand it there is no compulsion for magistrates to sit within the SJP.  The legislation (the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015) simply creates the power for a single magistrate to hear cases in this way; it does not direct which magistrates must do so. In practice, SJP sittings are allocated by local bench/HMCTS scheduling and magistrates are rostered on to them much as they are rostered on to any other sitting. Whether a JP can easily decline is a matter of local practice rather than statutory right but there is no compulsion in law.  The MA has itself recommended that to sit alone on SJP cases magistrates should have passed their threshold appraisal and sat for one additional year in the adult criminal court  implying that currently there is no such formal gate and magistrates can effectively be put on SJP sittings without that experience.  Between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2023 over 3.1 million criminal cases including applications to force fit utility meters were received into what is now termed The Single Justice Service. 

This second scandal has been deliberately engineered by HMCTS in a feeble attempt to speed up the reduction of a backlog existing before Covid but essentially magistrates courts were not in crisis before Covid: 290,000 outstanding cases. That backlog was large but stable unlike the present position. The crisis came after March 2020 when the pandemic drove outstanding cases sharply upward from that already substantial base.

Once again as with the current debate over judge only trials allied with the recent spate of perverse verdicts an astute observer must question the ultimate purpose of the SJS.  It`s  difficult to believe it`s justice driven.  With no official figures it functions within a system for magistrates who feel that once in the club they must obey the rules. 

In 2024 The Magistrates' Association carried out a snapshot survey.  The findings were striking. The MA found that many of its members were uncomfortable with the SJP process as it currently works and a significant proportion felt they did not always get as much time as they needed to properly consider each case. The MA also found that although training on the SJS was available members felt that it was largely focused on how to use the system and did not emphasise that the SJP was a judicial process in which magistrates could exercise their discretion as they do with cases heard in court. That second point is particularly telling; JPs were feeling the procedure was stripping them of the judicial identity that was central to why they volunteered in the first place. It was significant that the MA Chairman commented of the SJS that the principle was sound but the concession was plain: magistrates should not be put under any pressure "to complete a certain number of SJP cases within a certain amount of time"  ironic in the face of the evidence that that was exactly why the SJS was originally formulated. 

JPs joined the magistracy to sit in open court, weigh evidence, exercise judgment visibly and be part of a community of justice. The SJS asks them instead to work through paper files, often rapidly, in private and  crucially  without the bench colleagues they would normally deliberate with. Because magistrates sit alone on SJS work rather than as a bench of three the MA believes there is a case to extend further training to ensure that magistrates have more experience and confidence for this work and has recommended that two magistrates sit together initially so there are opportunities for observation and collaboration before undertaking the work alone. 

 A significant portion of the magistracy finds it uncomfortable, under resourced in terms of time and training and at odds with why they chose the role. "Rubber stamp" anxiety, the fear of becoming a processing function rather than a judicial one, seems to be an underlying theme of magistrates` opinions. 

And now there is public awareness of another legal failing associated with SJS.  First it was the non payers of the BBC License and now  hitting the financially disadvantaged members of our society  with debts on their gas and/or electricity meters.  

Since the beginning of this century 15 MPs have held the post of Lord Chancellor with 9 different people having held the post since 2015 alone. Is it any wonder that the so called justice system is in disarray? From complete incompetents such as Chris Grayling (September 2012 to May 2015) to incumbent David Lammy who assumed office 5 September 2025 and whose brown tongue is his helping hand, management and philosophy seem be run by the Treasury and sycophants with their eyes on higher office.



The history of legal scandals colliding in this country is quite outstanding: when one disappears below the public horizon another appears within months.


Post Office scandal + Infected blood scandal


Chris Pincher scandal + Partygate scandal


Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 cases + West Midlands Serious Crime Squad scandal


Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal + Operation Midland


Hillsborough Disaster cover up + Orgreave Dispute allegations


Cash for honours scandal + MPs` expenses scandal


One of the strongest examples:
Post Office scandal colliding with wider disclosure failures in criminal justice.


Strictly by overlap in active public controversy:
Operation Midland + Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal strongly overlapped during 2014–2016.



These are just a few but the pattern of failings is undeniable. The Augean stables of justice need a Hercules. In our current economic and foreseeable political situation the second coming is more likely.