Coronavirus legislation and the single justice procedure

Written submission from the charity Transform Justice

What is the single justice procedure?

The single justice procedure was designed to process low level offences such as non-payment of TV licence, or not having a valid ticket on public transport. All those organisations who prosecute via the Single Justice Procedure are non CPS prosecutors who have a mandate from the government to prosecute offences. The police are one of those non CPS prosecutors.

Someone prosecuted under the SJP is unlikely to know they will be prosecuted this way, let alone have any choice as to the method of prosecution. The police/public transport inspectors/other agents do not consult the accused as to the method. Those prosecuted under the single justice procedure receive their charge in the post. Ordinary post is used so there is no proof of receipt. In response to a PQ, the minister said “the Ministry of Justice does not keep evidence that charges sent by post for Single Justice Procedure offences have been received by the defendant. The Criminal Procedure Rules (Part 4) only require the court to be satisfied of service, and not receipt of the Single Justice Procedure Notices” https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-01-14.137922.h

Those who receive an SJP charge in the post are supposed to read the instructions and respond to the charge either by filling in a postal or an online form. They can theoretically opt to have their case heard in open court but that route is not made easy for defendants to take. The paperwork encourages completion of an online form. The postal charge and plea form is not in the public domain but we would encourage the Committee to obtain a copy.

Defendants are asked for their plea and, if guilty, any mitigation. All postal and online forms and details of cases where no form has been received are reviewed by a magistrate sitting alone with a legal advisor. In the case of those who plead guilty/don’t plead, the magistrate convicts and sentences in a closed court and the defendant receives the judgment in the post. A legal advisor is available to advise where required.

Sentencing

Those who plead guilty, or who do not respond to the charge, are sentenced by the magistrate on the papers. The sentence is nearly always a standard fine and prosecution costs. Defendants who did not respond to the postal charge are assumed to be guilty and receive the maximum (standard) fine since no information is available re income nor any mitigation.

Open court

Those who plead not guilty to an SJP offence will be asked to appear in person for a magistrates’ court open hearing. Open hearings are also used for those defendants who are sentenced in closed court in their absence (without a plea), but say they never received the postal charge. Their cases are reopened and re-heard.

Pleas

It is questionable whether the single justice procedure is compatible with ECHR article 6: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against”. 70% of those who receive an SJP charge in the post do not respond either online or by post. There is no evidence these defendants actually receive the charges in the post. In the case of all those where no plea is entered (including if the post is lost, or the person does not have a stable address), they are convicted in their absence. If they don’t pay the fine, they can be pursued by bailiffs and acquire a criminal record.

SJP and security

Very few identifying factors are requested in the SJP plea forms. If someone intercepted a postal charge for a person whose details they knew (we think just name and address is required), it would be quite straightforward for someone to fraudulently enter a plea.

SJP and disability

There is no mechanism for screening SJP defendants for health and mental health issues (as there is for those who attend police custody/court). Many mental health, cognitive impairment and neuro-diverse conditions are hidden or may be undiagnosed. So many of those accused of offences via SJP may have vulnerabilities or disabilities which impede their ability to understand or deal with the charge. There is phone help available, but such disabilities may cause such stress to defendants who do receive the postal charge (we don’t know how many are actually received) that they cannot even seek phone help.

SJP and accountability

The CPS is inspected by the CPS Inspectorate, but non CPS prosecutors are not subject to the same scrutiny. There has been no scrutiny process of such prosecutors (including the police as SJP prosecutor) by any government body.

SJP and Covid

During the pandemic, magistrates were allowed to work from home in processing SJP cases. They processed the cases on a laptop at home and sought advice from a virtual legal advisor, when needed.

Offences under the Coronavirus Act 2020 were not at first dealt with under the SJP. But from July 2020 people began to be convicted for such offences (Various Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. Breach of emergency period restrictions). A PQ https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-01-26/143756 revealed SJP figures January-September 2020, including 1,084 breach of emergency period restrictions SJP charges. No plea was entered in 88% of such cases. Attached is the excel table released by the Minister and our summary of the data. Given the numerous legal challenges to Coronavirus Act offences and the existing challenges to the fairness and human rights compliance of the SJP, it is concerning that the SJP should have been used for this purpose.

Data

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1owWjhJ4suAF‑hrPEOM4VVT5inXIesk/view?usp=sharing