Single Justice Procedure Magistrate Dialled in from Portugal

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) is attracting further criticism today, with the revelation that at least one Magistrate has presided over hearings from their Portuguese home.

You can read my earlier thoughts on the SJP in these articles:

• The Single Justice Procedure (general overview);
• Concern Mounts Over the Fairness of the Single Justice Procedure;
• Single Justice Procedure: Urgent Clarification Needed;
• Magistrates' Association Calls for Improvements to Single Justice Procedure.

The SJP is a streamlined way of dealing with certain non-contested, non-imprisonable summary offences - things like TV licence evasion, rail fare evasion and speeding.

A single Magistrate considers the case on the papers, determines (in the absence of a guilty plea) whether the offence is made out and sentences accordingly. A Legal Advisor oversees the process to ensure the correct procedure is followed.

When the SJP came into being, back in 2015, the Magistrate and Legal Advisor would be working together in the same room. Along came covid-19 and an increased proportion of the court's work, including SJP, was conducted remotely. Remote working came to an end in the second half of 2022. The situation today is that a single Legal Advisor oversees the work of up to three Magistrates in the court building.

The SJP is often criticised for being some sort of rubber-stamping exercise, where some people are prosecuted without even knowing about it. There is also concern that some prosecutions take place in wholly inappropriate circumstances. In recent years journalist Tristan Kirk has done tremendous work highlighting some of the perceived weaknesses in the SJP system. 

I am not a fan of the SJP, but it is part and parcel of being a Magistrate. SJP is here and we need to work with it, although it would be fair to say that it isn't universally popular.

Former Magistrates' Court Legal Advisor Chris John was overseeing an SJP session in July 2024 when he was shocked to learn that Magistrate, Phil Taylor JP, was working remotely from his Portuguese home.

Mr Taylor indicated that the arrangement "had been going on for years", seemingly as some sort of throwback to the pandemic.

Mr John raised concerns about the legality of such an arrangement, which could cast into doubt the outcomes of hundreds of SJP cases. He was later dismissed by HMCTS ostensibly in relation to an unrelated matter, but firmly believes the true reason was for highlighting the unorthodox SJP working practices.

He told an Employment Tribunal: "I was seriously concerned that Mr Taylor must have undertaken thousands of SJP cases whilst being at home in Portugal, yet my employer took no action to either establish the number of cases undertaken or establish how Mr Taylor had ever been allowed to conduct hearings from Portugal."

Mr John's MP, Sir Jeremy Hunt, raised concerns about SJP working practices with Courts Minister Sarah Sackman.

In her reply, Ms Sackman said: "The Senior Presiding Judge's advice to the Judiciary is that Magistrates and Judges should not participate in court proceedings by live link outside the territory of the UK.

"This is because states might object that only its Judges can make judicial decisions in their territory.

"Whilst permission might be sought from a foreign state, this would only be contemplated in the most pressing circumstances and the most serious cases, which would never arise in Magistrates' Courts proceedings."

Referring to the specific case of Mr Taylor working from Portugal, Ms Sackman added: "I am told that there are no grounds to suggest that any case where this member of the judiciary conducted remote hearings from abroad was unlawful and would therefore need to be nullified.

"Court orders are binding unless and until they are overturned on appeal."

Mr John's Employment Tribunal case is ongoing.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Wirral Man Stonewalled Police Over Speeding Offences

A Wirral man ignored more than twenty letters from the police in relation to alleged speeding offences.

Carl Fixter, 40, of Allport Lane, Bromborough, was convicted of fourteen offences of failing to identify the driver of a vehicle.

The offences were proved in his absence at Wrexham Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 13th May 2026.

Failure to identify the driver of a vehicle is an offence under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It has a maximum penalty of a fine at level 3 (£1,000) and 6 penalty points.

Magistrates heard that police had written to Fixter on numerous occasions in relation to speeding offences committed using a vehicle registered in his name.

Despite being legally obliged to identify the driver of the vehicle, Fixter failed to respond to any of the letters.

Shaun-Bartlett Evans, prosecuting on behalf of North Wales Police, told the court that Fixter had effectively been using Allport Lane as a "blag address", having not lived at the property for more than 20 years and having no ability to receive correspondence there.

Given the number of offences, Magistrates decided to sentence in totality.

Fixter was fined £1,320 and ordered to pay £528 surcharge and £260 towards prosecution costs.

He was also disqualified from driving for a period of five years.

That's assuming he gets the message.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

North London Woman Destroyed Wisteria and Hit Neighbour With Crutch

A North London woman destroyed a neighbour's wisteria before hitting her with a crutch.

Atidel Boutari Cook, 50, of Stanhope Gardens, Tottenham, denied offences of criminal damage and assault by beating, but was convicted following an earlier trial at Highbury Magistrates' Court.

She was sentenced by the same court on Wednesday, 6th May 2026.

District Judge Denis Brennan, sentencing, heard that the complainant, Pei Wong, owns the freehold of the property in which both her and Boutari Cook live. Ms Wong lives in an upstairs flat with her husband, Louis Scott, whereas Boutari Cook lives in the ground floor flat directly beneath.

On Wednesday, 17th December 2025 Ms Wong's attention was drawn to outside activity, which she went downstairs to investigate with Mr Scott. Upon opening the door they discovered Boutari Cook cutting back a wisteria plant in the garden and asked her to stop.

Boutari Cook became agitated when she noticed that Ms Wong was recording evidence of the damage using her mobile phone. The 50-year-old, who has mobility problems, became aggressive and used a crutch to strike Ms Wong's head and chest.

At trial Boutari Cook unsuccessfully argued that the front garden, therefore wisteria, belonged to her. The assault was captured in Ms Wong's footage.

Ms Wong told the court that the experience had left her emotionally exhausted, intimidated and feeling trapped in her own home.

DJ Brennan was of the view that Boutari Cook's offences were serious enough to merit the imposition of a community order.

She was made subject to 12-month community order with 15 days' rehabilitation activity requirement.

Boutari Cook was also ordered to pay Ms Wong £500 in compensation.

DJ Brennan also imposed a 5-year restraining order, which prohibits Boutari Cook from all contact with Ms Wong and Mr Scott, save for that in relation to property maintenance or via a solicitor.

Asked if she understood the terms of the order, Boutari Cook, who was unrepresented, replied "absolutely, yep".

Despite that acknowledgement, the nuisance neighbour directed comments towards the couple, who were sat observing in the public gallery.

She said to them: "Happy? I will send it (the compensation) to you all in one go, so you can go on holiday."

DJ Brennan interjected: "I warn you Ms Boutara Cook that that is immediately a breach of the restraining order."

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Abuse of Trust: Staffordshire Teacher Had Sex with Pupil

A Staffordshire teacher had been sentenced for having sex with a schoolgirl more than twenty years ago.

Clark Eastwood, 52, of Cheddleton Park Avenue, Cheddleton, admitted an offence of engaging in sexual activity with a child whilst being in a position of trust when he appeared at North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 3rd February 2026.

He was sentenced by the same court on Tuesday, 28th April 2026.

Engaging in sexual activity with a child whilst being in a position of trust is an offence under section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Eastwood was a teacher at Endon High School, Stoke, when he formed a relationship with the 16-year-old girl.

Christopher Redmond, prosecuting, told the court: "They began talking and meeting up outside of school and in the classrooms. In school they would kiss but nothing further happened at the school."

According to Mr Redmond, rumours of the relationship came to the attention of the Head Teacher at the school, who tried to warn Eastwood off continuing the relationship.

Mr Redmond continued: "Both were spoken to. However, both ignored the warnings and continued seeing each other.

"The first time she had sex with the defendant was about the time of her exams. She remembers the morning after, he took her to the pharmacy so they could buy the morning-after pill."

Paul Kay, mitigating, said: "He was a teacher until 2023 when this matter came to light. He lost his profession. He lost his career as a result of that, even though that had continued for more than twenty years without a stain on his character. It is a tremendous blow. He has felt it very keenly indeed. Sending him to the Crown Court would increase the pressure on him."

Magistrates decided that their powers were sufficient to deal with Eastwood.

He was sentenced to 12 months' custody suspended for 12 months, with the requirement that he completes 120 hours' unpaid work and up to 50 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also ordered to pay £187 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Eastwood was also made subject to the notification requirements of the sex offenders register for a period of 10 years.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.