The Single Justice Procedure

In the case of certain non-imprisonable summary offences a procedure exists that allows a single Magistrate to deal with a case based on documentary evidence alone.

This is known as the Single Justice Procedure (SJP).

The way this works, in much abridged and simplified terms, is that the prosecutor sends the adult defendant a written copy of the charge, the relevant documentary evidence (e.g. statements) and a Single Justice Procedure Notice.

The Notice invites them to take one of the following options:

• Admit the offence and let a single Magistrate deal with the matter;
• Admit the offence, but appear in person before the court;
• Deny the offence, in which case a full hearing will be listed to determine the matter.

The Notice should be completed and returned within 21 days. If it is not, the case will proceed with a single Magistrate and, barring some error on the part of the prosecution, the defendant would normally be convicted on the basis of the prosecution evidence alone.

It is in the defendant's interests to respond, because it allows them to put forward any mitigation and set out their financial circumstances. If they do not respond, the court will assume they are in employment and any fine will be levelled accordingly.

If a defendant is convicted and it transpires that they did not receive the necessary paperwork, the option remains for them to make a Statutory Declaration and apply for the case to be reopened.

If the Magistrate dealing with an SJP case notices something that suggests a full hearing would be more appropriate, they can refer the case for a full hearing.

This might happen if the defendant has offered some sort of defence in the box intended for their mitigation. Occasionally a defendant might make an equivocal plea - e.g. "I can't remember driving the car, but I want to get this sorted" - in which case a full hearing would also be appropriate.

The idea of the SJP is to free up court time and resources. Every case is still carefully read and considered. It is not some sort of rubber-stamping exercise. In my last SJP session I dealt with about twenty DVLA prosecutions for vehicle excise licence offences. None of the defendants had responded, so the only evidence to consider was that from the DVLA. Even so, I dismissed two of those cases because the DVLA statement didn't prove the offence to my satisfaction.

On my bench a system existed where Magistrates had to opt-in for SJP work. With the current backlog of work, what tends to happen now is that the Legal Advisor might fire up some SJP cases if there is a lull in the normal business of the court. If there is a bench of three, two might nip out for half an hour while the third deals with some SJP cases. Similarly, if there is an early finish one of us might volunteer to stop at the courthouse for an extra hour to deal with some SJP cases.