Setting the Record Straight: Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980

As we have previously discussed, every defendant dealt with by the Magistrates' Court has the absolute right of appeal to the Crown Court.

However, legislation exists that allows the Magistrates' Court to amend its conviction and sentencing decisions of its own volition and without the involvement of the Crown Court.

Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 permits the court to reopen any case it has dealt with for the purposes of rectifying mistakes when it is in the interests of justice to do so.

This legislation allows the court to rescind any conviction it has made or vary any sentence it has imposed.

These powers can not be used in relation to any matter that has been successfully appealed at the Crown Court or before the High Court by way of case stated.

Section 142 also allows the Magistrates' Court to order a rehearing of any reopened case before a different bench of Justices to that which dealt with the matter originally.

This is a very useful piece of legislation, which allows straightforward mistakes to be corrected very quickly and efficiently.

A couple of weeks ago my court had cause to reopen a case under section 142. The defendant, a delivery driver, appeared before the court in relation to an outstanding fine, which he claimed to know nothing about. The fine had been imposed as a result of his conviction, under the Single Justice Procedure, for failing to comply with a traffic sign.

Our Legal Advisor was able to pull up the Single Justice Procedure Notice that had purportedly been returned by the defendant. The completed Notice indicated a guilty plea to be dealt with in his absence. The defendant was completely bemused at this, reiterating that he had never heard anything in relation to the matter.

As the completed Notice was available, we asked the defendant to view the signature and handwriting and confirm if it was his. Opening a whole new, very serious can of worms, the reply came: "It is my name, but that's not my signature or handwriting."

On delving a bit deeper, it transpired that the man had received the Notice several months earlier. English wasn't his first language and he wasn't familiar with legal paperwork, so he passed it to someone else at his place of work to deal with.

Having heard this account the court had no difficulty rescinding the defendant's original conviction and thereby cancelling his fine. The court also listed the case for a full rehearing. There may well be further enquiries in relation to the "helpful" workmate that completed and returned the Notice on the defendant's behalf.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the case of Blue singer Lee Ryan, who had his conviction for assaulting an emergency worker rescinded when he persuaded the court that he had received confusing advice from his solicitor.

District Judge Tan Ikram, the Deputy Senior District Judge, accepted that Ryan had only admitted the offence because he was rushed into doing so, without having viewed the full evidence against him, on the morning of the trial.

DJ Ikram said: "In these circumstances I am in real doubt as to whether it was an informed admission of guilt or a following of instructions."