Hot Topic: Single Justice Service 3:1 (Automated Track Case Management)

This week's hot topic of conversation is the Single Justice Service 3:1 (Automated Track Case Management) system of working, which is coming soon to a court near you.

I've previously written about the SJS system, which will allow a single Magistrate to decide and result cases dealt with via the Single Justice Procedure. The plan is that a single Legal Advisor will oversee the work of up to three Magistrates, hence the 3:1 reference. The Magistrates would undertake the work in a court building, on court issued laptops, with the Legal Advisor being available for consultation elsewhere within the building. Most Magistrates will be familiar with current SJP arrangements, whereby the Legal Advisor results cases on Common Platform. Under the new system a Magistrate will be responsible for resulting their own cases, which removes the opportunity for the Legal Advisor to check their decisions. It is entirely possible that a Magistrate could result 50 cases in a session and not have had any direct oversight by a Legal Advisor.

The new system has been trialled in London and the Midlands and the decision has now been taken to roll it out across England and Wales. The Single Justice Procedure, hence this new system, only applies in the processing of certain non-imprisonable, summary offences. At the moment that pretty much means prosecutions brought by the DVLA, TV Licensing and Transport for London.

In preparation of the new work, Magistrates have been asked to complete online training package via the Judicial College eLearning Portal. I have completed the training and it has to be said that the system seems pretty user intuitive. I do not think colleagues will struggle with the technology. One slight bug is that you need to decide on the level of penalty (discharge or fine) before you can view the defendant's previous convictions. I might be inclined to give a defendant a conditional discharge for TV licence evasion, but might well take a different view if they've been convicted three times previously.

Last week the assembly room at one of my courts was very busy with four benches of Magistrates. The discussion turned to the new SJS system and most colleagues seem to share my concern that there will be less reassuring oversight by the Legal Advisor. One colleague was particularly concerned that they could be held personally responsible if an incorrect decision was resulted (or a decision was resulted incorrectly). They worried about being "publicly named and shamed" in any subsequent appeal. Another was of the view "why should I travel 30 miles to work on a computer in some dingy back office?" - perhaps understandable given that remote search warrant and pre-charge bail applications, which require a similar level of security, are done from the comfort of the Magistrates' own home and on their own computer.

We have been reassured that the new work will only be allocated to willing volunteers. As I've previously mentioned, I do not currently undertake SJP work unless I am sitting in court and there is a lull in the normal business of the day. I will not be jumping to volunteer when the new system comes online.