Concerns Mount Over the Fairness of the Single Justice Procedure

Concerns are mounting over the fairness of the Single Justice Procedure.

In recent months there has been considerable media criticism of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). Evening Standard courts correspondent, Tristan Kirk, has been at the forefront of exposing what many would perceive as serious, systemic failings with the SJP.

Earlier today, Tristan published another article highlighting how an elderly gentleman with severe dementia, who requires around-the-clock care in a residential nursing home, was prosecuted for inadvertently allowing his motor insurance to lapse, despite not having driven his classic MG for more than two years.

The vehicle was kept in a garage, but it hadn't been SORNed so as far as the DVLA was concerned it was still parked outside in a public place.

The elderly gentleman was sent a Fixed Penalty Notice, but given his situation it understandably went unpaid. The DVLA, as is standard procedure, then commenced prosecution via the SJP.

It makes for uncomfortable reading and I am sure the DVLA would agree that prosecution is entirely inappropriate given the circumstances.

However, the DVLA weren't to know the elderly gentleman's situation, because under current arrangements all SJP pleas and mitigation are sent directly to the court and not to the prosecutor. This deprives the prosecutor of a final opportunity to review the merits of each case based on the mitigation received.

Some readers will be of the opinion "so why didn't the SJP Magistrate query the situation?" Well, it's not really the role of the court to be questioning the public interest in pursuing a prosecution. That is a matter for the prosecutor to determine. Sure, there are ways and means of indicating disapproval if the prosecutor is actually present ("are you sure you wish to proceed Mr Green?"), but for SJP cases the prosecutor is nowhere to be seen.

If the offence is made out, as it presumably was in this instance, then the court convicts and sentences the defendant on the basis of the evidence before it. There is no need to refer a case for a full hearing, unless there is some obvious defect in the prosecution's application or the defendant makes an equivocal plea. Keeping a vehicle without insurance is also a strict liability offence, so the prosecution does not need to prove any intent for the offence to be committed.

I would never dream of criticising the colleagues dealing with these cases. They will be acting in the best of faith, working in accordance with the procedures currently in place.

However, the fact that mitigation is totally bypassing the prosecution in a lot of these cases is a matter of concern.

If we're going to continue with SJP then the system needs a rethink. The prosecutor must have a final opportunity to review and either proceed with or withdraw a case after mitigation has been received.

The Lady Chief Justice, Lady Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, has told the Evening Standard that she will take a closer look at the SJP as it stands.