Single Justice Procedure: Urgent Clarification Needed

I have previously mentioned growing media interest at perceived unfairness in the Single Justice Procedure (SJP).

The SJP is used to deal with uncontested, non-imprisonable, summary offences - things like TV licence evasion, speeding, fare dodging and the like. You can read how the SJP works in a previous article.

The main problem identified is that the prosecutor may not have viewed a defendant's full mitigation at the time of the decision to prosecute via the SJP. This is because mitigation is sent to the court, not the prosecutor. If the prosecutor were able to see a defendant's full migitation prior to commencement of the SJP process, they might decide there is no public interest in pursuing the prosecution. 

SJP is back in the news today, with a recent Government response to a House of Lords question on the matter.

Liberal Democrat life peer Baroness Randerson asked the Government:

"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to review the processes of the single justice procedure as used by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; and whether such organisations using this procedure are obliged to take into account all evidence submitted in mitigation before proceeding with an individual case."

Lord Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, replied:

"The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) is used by a number of approved prosecutors, including the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). It is a more proportionate way of dealing with straightforward, uncontested, summary-only non-imprisonable offences. The prosecuting body cannot choose this route for any case which falls outside of these criteria. SJP also cannot be used in cases where a defendant pleads not guilty.

"If entering a guilty plea online or submitting by post, defendants have the option to enter mitigating circumstances alongside their plea, to be considered by the magistrate dealing with their case. Guilty pleas and any entered mitigation are available on the system for the prosecutor to review as soon as the plea is received online or scanned into the system if received by post, however, prosecutors are not required to view this. For any case in the magistrates' court, there is currently no system functionality to refer all guilty plea cases to the prosecutor before it is referred to a magistrate and there is no legal requirement to do so. This means that, in practice, prosecutors may not see the mitigation.

"Prosecutorial review of mitigation has never been an aspect of the process for dealing with written guilty pleas; it is not specific to SJP. The system that applied before SJP was that the written guilty plea was sent to court and read out in court. The prosecutor would therefore only hear the mitigation if they chose to attend court. Having prosecutors review mitigation has never been an aspect of the process for dealing with written guilty pleas.

"The mitigation provided is considered by the magistrate dealing with the case, who is supported by a legal adviser. The mitigation provided sometimes suggests that the prosecution may not be in the public interest; a magistrate can then adjourn the case and ask the prosecutor to review the mitigation provided. Whether the case is referred to the prosecutor to review is a judicial decision. The mitigation provided by defendants is considered by magistrates in the same manner whether the case goes through SJP or is held in open court.

"At present, the Government has no plans to amend the SJP process."

I'm not going to comment too much on this, for fear of sounding like a stuck record.

However, I would make the following points:

• When previously questioning the public interest, I have been told quite firmly that it is not my or the court's job to be determining which prosecutions are/are not in the public interest. That is a matter for the prosecutor. If the prosecutor considers it appropriate to pursue the least worthy of prosecutions, then as long as the offence is made out the defendant should be convicted. Over the years I have heard that message from several Legal Advisors, plus it has been reaffirmed in a conversation with a Senior Legal Manager (Deputy Justices' Clerk in old money).
• The SJP system as it stands gives Magistrates three ways of dealing with each case:
• Either, dismiss it;
• Or, convict and sentence;
• Or, refer for a full hearing.
• There is not an option "refer back to prosecutor for them to reconsider the matter". Referring the matter for a full hearing does not, necessarily, mean the prosecutor is going to reconsider the matter, even if that suggestion is made via a note left on the system.

I certainly would appreciate some official clarification from the powers that be: Is it acceptable for a Magistrate, who identifies there might be a public interest consideration, to adjourn an SJP case for a full hearing and leave a note on the file saying "prosecutor to consider public interest"?

An unequivocal "yes" or "no" answer would be appreciated!