Disgruntled magistrates issue concern over a system they say is “watering down justice”
(Picture: PA Archive)Disgruntled magistrates are refusing to sit in secretive court hearings over objections to a system they say is “watering down justice”, the Evening Standard has learned.
Hundreds of thousands of people are convicted each year in Single Justice Procedure (SJP) courts, which sit in private across England and Wales with just one magistrate deciding on criminal cases.
The system has attracted criticism since its inception in 2015, over concerns about the impact of behind-closed-doors courts on open justice and fears of mistakes being made in a system dubbed ‘conveyor belt justice’.
Magistrates who harbour principled objections have now spoken out against the secretive courts, saying they refuse to sit on SJP sessions because of the way the system operates.
A veteran magistrate who spoke to the Standard called SJP an “absolutely lousy idea” and said recognition of its “fundamental faults” is spreading among colleagues.
“I have been upfront about it and always said I think it’s unacceptable to deal with cases involving judicial decisions in private”, he said.
“I just decline to sit in these particular courts.
“If I was rota’d for a Single Justice Procedure sitting, I would know about it several weeks in advance. I would just decline it on my rota.
“It’s just a question of saying ‘sorry, I’m not available’, and there’s nothing they can do about it. My senior legal advisor and rota clerk know perfectly well I won’t sit on them – I’ve made that quite clear.”
He said cases should always be dealt with in open court so that journalists or the public could watch on if they wanted to.
Another magistrate said they “didn’t enjoy” the SJP system, and “didn’t volunteer to be a magistrate to sit in front of a computer all day doing what feels like administrative tasks.
“If I’m allocated SJP sittings in my rota I vacate them and pick up court sessions instead.”
In SJP, a single magistrate deals with criminal prosecutions based on written evidence alone, deciding whether to convict defendants and imposing sentence in private rather than in open court. The vast majority of defendants are not legally represented and do not even enter a plea.
Last month, the Standard aired concerns about mistakes in SJP hearings – for driving offences and TV licence breaches – that sometimes last just a matter of seconds. In a series of cases, parents in south London were wrongly convicted via SJP of serious truancy offences.
Another magistrate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he “refuses to sit on SJP courts” that are “wrong on so many levels”.
“You’re left alone to review and make decisions, often you don’t have access to the full file – it’s a shambles.”
He suggested “mistakes are regular” and described a previous three-hour SJP session where he was asked to adjudicate on 80 traffic prosecutions.
“It’s a conveyor belt of cases. How can you review the evidence (and) sentencing guidelines, assess the means form, assess the driving history – in short you can’t”, he said. “It makes me nervous the way they are watering down justice.”
SJP was introduced by David Cameron’s government with a promise it would only be used for minor offences. Despite this, the vast majority of criminal prosecutions for breaches of Covid restrictions were dealt with by SJP.
One magistrate said he fears the closed-door could be expanded in future to cover cases of assault and theft, as courts face enormous pressures to tackle backlogs and delays.
“A huge danger is if it is generally agreed that it is an acceptable way to do things, the next step is it being rolled out to cover much more serious cases”, he said. “When it first started, there was a huge lack of recognition about the reasons it was wrong. It’s gradually penetrated the consciousness.”
He said plans – due from April next year – for defendants to be able to enter pleas behind closed-doors may force him to quit as a magistrate.
“It could be the last straw in saying ‘enough is enough, I’m not playing this game any more’. It completely demeans the whole process.”
The latest reform from the Ministry of Justice is for SJP magistrates to deal with cases without the presence of a qualified legal adviser, then input results on to the court’s database themselves.
One magistrates said they are “horrified” at the idea and suggested the reality of SJP should be prominent in judicial recruitment literature, while another JP expressed “great concerns” and said bluntly: “I didn’t sign up to do data entry.”
The Judicial Office – which oversees magistrates – declined to comment on the concerns. HMCTS said magistrates are always assisted by a legally-trained advisor in a system which “frees up valuable court space and time”.
It is understood magistrates who repeatedly refuse to sit on court sessions may be referred to senior judges and could face misconduct proceedings.
The Magistrates Association said it “welcomes efforts to make the justice system more efficient” but added: “One of the fundamental principles of the justice system is that justice is not just done but is also seen to be done, and it is essential that openness and transparency are not compromised.
“There are ways in which the Single Justice Procedure could be made more open and accessible to the public, and to the media to report on.
“One way of ensuring greater scrutiny of cases dealt with under the SJP is to ensure there is good open data including the data on SJP cases, patterns and trends, and any differences between courts or regions.”
