Secret Courts

[34006]

I'm taking this from an article in the Evening Standard of Monday 14th November 2022, page 12.

Headline, SECRET COURTS : APOLOGY OVER 1,000 CASES HELD BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

Justice chiefs have apologised over more than 1000 London court cases were conducted in secret, in a controversial process that prosecuters believe they are forced to use.

Parents accused of having truanting children, train fare dodgers, disabled parking badge accusers and litterbugs were among those involved in the secret courts at Barkingside magistrates court this summer.

They were prosecuted through the single justice procedure, a court process which allows Magistrates to sit away from open court, and make convictions based on written evidence alone.

The public and reporters are barred from attending the court sessions, but when MPs approved the process - used for hundreds of thousands of prosecutions each year - they insisted that details of cases are always shared with the media.

Yet an Evening Standard investigation into SPJ court sittings between July and September identified four private court sessions at Barkingside, where almost £120,000 in fines were handed out to more than 1000 defendants, had been kept a secret.

"We apologise that lists were not sent out on a small number of occasions as a result of human error" said an HM courts and tribunals service spokesperson. The team responsible for sending these has been reminded of their importance"

Train companies and London councils who prosecuted cases through secret courts at Barkingside this summer were contacted to alert them to the problem and raise concerns about the lack of transparency in the system.

Some replied to say they are forced to use the closed court system , in stark contrastto HNCTs insistance that 2all prosecuters have the legal right to choose whether they use the single justice procedure2

2Barkingside magistrates requires us to prosecute certain matters via the SJP process," said Barking and Daghenham council. Govia Thameslink told the Standard, "we don't choose to prosecute people in this way" adding "the question is a matter for the courts"

South easter trains declined to comment, while Greater Anglia, East Midlands Railways, Redbridge counciland Havering council did not respond to questions.

The Evening Standard made attempts to obtain documents fron some Barkingside cases, but the request sat unread in the court's inbox for three and a half weeks and is still unansewered.

Has anybody had any experience of these secret courts and their operation.

Is it possible to plead Not Guilty and have a hearing in the Magistrates court ?

Secret courts worry me, If the defendant cannot test the prosecution evidence, and call witnesses, where is justice ?

What next, conviction by algorithm.

 

[jfollows]

Although not good, this looks more like cock-up than conspiracy.
And, yes, you can plead guilty and choose to go to court, as well as the more obvious not guilty and go to court.
From https://www.gov.uk/single-justice-procedure-notices:

Single justice procedure notices

If you’ve been charged with a minor criminal offence, you may be able to have your case decided by a magistrate without going to court. This is known as the ‘single justice procedure’.

If this applies to you, you’ll get a single justice procedure notice when you’re charged.

A magistrate will make a decision on your case without your say if you do not respond to your notice within 21 days. You could be found guilty or fined.

There are different rules about cases that go to court in Scotland and cases that go to court in Northern Ireland.

This guide is also available in Welsh (Cymraeg).

How to respond to your notice

Your notice will tell you who has brought the case against you (for example, the police or TV Licensing), how to make a plea, and if you can make a plea online.

When you respond you will need to say whether you plead guilty or not guilty.

Plead guilty

You can choose if you want to go to court or not.

If you do not go to court, the magistrate will make a decision based on the information they have. You’ll get a letter with the magistrate’s decision.

You can go to court if you want to give information to the magistrates in person. You’ll get a letter telling you when to go to court.

Plead not guilty

You have to go to court and give information to the magistrates in person. You’ll get a letter telling you when to go to court.

If you do not respond to the single justice procedure notice

If you do not respond to the notice within 21 days, the magistrate will make a decision about your case without your say.

This could mean that if you are found guilty and sentenced, there will be no reduced sentence for a guilty plea. Your fine or penalty points may also be higher. Money may be taken from your pay or benefits.

If you need help with your notice you can get legal advice. You can also get free advice from Citizens Advice.

Get case information

You can call the Courts and Tribunals Service Centre to get information about a case including case results.

You’ll need your case reference number - this is on your single justice procedure notice.

If you’re from the media, you can get case information and ask for a list of results to be sent to you. You’ll need your UK press card details.

Courts and Tribunals Service Centre
Telephone: 0300 303 0656
Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm

 

[30907]

The "secrecy" is - according to the report - that the convictions weren't published (which BTW might please those convicted, even if it displeases the local paper) contrary to "what MPs wanted."

The rest of the article is rather off the topic.

Is it possible to plead Not Guilty and have a hearing in the Magistrates court ?

Yes.

Secret courts worry me, If the defendant cannot test the prosecution evidence, and call witnesses, where is justice ?

What next, conviction by algorithm.

jfollows has linked the correct information.

 

[Watershed]

Whilst this individual situation has no doubt arisen as a result of a legitimate mistake, the whole process of SJPNs, alongside allowing non-CPS prosecutors to use it, sits rather uneasy with me.

This is particularly the case given that private companies and third party prosecutors - which generally aren't subject to the same public interest test in bringing prosecutions as the CPS are - can in fact issue their own SJPNs (i.e. summonses) without judicial oversight.

We have heard of multiple cases of such prosecutors bringing prosecutions for offences which they aren't allowed to bring using the SJPN process, not to mention highly misleading descriptions of offences (e.g. wrongly summarising section 5(1) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 as "failed to produce a ticket"), as well as countless wrongful or unfounded prosecutions.

The situation is worsened by the fact that legal aid is generally unavailable (as there is no possibility of a prison sentence), whilst paying for representation is likely to cost more than any fine imposed.

In essence, the whole system is geared towards encouraging people to plead guilty, and then rubber stamping guilty pleas. The protections brought by having an independent CPS, and a public interest test before prosecutions can be brought, are completely bypassed.

And for those thinking of doing so - it would be nugatory to observe that the CPS has the right to take over and discontinue prosecutions. They exercise that right very sparingly, and there is no real recourse for a defendant if they refuse to do so.

 

[yorksrob]

I've always felt that allowing third parties to bring prosecutions is tantamount to a modern day "Court of Star Chamber".

 

[34006]

So, who can bring an SJP prosecution ? Can an individual bring one, or is it just available to Statuary authoritities ?

 

[jfollows]

So, who can bring an SJP prosecution ? Can an individual bring one, or is it just available to Statuary authoritities ?

A prosecutor can chose the SJP if the offence does not carry a prison sentence.
It's used for criminal offences, not civil offences, so "an individual" doesn't have a say in the process.
It was introduced in 2015.
My take is that it's a ramification of governments having a habit of introducing legislation for countless things "because something must be seen to be done" without also investing properly in the process for prosecuting these things (ie closing courts all over the country). But it certainly came in useful during the early part of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Barkingside example shows that, by misapplication, the new process is not properly transparent, so more safeguards in its application and use seem to be required. I also share Watershed's concerns about the process. On this forum it tends to get used for fare evasion prosecutions and the like, and in general has a tendency to push the defendant towards pleading guilty rather than going through the hassle and expense of attending court - in the majority of cases this probably isn't a concern but there will be a minority of cases in which it could be.

 

[Adam Williams]

It's used for criminal offences, not civil offences, so "an individual" doesn't have a say in the process.

What if it's a private prosecution? These can be brought brought by individuals who have been a victim of crime.

 

[cuccir]

It is important to say that SJPs can only be used for guilty pleas, and only with the defendant's consent.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It is important to say that SJPs can only be used for guilty pleas, and only with the defendant's consent.

This doesn't seem to be entirely borne out by part of what jfollows quoted from https://www.gov.uk/single-justice-procedure-notices:

If you do not respond to the single justice procedure notice

If you do not respond to the notice within 21 days, the magistrate will make a decision about your case without your say.

This could mean that if you are found guilty and sentenced, there will be no reduced sentence for a guilty plea. Your fine or penalty points may also be higher. Money may be taken from your pay or benefits.

If you need help with your notice you can get legal advice. You can also get free advice from Citizens Advice.

While I don't have any great difficulty with guilty pleas being disposed of 'on the papers', I am a little surprised that it seems to be the case that failure to respond puts you into the paper stream rather than getting a hearing. It weights the system towards the prosecution (or at least, away from the defendant) and I've always understood that if there is benefit of the doubt to be given then it should be given to the defendant rather than the prosecution.

 

[Haywain]

It is important to say that SJPs can only be used for guilty pleas, and only with the defendant's consent.

The absence of a plea is not consent, but allows the process to go ahead anyway.

 

[Watershed]

So, who can bring an SJP prosecution ? Can an individual bring one, or is it just available to Statuary authoritities ?

Only entities authorised to do so. But that still gives plenty of scope for questionable prosecutions.

 

[jfollows]

What if it's a private prosecution? These can be brought brought by individuals who have been a victim of crime.

Court only (I read).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

This doesn't seem to be entirely borne out by part of what jfollows quoted from https://www.gov.uk/single-justice-procedure-notices:



While I don't have any great difficulty with guilty pleas being disposed of 'on the papers', I am a little surprised that it seems to be the case that failure to respond puts you into the paper stream rather than getting a hearing. It weights the system towards the prosecution (or at least, away from the defendant) and I've always understood that if there is benefit of the doubt to be given then it should be given to the defendant rather than the prosecution.

The simple answer being: if someone sends you a letter, don't ignore it. Don't bury your head in the sand and assume it will go away. Rather than it going away it grows, comes back, and bites you on the bum, to a greater extent than if you had responded in the first place. Indeed, if you plead 'not guilty' the case may then be abandoned when the public interest test is applied or the prosecuting body decides not to progress for some other reason.

The complaints I have seen in the press* regarding SJP always relate to people who declined to respond to the letter and thus got convicted, essentially, by default.

*Not a valid sample it must be said, the press being interested in attracting clicks rather than reporting news.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Having an unqualified volunteer sitting at home meting out justice by algorithm should chill all our hearts. But it processes the guilty pleas nice and quickly, and if there's a choice between doing it cheaply or doing it properly then this government will choose cheap every time.

I know Magistrates by and large don't do this, and they certainly don't sitting at home by themselves, but even with a guilty plea they should still consider whether the offence actually happened and the guilty plea was obtained fairly.

The complaints I have seen in the press* regarding SJP always relate to people who declined to respond to the letter and thus got convicted, essentially, by default.

In an alarming number of cases, including several cases related to Covid and the Sarah Everard vigil, it appears that people never received the papers and only found out once the bailiffs rocked up.

It seems to happen a lot with SJP. I'm sure there are honest reasons for it.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Having an unqualified volunteer sitting at home meting out justice by algorithm should chill all our hearts. But it processes the guilty pleas nice and quickly, and if there's a choice between doing it cheaply or doing it properly then this government will choose cheap every time.

I know Magistrates by and large don't do this, and they certainly don't sitting at home by themselves, but even with a guilty plea they should still consider whether the offence actually happened and the guilty plea was obtained fairly.


In an alarming number of cases, including several cases related to Covid and the Sarah Everard vigil, it appears that people never received the papers and only found out once the bailiffs rocked up.

It seems to happen a lot with SJP. I'm sure there are honest reasons for it.

If pleading guilty, is there a need for a hearing?, is a reasonable question given the costs of such things and the lack of court time. A hearing does offer the opportunity for mitigation and not everyone is good at filling out paperwork to present their case in the best light even if accepting guilt.

I don't know what the rules are for magistrates and what they have to take into account once the case papers, accompanied by a guilty plea, are presented to them. Anecdotal comment would suggest that many in person hearings are a rubber stamping exercise anyway. For example blast through all the TV Licencing cases in a single session with just a few minutes allocated for each. If someone pleads 'not guilty' the case gets deferred as no-one is expecting to actually have to hold a hearing!

It is indeed alarming if people didn't receive the papers. I'd have to see some research into that as both sides have a reason to be less than honest, be it 'yes we sent the papers' or 'I didn't receive the papers'. The 21 day deadline could also be an issue as a person could easily be away from home for that period eg students at vacation time or people wintering abroad. On that basis, perhaps 'no response' should lead to further attempts to contact, such as serving papers in person rather than through the post.