Single Justice Procedure

[fandroid]

The Single Justice Procedure is regularly mentioned here with regard to Byelaw prosecutions for ticket irregularities. We've even seen cases where it has been used (apparently inappropriately) in cases using the Regulation of Railways Act.

The Evening Standard has raised concerns about it being used against persons who have basically made mistakes due to dementia and other similar circumstances.

Here's a link to the Evening Standard article

Fast-track court system ‘unfair to the vulnerable’

A controversial courts system for lower-level crimes has come under criticism by a leading barrister

www.standard.co.uk

The subject was picked up by Radio 4's Today programme yesterday. In an interview with a senior lawyer several interesting points were made. Their main beef was that there is no room for a defence of an SJP prosection being against the public interest. However they highlighted that the cases were dealt with by a magistrate acting on their own who didn't have any legal advice on each case, unless they asked for it. That probably explains how railway cases where it shouldn't have been been used slipped through unnoticed.

In the interview, being prosecuted after contact with a ticket inspector was given as an example.

The issue is being covered again on Radio 4 right now (08.41)

 

[penalty fares]

Just to add to this. With all SJP cases the defendant is written to as part of the court procedures and has an opportunity to raise issues or to have it heard in a court setting. This would be the point to plead guilty or not guilty, to have it taken into consideration. Mitigation is normally given i.e. I was in a rush etc, which is not a defence. Most ignore the paperwork as its " just a railway thing". If the fare has gone unpaid on an issue then its treated as a strict liability, because of their actions. Or the lack of them. When the court reviews an SJP case, the magistrates do this with a legal clerk, this is still a legal process and needs to have the correct processes followed. The legal clerk would read the paperwork and any statements, then the magistrate would make a decision. A magistrate would not just act on their own.

 

[Puffing Devil]

So much is wrong with that article. Though, to be fair, we have been pushed towards justice on the cheap, with the closure of local courts and the movement to an online system.

Anyone can still have an in-person hearing for any matter. Unfortunately, many ignore the paperwork until it's too late, or don't get advice as they don't understand the legal process.

 

[fandroid]

So much is wrong with that article. Though, to be fair, we have been pushed towards justice on the cheap, with the closure of local courts and the movement to an online system.

Anyone can still have an in-person hearing for any matter. Unfortunately, many ignore the paperwork until it's too late, or don't get advice as they don't understand the legal process.

The main theme on the radio was that vulnerable people were being taken to court by various authorities via the SJP when confused and incapable of fully managing their own affairs. I consider myself fairly capable, but leaving mail to open later is one of my faults and it's easy to see how a confused person could really get into deep water by these authorities making the most of what is, for them, a handy justice shortcut.

A shortcut that, from issues raised in this forum, appears to have been abused by both Merseyrail and Northern Rail. In those cases, the legal clerks do not appear to have done their jobs properly.

 

[Haywain]

The main theme on the radio was that vulnerable people were being taken to court by various authorities via the SJP when confused and incapable of fully managing their own affairs. I consider myself fairly capable, but leaving mail to open later is one of my faults and it's easy to see how a confused person could really get into deep water by these authorities making the most of what is, for them, a handy justice shortcut.

If you're not opening the post how would a SJP notice differ from a summons? I am struggling to see why the SJP is any worse than the 'normal' legal process.

 

[KirkstallOne]

If you're not opening the post how would a SJP notice differ from a summons? I am struggling to see why the SJP is any worse than the 'normal' legal process.

I agree that the effect for a defendant is likely to be similar if a SJPN or a summons is ignored, however there is a different emphasis. If you don’t respond to an SJP notice the case will go ahead in your absence. For a summons, it may go ahead in your absence.

On the wider issue of whether they are being abused or defendants are being unfairly treated (as alleged in the article), SJP cases are not heard in open court, so much more difficult for e.g. a journalist to scrutinise what is actually going on.

 

[Haywain]

For a summons, it may go ahead in your absence.

I'm not expert on the subject but, in terms of railway offences, I believe it's the case that it will go ahead. I suspect that this is also the case for the vast majority of offences that can be dealt with at the magistrates courts.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I'm not expert on the subject but, in terms of railway offences, I believe it's the case that it will go ahead. I suspect that this is also the case for the vast majority of offences that can be dealt with at the magistrates courts.

Yes I think practically it is very likely to go ahead but there does seem to be a different emphasis, in that it seems expected a lot of SJPN's won't be replied to, whereas it is expected that you will turn up for a summons. Does that different emphasis lead to SJP cases being more of a rubber stamping exercise? I don't know but I would suspect so, and given they take place in closed court it is hard to know.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It would be a bright day in court if someone turned up for a Railway Offence in person. Perhaps 25% responded to the summons, the majority are convicted and sentenced in their absence.

There is no difference if sentencing in open court or SJPN; the magistrates do not openly discuss the sentence before announcing it, though some comment may be made if it's a complex case or a report has been ordered. Unlikely to happen for a simple railway case ending with a fine.

In short, nothing is hidden in SJPN - it's a fast exercise in a more informal environment that allows straightforward cases to be sentenced according to the guidelines. Not rubber stamping, as the JP has a decision to make, though it will be by the book.