💾 Archived View for soviet.circumlunar.space › dsfadsfgafgf › txt › secret-courts.gmi captured on 2024-08-25 at 00:10:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Secret court for speeding and TV licence fee offences must end, magistrates urge

Magistrates secret court for speeding and licence fees.

Prosecutions of speeding, TV licence fee offences and truancy must no longer

be held behind closed doors, magistrates have demanded.

In a major intervention, the Magistrates’ Association – representing Justices of

the Peace across England and Wales – has called for an overhaul of the

“secretive” Single Justice Procedure (SJP) which has resulted in vulnerable

people being prosecuted behind closed doors without being present or having

any legal representation.

The Magistrates’ Association has urged the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to adopt a

12-point plan that would include opening up the SJP to accredited journalists

for the first time and greater transparency by publishing data on how many

individuals are prosecuted without being present and how many plead guilty

or make no pleas.

The move will intensify pressure on the MoJ to rethink the SJP, under which up

to 40,000 cases a month – from non-payment of television licence fees to

speeding, common assault and truancy – are decided in private, often by a

single magistrate without the defendant appearing in court.

In the past year, there have been claims of magistrates convicting and fining

defendants in less than a minute, key evidence going missing or being

overlooked and thousands of prosecutions conducted in secret.

Cases prosecuted using the SJP have included a 78-year-old with dementia

fined for not having car insurance when she was in a care home, a 33-year-old

handed a £781 legal bill after accidentally failing to pay £4 to the DVLA and an

85-year-old woman prosecuted for not paying car insurance after suffering a

broken neck and admission to a care home.

Magistrates ‘do not get enough time’

The call by Magistrates’ Association follows a survey of its members which

found they were “uncomfortable” with the way the SJP operated, felt

under-trained and a “significant proportion” felt they did not “always get as

much time as they need to properly consider each case”.

Mark Beattie JP, the association’s chairman, said the principle of SJP was right

because it spared people the ordeal of court for minor offences but there were

“flaws” in the way it operated that were harming “some of society’s most

vulnerable people”.

“It is clear to us that reform, as well as additional investment in training and

transparency, is needed to restore public confidence in the SJP,” he said.

Mark Beattie, head of Magistrates Association

Mark Beattie, chairman of the Magistrates Association, warned that the SJP

risked harming vulnerable people

The 12-point plan includes a new public interest check by prosecutors before

cases come to court and for the Government to “make provision for SJP

sittings to be observable by accredited journalists”.

It also recommended upgraded training for magistrates, “plain English”

paperwork for defendants and a right for magistrates to put a brake on

proceedings if they felt they were being rushed.

Ninety second target

A report into a pilot of the new SJP system – obtained using freedom of

information requests – revealed magistrates in some parts of London were

tested against a target time of 90 seconds to deal with each prosecution.

The association’s call was backed by campaign groups. Penelope Gibbs,

director of Transform Justice, said: “The secretive SJP is in urgent need of being

opened up. Public observers as well as journalists should be able to sit in court

with the magistrate, and all the case papers should be available to anyone

who requests them.

“But the most unjust element of the SJP still remains – that most defendants

are convicted without having said whether they are guilty or not guilty. We

have the data on this non-plea rate, but we need to solve the mystery of why

so many don’t participate.”

The Commons justice committee made similar demands. Sir Bob Neill, its

chairman, urged ministers to “consider how the process could be made more

open and accessible to the media and the public” to ensure “justice is seen to

be delivered”.

Prosecution of woman, 85, with broken neck

This month the DVLA prosecuted an 85-year-old woman from Berkhamsted,

Hertfordshire, for not paying car insurance, in an SJP case brought after she

suffered a broken neck and was admitted to a care home.

Her circumstances were fully outlined in a mitigation letter to the court from

her son, but an investigation by the Evening Standard revealed that

prosecuting bodies routinely do not see letters like this because of the speed

of the system.

The DVLA did not withdraw the case, and the pensioner was subsequently

issued with a criminal conviction by the magistrate.

The association’s proposed new public interest check would require

prosecutors to read all mitigation letters to “give the prosecutor the

opportunity to see and read the mitigation and to withdraw the case if they

then believe it is no longer in the public interest to pursue it.”

'Closed door' court cases

The intervention by magistrates comes after the family courts were recently

opened up amid calls for greater transparency.

Previously, journalists could attend hearings to determine the future care of

children, but the details had to be kept secret unless a judge stepped in to

allow reporting.

However, as part of an “open justice” pilot at a number of courts across

England, journalists are now allowed to report cases as they happen and

access documents to understand how cases are being brought.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Only uncontested and non-imprisonable

offences are dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure – magistrates are

always assisted by a legally qualified adviser, defendants can choose to go to

court if they want to, and the details of their case are published to provide

transparency.

“We have noted the Magistrates’ Association’s report and will carefully

consider its recommendations.”