Magistrates call for reform of Single Justice Procedure

It said the procedure handled some 40,000 less serious criminal cases every month, but many magistrates were “uncomfortable with the SJP process as it currently works, and a significant proportion feel they do not always get as much time as they need to properly consider each case”.

The procedure allows those charged with a minor criminal offence to have the case decided by a magistrate without going to court.

In its new position statement on the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) the association said although training in its use was available for magistrates “members feel that it is largely focused on how to use the system and does not emphasise that the SJP is a judicial process in which magistrates can exercise their discretion, as they do with cases heard in court”.

National chair Mark Beattie said the SJP spared thousands of defendants the ordeal of having to attend court for minor offences, which saved court time for dealing with more serious offences.

“However, it is not a perfect system,” he said. “While the vast majority of cases are handled effectively by the SJP, our members - magistrates who decide on SJP cases - have told us about flaws in the way it operates and the harm that this can have on 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 Single Justice Procedure.”

The association has made 12 recommendations for reform, which include:

• require prosecutors to see all pleas and mitigations from defendants before cases are heard by a magistrate;
• improve magistrates’ training before they can sit on SJP cases, emphasising their ability to use their discretion fully and without reservation;
• use the process so that neither magistrates nor their legal advisors feel under time pressure;
• SJP sittings to be observable by accredited journalists;
• boost transparency by publishing more data on the SJP;
• research improvements for use of the system by vulnerable people;
• improve communication through simpler and easier paperwork for defendants.

Mark Smulian