Record levels of court cases heard in secret

Drive to cut backlog means 40,000 minor offences a week are dealt with behind closed doors

A RECORD 60 per cent of magistrates’ cases are being held in secret as ministers seek to clear a backlog caused by the pandemic.

Up to 40,000 cases a week, from nonpayment of the TV licence fee to speeding, common assault and truancy are being decided behind closed doors by a single magistrate without the defendant appearing in court or having legal representation.

Ministry of Justice (MOJ) figures show that in the third quarter of last year 60.5 per cent of 290,000 such cases were dealt with via the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) – a lone magistrate adjudicating after reading court papers.

It was the biggest proportion on record, apart from a brief period during the pandemic, when most courts were shut, and more than twice the 24 per cent rate of the procedure’s first full year of operation in 2016. The huge growth came after its extension to Covid law-breakers, despite concerns raised in 2020 by Suella Braverman, the Attorney General, that such cases were better suited to open courts because of the risk of errors and injustices.

She was persuaded by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), police and justice chiefs that the cases should be heard in closed courts to avoid clogging up the system during the pandemic.

Justice ministers now accept that at least 10 per cent of the cases may have contained errors, although charities claim it is double that. They claim the Government has sacrificed open and fair justice to save money and to clear cases quickly.

The issue has been brought to the fore by the Metropolitan Police’s prosecution, behind closed doors via the SJP, of protesters for breaking Covid rules at the Sarah Everard vigil.

“The Government is hidebound on using it as much as possible because it is much cheaper if you don’t have an open court hearing,” said Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate and founder of charity Transform Justice.

Tara Casey, of the charity Appeal, which is campaigning for the decriminalisation of the TV licence fee, said the SJP was “conveyor-belt justice with the capacity for large scale miscarriages of justice”.

Sir Bob Neill, Conservative chairman of the Commons justice committee, has 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,” a principle all the more important during a pandemic. Yet, despite the widespread criticism of the SJP, the Government is planning to extend its application to further offences.

The SJP was introduced in 2015 so magistrates could deal with non-imprisonable offences without the defendant needing to attend court.

Ministers say it is an “accessible, prokirsty portionate, effective and more efficient” way of handling less serious cases, and that defendants can request an open hearing and have their case reheard if convicted in their absence.

Defendants are sent a charge notice to which they have to respond with a guilty or not guilty plea within 21 days. Those who plead not guilty have a traditional open court hearing but those who admit the offence are sentenced by a magistrate, who is advised by a lawyer. Neither a prosecutor or the defendant is present.

Brimelow, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, said the procedure increased the scope for errors and miscarriages of justice as there was no independent scrutiny of the charges by a lawyer.

As they are not eligible for legal aid, SJP defendants have to pay for their own representation. Just 5 per cent of cases are dealt with in open court after not-guilty pleas, according to MOJ data.

“Criminal justice should not be carried out behind closed doors. If a magistrate doesn’t spot an issue that is wrong or unlawful, someone can enter a guilty plea and be wrongly convicted and fined,” said Ms Brimelow.

Even more alarming, said the charity Appeal, were government figures showing 71 per cent of defendants did not respond to a charge notice. Campaigners blame this on elderly, ill or vulnerable recipients not understanding their significance, errors in delivery or simple ignorance.

There is no legal duty on prosecutors to prove receipt. They only have to show it was sent. For Covid offences, non-responses rose to 90 per cent. “Thousands of people have therefore been convicted and fined for offences in their absence,” said Appeal.