US Edition
Nearly two-thirds of magistrates’ court cases are being held in secret, despite growing concerns that flaws in the system are exposing vulnerable people to injustice.
Official figures obtained by The Telegraph reveal that the proportion of cases prosecuted behind closed doors, often without the defendant present, has hit a record high of 62 per cent.
It has more than doubled from 23.5 per cent when the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced in 2016.
Up to 40,000 cases a month – from non-payment of television licence fees to speeding, fare dodging and truancy – are now decided in private, often by a single magistrate without the defendant appearing in court.
On Tuesday, Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, was among senior Tories who said the SJP should be overhauled to open it up to journalists and the public and called for a new “public interest” check before cases came to court to prevent vulnerable people being wrongly prosecuted.
Sir Robert said: “SJP is an important innovation. It has speeded up justice in thousands of cases but justice has to be seen to be done. The principle of open justice has to apply to judicial procedures as much as it does in open court.”
Andy Street, the West Midlands mayor, and Eddie Hughes, the Red Wall MP, also urged a “review” of the system after taking up the case of a housebound 90-year-old man who was prosecuted for an uninsured car despite the fact that he struggled to walk and had stopped driving.
The man said he did not see letters about a court case because he was caring for his wife, who has advanced dementia and who picked up the post before he saw it.
“The fact that the SJP process didn’t (or couldn’t) take circumstances into account and avoid criminal proceedings – e.g. out of court fixed penalty being re-offered – shows something is seriously wrong,” they wrote in a letter to Alex Chalk, the Justice Secretary.
“Neither of us underestimate the need for the justice system to act swiftly but to do so in the face of fairness and humanity goes against British values. Therefore we would ask you to review the SJP process.”
It follows a call by the Magistrates Association on Monday that prosecutions of speeding, TV licence fee offences and truancy must no longer be held behind closed doors.
The association 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, show greater transparency by publishing data on how many individuals are prosecuted without being present and how many plead guilty or make no pleas.
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.
The Telegraph analysis showed that in 21 of the 41 “major” offences dealt with magistrates, 90 per cent or more of the cases were held behind closed doors using the SJP.
A major offence was defined as one where there had been more than 500 cases. Among the top 20 were television licence non-payment (where 98 per cent were held in secret), keeping a vehicle without an MOT (97 per cent), jumping traffic lights (96 per cent), and keeping a vehicle without insurance (94 per cent).
Across the 41 offence types, 28 saw an increase in the proportion held behind closed doors. Those with the biggest rises were fare dodging, up from 71 per cent to 92.4 per cent; obstruction, waiting and parking offences, up from 47 per cent to 67 per cent; breaches of Transport for London byelaws, up from 68 per cent to 84 per cent; careless driving, up from 36 per cent to 45 per cent; littering, up from 76.4 per cent to 84 per cent; and tram offences, up from 8.5 per cent to 16.2 per cent.
On Tuesday, the Society of Editors also backed calls by the Magistrates’ Association for reform of the SJP, saying it was vital accredited journalists were allowed to observe sittings if public confidence was to be restored in the system.
Dawn Alford, executive director of the society, said: “At a time when there has been a significant move in recent years by the justice system to allow wider reporting in areas which, historically, have been private in nature, it seems at odds with the principle of open justice that SJP cases continue to be heard behind closed doors.
“Alongside consideration of the public interest and additional investment in training, it is vital that accredited journalists are allowed to observe SJP sittings if the public is to feel confident that the system is being used fairly and transparently.”