Magistrates are demanding a major overhaul to a controversial fast-track justice system, revealing they feel rushed when convicting defendants and want changes to protect the elderly, the sick, and the vulnerable.
An Evening Standard investigation has uncovered a litany of shocking criminal cases in the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), including elderly pensioners, cancer patients, and people with severe learning difficulties being convicted and fined behind-closed-doors.
In a major intervention, the Magistrates’ Association – representing JPs across England and Wales – has now issued a 12-point plan for change – to restore confidence in the justice system and tackle “harm” caused by SJP on “some of society’s most vulnerable people”.
Mark Beattie JP, National Chair of the Magistrates’ Association, said it continues to believe in the principle behind the Single Justice Procedure, to deliver swift and efficient justice for minor crimes. But the survey of magistrates had demonstrate the need for urgent reform.
“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.
“This is why we have made a total of 12 recommendations today, to change the Single Justice Procedure and make it fairer, more consistent and more open.”
It is now suggested that magistrates must have sat for at least a year in adult criminal courts before being allowed to handle SJP cases.
One magistrate, responding to the survey, said: “I feel comfortable because I have very significant experience as a JP. If I was new and would not have dealt with similar cases on the bench on many occasions, this might be different.”
Another remarked: “I\’m not sure I\’ve actually had any training”, and a third replied that while SJP guidance is currently “basic and simple to understand”, it needs “more emphasis ….on the fact we are making important judicial decisions in the same way we would sitting in court.”
