Latest news with #SingleJusticeProcedure
Telegraph
02-08-2025
- Telegraph
Girl convicted for not insuring birthday gift car before receiving it
A teenage waitress was convicted for failing to insure a car she was given as a surprise 18th birthday gift. The teenager, from Poole in Dorset, said her family bought the Fiat for her, but mistakenly did not insure it immediately. The DVLA charged her with keeping an uninsured vehicle and brought a criminal prosecution over the unpaid bill. The teenager was convicted under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), in which a volunteer magistrate sits alone behind closed doors with an on-call legal adviser to pass judgment on as many as 100 cases a day. In a letter to Ipswich magistrates' court, the teenager said that she had never driven the vehicle as she does not yet have a licence. Car was declared off road According to The Standard, the letter read: 'My family got the car for me as my 18th birthday present. I was still 17 at the time of the offence and had not actually been given the keys to the car, and was not aware that it would be mine.' The teenager, who said both she and her father had reading difficulties, added that she only realised the car needed to be insured even if it was not being driven when a friend read an official letter for them. They had received a rebate on car tax after declaring the 17-year-old Fiat 'off road' with a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN), she said. And she did not realise she could have paid a fine to avoid a criminal case. In the letter, she explained: 'I have never used the car as I have still not passed my driving test. My dad is willing to pay the fine for me as he thinks this is his fault. 'He receives Universal Credit and PIP for his mental health, and I have just finished college and currently have a part-time job as a waitress on the minimum wage for an 18-year-old.' She pleaded guilty to committing the offence in January, around four weeks before her 18th birthday. She added: 'I was a good student in school and college studying art and have never been in any trouble in my life. We just misunderstood the letter. I am very sorry.' Out of 1.5 million convictions handed down last year in England and Wales, some 772,580 were issued by magistrates behind closed doors under SJP, a system designed to speed up justice and clear the backlog of cases left by the pandemic. At least 110 different crimes can be prosecuted under SJP, from speeding and out-of-date MOTs to failing to ensure that your child attends school, and littering. The teenager was given a 12-month conditional discharge instead of a fine. She must also pay a £20 court fee.
Telegraph
20-07-2025
- Telegraph
Half of all criminal convictions decided in secret
Nearly half of all convictions in England and Wales are being decided in secret by a single magistrate without the defendant appearing in court or having any legal representation, a new report has revealed. Out of a total of 1.5 million convictions handed down last year, some 772,580 were issued by magistrates behind closed doors under a system designed to speed up justice and clear the backlog of cases left by the pandemic. The number of such prosecutions has doubled since their introduction in 2015 under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) where a volunteer magistrate sits alone with an on-call legal adviser to pass judgment on as many as a 100 cases a day. They now account for two thirds of all magistrates' cases. At least 110 different crimes can be prosecuted under the SJP system, from speeding and out-of-date MOTs to failing to get your child to attend school and littering. However, the majority (73 per cent) of those accused do not plea guilty or not guilty, double the rate of 38 per cent in open magistrates' hearings, according to an investigation by Transform Justice, a charity that campaigns for fair justice. Most defendants do not enter any plea partly because prosecution forms are sent by post with no proof of receipt required. This means they can end up at the wrong address, get lost or be dismissed as junk mail, according to the report. 'People are given three weeks to fill in the prosecution form and are not sent a reminder. Those who do not respond to the prosecution notice are nearly always judged as guilty and sentenced in their absence,' said Transform Justice. 'This means most people convicted under the SJP have not pleaded, and may not even know or understand they have been prosecuted. Many SJP cases are reopened by defendants who say they never received the prosecution notice, and only knew about it when they got a letter saying they had been convicted.' Most SJP offences are 'strict liability', which means prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant intended to commit the offence, nor whether the prosecution is in the public interest. ''I made a mistake' is not a valid legal defence,' said the report. As a result, people have been fined for minor errors. One person was prosecuted for selecting a 16-25 age railcard discount when they had a 26-30 railcard, even though the price for the tickets was the same. Transform Justice said that the way many of the prosecution forms were structured meant any mitigating factors a defendant might want to put forward, such as any disabilities, could be missed or ignored. 'The greatest injustice of the SJP is that it facilitates convicting people for mistakes, and for errors made due to illness or disability. We are prosecuting people at an industrial scale, often without any evidence they intended to commit a crime, with few safeguards,' said Penelope Gibbs, director of Transform Justice. 'There is nothing wrong with some crimes being strict liability (where no intention needs to be proved), but to do so using an inaccessible, untransparent system is surely unfair.' Organisations that can prosecute using SJP include police, DVLA, local councils, the BBC and train companies but unlike the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), there is no requirement to conduct a test of whether a prosecution is in the public interest. An investigation by the Office for Road and Rail (ORR) found four train operating companies (TOCs) had no formal test for deciding whether to prosecute in the public interest and it was 'unclear' if there was a test in other TOCs. It found some SJP prosecutors had no legal qualifications. The majority of TOCs 'appear not to require any formal qualifications or accreditation for their prosecution staff, relying instead on various combinations of on-the-job training and in-house or externally delivered training,' said the ORR. Some prosecutors had as little as five days' training. 'Where TOCs provided information on the length of internal training, this varied considerably – from five days to three months,' said the ORR. In one case, Sarah Hodgson, a rail passenger, challenged her fare evasion charge. Magistrates found the case so weak they asked why the rail company went ahead with the prosecution. Its legal representative said: 'I'm just representative of them and my instruction is to proceed. I'm not an expert in railways laws.' An SJP conviction is a criminal conviction but defendants can only avoid a criminal record if they pay the fine. The average SJP fine is £284 but can be as low as £40 or as high as £10,000 for the worst Covid offences. They can also be ramped up by prosecuting authorities adding on legal costs. The SJP procedure has been successfully challenged after a campaign led by Christian Waters, who won a landmark ruling that the SJP had been wrongly used for 74,000 prosecutions for alleged fare evasion, leading to the convictions being quashed. As a result of that case and campaigns by Transform Justice, the Government is considering how to improve scrutiny of prosecutors. Ms Gibbs said there needed to be 'more reform and fast' to end the 'systemic injustice'. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: 'The Government recently consulted on the Single Justice Procedure and regulation of private prosecutors to review what more can be done to support vulnerable defendants, and we will respond in due course. 'The decision to prosecute cases under the Single Justice Procedure is made by the prosecuting authority, and only uncontested and non-imprisonable offences are eligible.'
Yahoo
19-07-2025
- Yahoo
Met Police tried to prosecute itself for not answering its own letters
The Metropolitan Police made a comical attempt to prosecute itself for not answering its own letters, before giving up due to 'insufficient evidence'. The force mounted two criminal prosecutions last month over suspected speeding offences, naming itself as both the prosecutor and the defendant. Two cases were prepared – at public expense – for criminal prosecutions, with the Met charged with offences and a file prepared for the court. But the charges were then dropped, with the court recording the reason as 'insufficient evidence'. The criminal cases were brought through the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), a fast-track court process which is currently mired in controversy. The SJP system has been dubbed 'conveyor belt justice', with fears that not enough thought is put into each criminal case due to the speed of the process. Defendants are informed they have been charged with a criminal offence by letter, with instructions to enter a plea online or in writing. The courts typically then deal with cases in private, based on written evidence alone. In the recent cases, the Met was charged twice with failing to give information relating to the identification of a driver when required. On January 22, it was alleged a Toyota Corolla had broken the 50mph speed limit by travelling at 71mph on the A2 in Bexley. A Met Police staff member prepared a witness statement, setting out that letters to a PO Box belonging to the Met sent in January and March had gone unanswered. The decision to bring a criminal charge was not signed by an identified person, but were simply marked 'officer in charge of Metropolitan Police'. The second case related to speeding on the same stretch of the A2 two days later, when a different Toyota Corolla was clocked at 68mph at just before 2am. The same police staffer signed a witness statement about letters going unanswered which had been sent to the PO Box address. It is unknown whether the Met got to the stage of entering pleas to the criminal charges. Thousands of motorists are prosecuted for speeding every week in the same way, using written evidence and letters sent to defendants. When a vehicle is caught speeding on an automatic camera, it is routine for police forces to write to the registered owner to check who was driving. Those who do not respond are frequently prosecuted for failing to provide information to the police. In the cases involving the Met, the charges were withdrawn before they could go before a magistrate. Scotland Yard usually asked for £110 in costs for each traffic offence it investigates and prepares for court. Scotland Yard has been contacted for comment.
The Irish Sun
16-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Irish Sun
Eco-loving Harry Potter star Emma Watson is BANNED from driving after 4th speeding offence in just two years
HARRY Potter star Emma Watson has been banned from driving for six months after being caught speeding in her £30k Audi. The Hermione Granger actress, 35, did not attend a short hearing at High Wycombe magistrates' court this morning but accepted a £1,000 fine. Advertisement 3 Emma Watson has been banned from driving for six months Credit: Getty 3 Emma admitted going 38mph in a 30mph zone on July 31 last year, court records show Credit: Getty We first revealed how the actress had requested the hearing after speeding through a 30-mile-per-hour automatic camera in her £30,000 Audi S3 at 38 mph. The court heard today how Watson had three previous offences on her record with a total of nine points. She triggered the flash late at night on July 31 last year on the busy Banbury Road in Oxford. Watson had been studying creative writing at the city's university. Advertisement Read More in UK News The three added points mean she is now banned from driving until January next year after totting up too many tickets. Prosecutor Adrian Wilson said: 'The offence occurred at 22.44 on the 31st July 2024. 'There was a recorded speed of 38 miles per hour. 'Ms Watson had nine points on her licence for three previous speeding offences on 8/10/23, 26/11/23 and 29/1/24.' Advertisement Most read in The Sun Exclusive The star's lawyer, Mark Haslam, said the Hollywood star, said to be worth £60million, was not earning a salary but was 'in a position to pay' the fine. He added the film star would not try and mitigate the fine despite her applying for a sentencing hearing. Harry Potter star Emma Watson's £30k Audi towed away by cops The lawyer said: "She's a student with no direct income at the moment, but she is in a position to pay the fine. 'She fully understands there is no exceptional hardship.' Advertisement Ms Watson was charged by post and pleaded guilty through the Single Justice Procedure on March 3. District Judge Arvind Sharma, passing sentence, said: 'Her licence will be endorsed with three points, a Band A fine, which would have been £1,000, reduced to £660 for her guilty plea at the first opportunity. 'She will pay a £244 surcharge and £120 costs, to be paid in full within 28 days. 'The 12 points (means) she is disqualified for six months from now.' Advertisement Emma has fronted environmental campaigns for charities, including writing books for the COP26 eco conference. Our story was the latest car trouble for the star in recent times. She was filmed bargaining with tow-truck drivers when they hauled the Audi onto a flatbed in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, in February last year. She had blocked a car park and ignored a 'No Parking' sign to visit a pub with mum Jacqueline. Advertisement It meant a pizza restaurant manager had his car trapped in by Watson's motor for nearly four hours. After a frantic dash around nearby restaurants and bars, he called cops. He added: 'But when the police started to tow her car away, she came flying out of the pub shouting, 'That's my car, that's my car!'' 3 The star's lawyer said she would not try and mitigate the fine Credit: Getty Advertisement
Scottish Sun
16-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Scottish Sun
Eco-loving Harry Potter star Emma Watson is BANNED from driving after 4th speeding offence in just two years
Watson was charged by post and pleaded guilty through the Single Justice Procedure ROAD HOG-WARTS Eco-loving Harry Potter star Emma Watson is BANNED from driving after 4th speeding offence in just two years Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) HARRY Potter star Emma Watson has been banned from driving for six months after being caught speeding in her £30k Audi. The Hermione Granger actress, 35, did not attend a short hearing at High Wycombe magistrates' court this morning but accepted a £1,000 fine. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 3 Emma Watson has been banned from driving for six months Credit: Getty 3 Emma admitted going 38mph in a 30mph zone on July 31 last year, court records show Credit: Getty We first revealed how the actress had requested the hearing after speeding through a 30-mile-per-hour automatic camera in her £30,000 Audi S3 at 38 mph. The court heard today how Watson had three previous offences on her record with a total of nine points. She triggered the flash late at night on July 31 last year on the busy Banbury Road in Oxford. Watson had been studying creative writing at the city's university. The three added points mean she is now banned from driving until January next year after totting up too many tickets. Prosecutor Adrian Wilson said: 'The offence occurred at 22.44 on the 31st July 2024. 'There was a recorded speed of 38 miles per hour. 'Ms Watson had nine points on her licence for three previous speeding offences on 8/10/23, 26/11/23 and 29/1/24.' The star's lawyer, Mark Haslam, said the Hollywood star, said to be worth £60million, was not earning a salary but was 'in a position to pay' the fine. He added the film star would not try and mitigate the fine despite her applying for a sentencing hearing. Harry Potter star Emma Watson's £30k Audi towed away by cops The lawyer said: "She's a student with no direct income at the moment, but she is in a position to pay the fine. 'She fully understands there is no exceptional hardship.' Ms Watson was charged by post and pleaded guilty through the Single Justice Procedure on March 3. District Judge Arvind Sharma, passing sentence, said: 'Her licence will be endorsed with three points, a Band A fine, which would have been £1,000, reduced to £660 for her guilty plea at the first opportunity. 'She will pay a £244 surcharge and £120 costs, to be paid in full within 28 days. 'The 12 points (means) she is disqualified for six months from now.' Emma has fronted environmental campaigns for charities, including writing books for the COP26 eco conference. Our story was the latest car trouble for the star in recent times. She was filmed bargaining with tow-truck drivers when they hauled the Audi onto a flatbed in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, in February last year. She had blocked a car park and ignored a 'No Parking' sign to visit a pub with mum Jacqueline. It meant a pizza restaurant manager had his car trapped in by Watson's motor for nearly four hours. After a frantic dash around nearby restaurants and bars, he called cops. He added: 'But when the police started to tow her car away, she came flying out of the pub shouting, 'That's my car, that's my car!''
