Tristan Kirk, the Standard’s indefatigable courts correspondent, appeared on the BBC’s Today programme this morning while many of us were still in our slumbers.
In it, he told the story of a 78-year-old woman who was prosecuted for failing to pay her car insurance and fined £40, as well as £100 in costs and a £16 victim surcharge. So far, so unremarkable. Except, the closer he looked the more extraordinary it became.
It turns out, the woman’s daughter had written to the court, revealing her mother suffered from schizophrenia, dementia and Alzheimer’s. Further to that, her mother had broken her ankle, been taken to hospital and was now living in care. In the letter, it was further noted that the daughter and her brother were now dealing with their mother’s affairs and were “both at breaking point.”
The point Tristan was making, on the radio and in his many tweets on the subject, is not that people should be immune to the law because they are old. Rather, that this is an example of how our justice system is fraying. Because the case study above is far from unique, in that it was dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP).
The SJP was introduced in 2015 to streamline prosecutions of ‘low-level’ crimes such as fare evasion and speeding, by permitting a single magistrate to handle the case based only on written evidence. But as Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, told Today, vulnerable and elderly people were at risk of being unfairly penalised as magistrates were sometimes being denied vital information about defendants prosecuted through the system.
“My view is justice is not being served,” Ms Brimelow said. And it’s not difficult to see why. As Tristan reports, most SJP defendants are neither legally represented nor do they enter a plea at all. Indeed, the paperwork they receive setting out their alleged crime does not even offer the option of arguing the prosecution is not in the public interest.
What happens? “[Y]ou end up with incomplete information before a magistrate, who is not a lawyer, processing cases and the end result is often very large fines,” Brimelow concluded.
A better alternative, Tristan suggests, is for the DVLA to withdraw the prosecution before it arrives at a magistrate’s desk when extenuating circumstances come to light. This can happen in SJP but the problem is there’s no prosecutor present at the point when a conviction is considered – a check removed by MPs. If you’re interested, you can read more here.
Elsewhere in the paper, as Donald Trump prepares to fight for his freedom, where are Melania, Ivanka and Jared? Sarah Baxter reports from the States.
In the comment pages, Suzannah Ramsdale asks how it is possible that we are going backwards on abortion? Matthew d’Ancona says the biggest takeaway from ‘small boats week’ is one the Tories will hate to hear. Richard Dawkins wonders how can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language? While Simon Hunt thinks we should reclaim all London land used for golf.
And finally, the top 10 streaming faux pas on the capital’s public transport have been revealed. I’m only guilty of four...
