Some courts have issued targets for the number of criminal cases that magistrates should get through in the fast-track Single Justice Procedure, adding to fears the controversial system is “conveyor belt justice”.
The Ministry of Justice has consistently denied the existence of targets, saying magistrates are free to spend as long as they need on criminal cases.
But The Standard has seen evidence that some courts are saying at least 100 Single Justice Procedure cases a day should be dealt with.
Jane Smith, a magistrate for the last 15 years in central London and a senior figure in the Magistrates Association, said publicly on Wednesday that she is aware of pressure imposed at some courts to deal with set numbers of cases.
“I believe legal advisers do have some locally imposed targets to get through a certain number in a week, or a period”, she told a Centre for Justice Innovation online seminar.
When contacted about the existence of targets, senior Ministry of Justice officials initially suggested it was simply untrue. But it is understood messages have now been sent to heads of legal operations at courts around England and Wales in a bid to stamp out the practice at individual courts.
“HMCTS guidance makes it clear courts should not issue targets for the number of Single Justice Procedure cases that must be completed”, a spokesperson said.
The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) allows magistrates to sit behind-closed-doors to deal with criminal cases based on written evidence alone, for offences such as speeding, TV Licence evasion, and unpaid DVLA bills.
Critics of the process, which deals with more than 750,000 criminal cases each year, have suggested it is “conveyor belt justice” where it is feared not enough time is spent on assessing the merits of each case.
In March, in response to The Standard’s long-running investigation exposing injustices within the secretive courts system, the Magistrates Association surveyed its members and found some felt rushed by legal advisers, as well as not well-enough trained on the process and their powers.
The body recommended a raft of reform measures, including “safeguarding the SJP process so that neither magistrates nor their legal advisors feel any pressure to process cases more quickly than they want to.”
Ms Smith told the seminar this week: “Some magistrates in our survey did report recorded feeling under pressure to get through work.”
She said personally she had never felt pressured by a legal adviser, and went on: “It is up to magistrates to resist that pressure, do it properly, and do it at a speed they feel is necessary.”
Andrew Nicholson, a retired legal adviser who played a key role in the inception of the Single Justice Procedure when it was piloted at Lavender Hill magistrates court, told the same seminar he had not come across “targets” during his time working in the courts.
He said there was “a number each region was expected to complete”, and added that courts he worked at decided to put on extra SJP sessions to get through cases so the backlogs did not increase.
He also defended SJP as “a proportionate way of dealing with hundreds of thousands of low level offenders”.
In the last week, a new batch of troubling prosecutions have emerged from the SJP system, including a Royal Marine prosecuted over an unpaid DVLA bill when struggling with his mental health after a tour of Afghanistan, and a mother prosecuted for TV Licence evasion while she was in hospital with her sick baby son.
Recently, the Chief Magistrate had to rule that up to 75,000 rail fare convictions would be overturned because the courts had been systematically misused by train operators.
For years, legal advisers and magistrates had not noticed that rail firms were bringing prosecutions unlawfully in the Single Justice Procedure.
A 2021 Ministry of Justice report revealed that magistrates were being tested whether they could get through criminal cases within 90 seconds, while The Standard has seen evidence of some cases being completed in as little as 45 seconds.
