Secret Office Justice- developing problems

This media law and ethics guide first published and released 22^nd April 2024.

In 2015 a major reform of criminal justice procedure for lesser crimes was first introduced known as ‘single justice procedure’ or SJP. It was accelerated and widened in 2019. This has resulted in more than half of all cases in the Magistrates’ court being dealt with by a single magistrate in an office rather than a court room accessible to the public and reporters. Most defendants in SJP prosecutions plead guilty through correspondence only and are not required, or indeed allowed to attend. Examples of SJP cases are traffic offences and BBC TV license evasion.

The House of Commons Justice Committee reported at the end of 2022: ‘We remain concerned by the Single Justice Procedure’s lack of transparency. The Government should review the procedure and seek to enhance its transparency by ensuring that any information that would have been available had the cases been heard in open court is published in a timely fashion.’

It is highly significant that on 26^th March 2024, the Magistrates’ Association representing those judicial figures responsible for conducting SJP cases declared: ‘Single Justice Procedure needs reform.’ See: https://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/blog/single-justice-procedure-needs-reform-say-magistrates/

The Magistrates Association explained: ‘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.’

They made 12 recommendations:

• ‘Making it a requirement that prosecutors (the agency that is prosecuting someone, for example, TV Licensing or the DVLA) see all pleas and mitigations from defendants before the cases are heard by the magistrate.
• Reviewing and improving the training that magistrates receive before they can sit on SJP cases. Training must emphasise the ability of magistrates to use their discretion fully and without reservation, including the ability to refer cases back to the prosecuting authority.
• Safeguarding the SJP process so that neither magistrates nor their legal advisors feel any pressure to process cases more quickly than they want to.
• The government should make provision for SJP sittings to be observable by accredited journalists.
• Boosting transparency by publishing more data on the SJP, such as how many defendants plead guilty, how many make no pleas, and how many ask to come to court, nationally and broken down by region.
• Undertaking research on how improvements can be made to the process for the vulnerable, including those with learning difficulties, communication challenges, or who may be less able to engage with the process.
• Improving communication, through a review of the paperwork sent to defendants, to make it simpler and easier to understand.

It is very significant that they are asking the government to enable ‘SJP sittings to be observable by accredited journalists.’

SJP procedure handles around 40,000 criminal cases every month which is now about 70 per cent of the criminal offences dealt with by the criminal justice system at the magistrates’ court level. What is effectively does is take what used to be Open Justice procedure in a public courtroom, accessible to media and public and process it in an office.

The danger of this approach to justice was satirised in the famous novel by Franz Kafka The Trial where he created a nightmare scenario of trial processes deciding the fate of people behind closed doors where defendants did not fully understand what they were accused of and why decisions were being made affecting their freedom and, in some cases, right to life.

Portrait of Franz Kafka in 1923 and contemporary covers of his novel The Trial published by Penguin and Macmillan.

Kafka based his novel on his own experience of working in the largely office-based inquisitorial legal system of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the beginning of the 20^th century.

The Chartered Institute of Journalists warned the House of Commons Justice Committee in 2022 against extending SPJ procedure in the criminal justice system: ‘It has always been an ominous warning of how the administrative bureaucratization of justice, in his case during the Austro-Hungarian Empire, can be dehumanizing, undemocratic, unaccountable and open to corruption and abuse of power and a grave source of injustice. These proposals cut away and destroy the foundations of English Open Justice culture.’

The major inadequacies of SJP have been exposed by the London Standard’s courts reporter Tristan Kirk. It can certainly be argued that his reporting in recent years has explained why the magistrates say the SJP system needs reform if it is to be seen as fair and transparent.

This was confirmed in August 2023 when he was praised by the head of the Magistrates Association for starting an ‘important debate’ around the use of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) particularly in relation to cases involving the elderly and vulnerable.

See: https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/court-reporter-praised-for-shining-light-on-use-of-single-justice-procedure/

He has presented his concerns to the House of Commons Justice Committee and questioned the use of SPJ procedures for COVID-19 offences.

See: Supplementary Evidence to the Justice Select Committee at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/26045/pdf/

And written evidence to the Committee on remote hearings and The Single Justice Procedure at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/40146/pdf/

Tristan Kirk has also produced a briefing for the Broadcast Journalism Training Council on how to access and navigate the reporting of SJP and remotely decided criminal cases: ‘Accessing documents, images, and videos in new systems of court reporting’

See: https://bjtc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Reporting-Digital-Courts-Tristan-Kirk-.pdf  

How HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice explains SPJ.

See: https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/26/explaining-the-single-justice-procedure-in-the-magistrates-court/

The HMCTS Protocol on sharing court lists, registers and documents with the media. See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/660561f4e8c442001122046d/HMCTS651_Protocol_on_sharing_court_lists-registers_and_docs_with_media_Mar_24__2_.pdf

Lists of pending SJP cases, verdicts (results/register) and sentences. See: https://www.court-tribunal-hearings.service.gov.uk/summary-of-publications?locationId=9

Examples of Tristan Kirk reporting Single Justice Procedure cases:

13^th April 2024. ‘N’Golo Kante slapped with fine in fast-track court for not telling police who was driving his car.’ See: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ngolo-kante-chelsea-fine-phone-driving-court-single-justice-procedure-b1151071.html

27^th March 2024. ‘Two thirds of magistrates’ cases now fast-tracked behind closed doors. Lord Chancellor promises reform of under-fire courts process following Standard investigation into injustices.’ See: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/single-justice-procedure-magistrates-court-cases-speeding-covid-fines-b1148002.html

26^th March 2024. ‘Controversial fast-track justice system needs reform, minister admits. An Evening Standard investigation has revealed a shocking list of cases handled by the Single Justice Procedure.’ See: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/single-justice-procedure-sjp-fast-track-reform-covid-fines-b1147797.html

12^th February 2024. ‘Pressure mounts for rethink on ‘fast track’ justice after more outcry over cases. Pressure grows to change controversial single justice procedure as Standard reveals more worrying cases.’ See: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/single-justice-procedure-fast-track-criticism-lady-carr-alex-chalk-b1138615.html

Both the Chartered Institute of Journalists and Tristan Kirk along with 100 journalists and journalism organisations opposed the Online Plea and Allocation provision in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.

See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/35/part/2/chapter/2

It effectively means ending the first Magistrates Court appearance of people accused of serious indictable offences and processing these by SPJ directly to the Crown Court.

The CIoJ submission to the Justice Committee in 2022 explained: ‘The first appearance of accused persons facing charges for indictable crimes at the Magistrates Court is a vital and necessary event in the criminal justice process. It is part and parcel of justice not only being done but manifestly and undoubtedly being seen to be done. Sending a defendant charged with an indictable only or either-way offence to the Crown Court is an important and significant public event in the criminal justice narrative. It would be utterly wrong for this to take place without the need for a court hearing.’ See: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/40531/pdf/

Section 40 of Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 gives Coroners the ‘power to conduct non-contentious inquests in writing.’ This legislative move was opposed by professional journalism bodies because it was seen as an extension of ‘office justice’ begun with criminal ‘Single Justice Procedures.’ The press and public are not present, information exchange and the detail of submissions and evidence is not readily available for reporting and public scrutiny.

The section does not appear to provide any legislative right for journalists to oppose a Coroner’s decision to hold an inquest in writing only or access to evidence and documentation considered. Direct written application to the Coroner would be advisable. The only method of legally challenging these decisions would appear to be by way of judicial review to the High Court, though such a remedy has major cost-bearing implications.

(See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/35/section/40).

Pdf file of this briefing available to download on link below

The second edition of The UK Media Law Pocketbook presents updated and extended practical guidance on everyday legal issues for working journalists and media professionals. This book covers traditional print and broadcast as well as digital multimedia, such as blogging and instant messaging, with clear explanations of new legal cases, legislation and regulation, and new chapters on freedom of information and social media law. Links to seven new online chapters allow readers to access all the most up-to-date laws and guidance around data protection, covering inquests, courts-martial, public inquiries, family courts, local government, and the media law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Tim Crook critically explores emerging global issues and proposals for reform with concise summaries of recent cases illustrating media law in action, as well as tips on pitfalls to avoid.

The UK Media Law Pocketbook is a key reference for journalists and media workers across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The book’s companion website provides downloadable sound files, video summaries, and updates all the developments in one of the most dynamic and rapidly changing fields of law. Visit https://ukmedialawpocketbook.com.

Preview:- https://www.routledge.com/The-UK-Media-Law- Pocketbook/Crook/p/book/9781138309166?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_r6hBhDdARIsAMIDhV87Y5f5ZJ uc0aPf-FnNl6_hR3uUZgH6lxKek5sxMs9Mk2lAofCHjBYaAs4FEALw_wcB