Ten Years of the Single Justice Procedure: What Might Reform Look Like?

Introduction

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP / the Procedure) was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, its purpose being to hear high-volume, low-level, non-imprisonable offences swiftly.  In the past decade, millions of cases have been dealt with under the SJP.  The most recently published data shows that in one quarter alone, 182,902 defendants were dealt with via the SJP.[1]  That was 64% of all defendants in the Magistrates’ Courts in that quarter.[2]

However, from the press to the public to politicians, the professions and the judiciary, there have been mounting concerns about its use.  Ten years after its introduction, the Government has vowed to “fundamentally reform” the SJP if poor practices persist, with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) holding a consultation to establish how it could be improved.[3]

The case for reform

The Chief Magistrate’s ruling in Northern Trains Limited v Ballington & Others [2024] was the nadir for the SJP.  The case concerned two train operating companies prosecuting fare evasion offences under the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889 via the SJP, despite having no power to do so.  More than 74,000 cases were identified as having been prosecuted unlawfully and the Chief Magistrate declared each of them to be a nullity.

To its critics, this case encapsulated why the SJP is inconsistent with the rule of law and in need of urgent reform.  The reasons for this are many but can be categorised into two central issues.

Safeguards to Justice

A single magistrate, supported by a legal adviser, conducts the Single Justice Procedure in private based on written evidence alone.  The most recent quantitative insight that the Procedure is not functioning as intended came from the Justice Minister, who said that in one year 550,000 people accused did not even respond to the prosecution notice that they were sent, which is the method by which those charged are asked to state their plea.[4]  The majority of those prosecuted under the Procedure never plead guilty or not guilty.

Further, despite it being a central plank to a public interest assessment, under the SJP there is currently no opportunity for prosecutors to review a defendant’s mitigation prior to a magistrate deciding the case.  As a result, by the MoJ’s own admission, cases have been prosecuted where the mitigation demonstrates that prosecution was not in the public interest.[5]

As a consequence, a defendant’s case, let alone any vulnerabilities which should be considered, is rarely known about until sentence, if at all.

Transparency

Under the SJP, the case is heard in private with no prosecutor or defendant present.  Journalists cannot observe the closed hearings, and there is no requirement for a magistrate to provide reasons for their decisions.  Statistics regarding the SJP either vary greatly or are not published; for example, the plea and conviction rates under the SJP are unknown.  Likewise, no statistics are published about the demographic of defendants dealt with via the SJP.

In addition, approximately 25% of defendants dealt with under the SJP are prosecuted by private prosecutors.[6]  However, there is no public central database of the number of prosecutions brought by private prosecutors, and currently there is no duty on private prosecutors to publish data on the prosecutions that they bring.  As a result, the scope for scrutiny of the prosecutions brought, by who, against whom and the outcome thereof, is limited.

The use of the Procedure for only minor offences such as driving without insurance, non-payment of the TV licence fee and fare evasion is often cited in its defence.  Yet, the consequences, namely a criminal conviction and a substantial financial penalty in many cases, are far from minor.

What might reform look like?

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who was Lord Chief Justice at the time of the SJP’s introduction, put it plainly when he recently said: “There’s a need for a serious and fundamental review of the process.”

The Government has emphasised that it considers the SJP essential to the effective running of Magistrates’ Courts.  Due to the sheer number of cases it deals with, the SJP saves court time and money. Against this backdrop, the MoJ has made it clear that the result of the review will be reform rather than replacement.[7]

In launching the consultation, the MoJ stated that it was already exploring the following reforms:[8]

1. Making it a statutory requirement for all prosecutors to have access to and review mitigation submitted by a defendant, before proceeding under the SJP.
2. Redesigning the notice that is sent to defendants informing them of the prosecution to make it easier to understand the SJP and their rights under it.
3. Establishing a central public register of all private prosecutions.
4. Requiring private prosecutors to publish a qualitative assessment of their prosecutions, including consideration of the prosecutor’s compliance with any Code of Practice and audit information.

The Magistrates’ Association, which represents more than 12,000 magistrates in England and Wales, has made 12 recommendations for reform of the SJP:[9]

1. A requirement that prosecutors consider a defendant’s plea and mitigation before the case is heard.
2. Formalised and specific training in the SJP for magistrates.
3. A review of the training provided to legal advisers and policies relating to the SJP.
4. A requirement that to sit alone, magistrates should have passed their threshold appraisal plus sat for one additional year in the adult criminal court.
5. Sittings should be observable by accredited journalists.
6. The Transparency and Open Justice Board should include consideration of the SJP.
7. Magistrates should provide short explanations when they have deviated from the sentencing guidelines.
8. HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice should publish more information and data on the SJP.
9. Research on how the SJP can be improved for those with additional needs.
10. HM Courts and Tribunals Service and prosecuting agencies should make the paperwork sent to defendants easier to understand.
11. A link between HMRC payroll or benefits data and SJP should be considered, removing the need for a means form to be submitted by the defendant.
12. A concerted effort to publicise the importance of responding to court letters, which also makes the rights of defendants clear.

In light of the unlawful prosecutions that the fare evasions case exposed, and the real risk of past and future repetition by other prosecuting authorities, we would propose that the Ministry of Justice maintains a public list of all of the offences eligible for prosecution under the SJP and of those agencies who are eligible to bring such prosecutions.

Many consider the SJP to be one of the few areas providing relief to the mounting court backlog, as a result reform has long appeared unattractive and inessential.  Yet, with the Ministry of Justice’s consultation now closed and its review of the responses underway, we await its proposals for reform.

[1] Ministry of Justice, Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2024′, 12 December 2024.

[2] Excluding those defendants whose cases were sent onto the Crown Court. Ibid.

[3] Ministry of Justice, Oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system consultation, 6 March 2025.

[4] BBC News, “Government to review Post Office-style prosecutions”, 28 November 2024.

[5] Ministry of Justice, Oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system consultation, 6 March 2025.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Hansard, Volume 756: debated on 5 November 2024.

[8] Ministry of Justice, Oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system consultation, 6 March 2025.

[9] Magistrates’ Association, Single Justice Procedure: Position Statement, March 2024.