“Fast-track justice” goes off the rails: is it time to rethink the system?

What is the Single Justice Procedure (SJP)?

Single Justice Procedures, or fast-track justice, designed to deal with minor offences, have become increasingly heavy-handed, resulting in widespread injustices. Is it time for an overhaul?

It’s the increasingly common – but controversial – fast-track justice system in England and Wales whereby a single magistrate, supported by one legal adviser, can adjudicate on relatively minor offences committed by adults (or companies) who have pleaded guilty to the allegations. “Minor offences” here mean summary-only, non-imprisonable and victimless offences, including company prosecutions. Typical examples are things like minor driving offences (speeding or driving without insurance ), watching television without a licence, and infringing Covid restrictions during the pandemic. Other offences where SJPs are common include failing to show a valid train ticket and failing to ensure a child’s attendance at school. The Single Justice Service was set up in 2016, but the number of cases it covered boomed during Covid and has stayed high ever since. Between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2023, some 3,102,392 criminal cases were processed by the Single Justice Service, an average of nearly 700,000 a year. Last year they accounted for about two-thirds of all magistrates’ court cases.

What’s the rationale for fast-track justice?

Saving time and money.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice ) says that the purpose of SJPs is to let magistrates’ courts “deal with minor offences in a way that’s quicker, more straightforward and more efficient, while still being fair, transparent and rigorous”. The system means that minor cases – where the defendant pleads guilty – can be resolved without an expensive and time-consuming court hearing.

Magistrates can use the fast-track procedure when the defendant has pleaded guilty by post (or online) or has not responded to notification that they’re being prosecuted. Assuming they have indeed received the paperwork, the defendant still has the option to attend a hearing in court in person, whatever their plea. If they plead not guilty, the SJP is discontinued. And there’s always a full court hearing.

How different is this from “normal” justice?

According to GOV.UK , the SJP is not a radical innovation, but a modification of procedures dating from the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1957 (the offences now prosecuted by the police through SJP were previously prosecuted by the police through section 12 of that legislation).

The key changes under SJP are that the case may be heard by one magistrate (rather than the normal two or three), that the case need not be heard in open court and that there’s no fixed date for the hearing. The case can be heard any time from 21 days after the notice was served on the defendant.

But many other core features of SJP are much older. Trials of defendants who do not respond to summons or requisition (“trial in absence”) have been standard for over 300 years, for instance.

Why are these procedures controversial?

That’s where the “fair, transparent and rigorous” bit comes in. In August, a senior judge ruled that up to 75,000 convictions for rail fare evasion would have to be overturned after a huge misuse of the SJP across seven years was uncovered.

Six of the UK’s railway operators were identified as having unlawfully prosecuted passengers for fare evasion under legislation that should not have been relevant. In June it emerged that tens of thousands of prosecutions for bus fare evasion could be invalid after Transport for London misled defendants about how they could defend themselves in court. These cases have added to existing worries about the SJP system.

What are the concerns about SJP?

That the system is opaque, secretive and overly hasty – a “conveyor belt” approach to justice – and is wide open to abuse and error, especially where bodies like rail firms and the TV licensing authority have the ability to bring prosecutions themselves (much like the Post Office did in the Horizon scandal ) without having to pass public interest checks.

Critics argue that the SJP allows for insufficient scrutiny of charges and convictions because defendants do not appear in court or have legal representation, and because convictions and sentences are handed down by a single magistrate relying on court papers rather than questioning the evidence. Defendants can submit written pleas of mitigation, but campaigners warn that the prosecuting authorities often do not look at them and that many cases are brought where there is no public interest in prosecution, but where a defendant has felt pressured to plead guilty – or has simply not received the documentation.

What kind of cases are fast-tracked?

The Evening Standard’s court correspondent Tristan Kirk has won plaudits for his campaigning work in this area (and recently won Private Eye ’s Paul Foot award for investigative journalism).

Kirk’s reporting revealed numerous cases where the justice system has failed vulnerable people, including dementia patients being criminalised over unpaid car bills and mentally ill people prosecuted for not paying their TV licence. Recently, for example, he reported on the case of a 50-year-old Manchester mother with terminal breast cancer who was convicted of not paying for a TV licence.

Is it just campaigners who are worried?

No. In March, the Magistrates’ Association called for an overhaul of the SJP after its members complained that they felt rushed into decisions and were poorly trained, and said they wanted their work to have greater transparency.
And in August, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who was lord chief justice when the SJP was introduced in 2015, said the secretive system was “tilted against fairness” and should be overhauled.

The Ministry of Justice has put the SJP “under review” since Labour came to power and said that it’s exploring ways to improve the system.

This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription .