What is the Single Justice Procedure?

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced in 2015 as a way to reduce the strain on the UK’s justice system and make it easier and quicker to prosecute minor offences. It allows for low-level crimes to be dealt with by a single magistrate without the need for a court proceeding.

Since its introduction, the SJP has been used to handle an enormous volume of offences – including over half a million in 2020 alone. However, there are growing concerns that the system lacks transparency and may unfairly impact vulnerable people. There are also concerns that the SJP has been used unlawfully, particularly when it comes to prosecuting people for train fare evasion.

In this post, we’ll explain what the SJP is, how it works and the ways in which it has been used over the past 8 years. We’ll also look at some of the more significant controversies the SJP is facing, particularly the train fare evasion prosecution scandal.

What is the single justice procedure?

The SJP was introduced in England and Wales as part of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. As the government’s promotional fact sheet states, it “allows magistrates’ courts to deal with minor offences in a way that’s quicker, more straightforward and more efficient, while still being fair, transparent and rigorous.”

Prior to the introduction of the SJP, prosecution for minor offences would require all parties to attend magistrate’s court, even if the defendant intended to plead guilty. Under the SJP, cases where the defendant is pleading guilty are now resolved without any need for a court hearing. The defendant is able to submit their plea digitally or by post, and the case is handled by a single magistrate, supported by a lawyer.

This also means that the case can be dealt with at any time, rather than on a fixed schedule, and is (at least in principle) simpler for everyone involved.

How does the single justice procedure work?

Now you have a sense of the aim and purpose of the SJP – but how does it actually work in practice?

From the perspective of the person who is being prosecuted using an SJP, the process will usually unfold as follows:

• You will receive a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) in the post. This will explain the offence you are accused of and explain the next steps.
• Once you receive the SJPN, you have 21 days to respond by pleading guilty or not guilty. This can be done online, and you can submit details of any mitigating circumstances you wish to be considered. If you plead guilty, you can forego a court hearing – though you can specifically request one if you wish. If you plead not guilty, there must be an open hearing.
• If you plead guilty and do not request a hearing, your case will be dealt with by a single magistrate in a closed session. Once this has taken place, you will be notified of the decision and any consequences you might face, such as fines or points on your driving licence.

The government argues that this process helps to save time and money for participants, ensures court time is reserved for more serious crimes, and ensures a simpler, clearer and more streamlined approach for dealing with minor offences.

How has the single justice procedure been used?

In principle, the SJP is intended for use only with minor offences. The procedure cannot be used for offences that may result in a prison sentence. Further, it is only applicable for summary offences – i.e., those that are tried in magistrate’s court without a jury.

Examples of offences that can be prosecuted using an SJP include:

• Watching TV without a licence
• Driving without valid car insurance
• Exceeding the speed limit
• Failing to ensure a dependent child attends school

The SJP has been used extensively to tackle these types of minor offences over the past five years. According to statistics from HM Courts and Tribunals Service, 3,102,392 criminal cases used the system between April 2019 and September 2023.

Why is the single justice procedure controversial?

As the statistics show, the SJP has been wholeheartedly embraced as a way to streamline the prosecution of a range of low-level offences. The government has particularly touted its importance during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a significant slowdown of the justice system.

However, the SJP has been subject to growing criticism in recent years. In March 2024, the Magistrate’s Association stated that the procedure needs reform. They noted that the SJP may lead to vulnerable people being prosecuted when it is “not in the public interest” to do so, and that neurodivergent defendants may struggle with the remote nature of the process. As a result, the process may “harm […] some of society’s most vulnerable people”.

Further, they stated that the overall fairness and transparency of the process needed attention. For instance, many magistrates feel that they “do not always get as much time as they need to properly consider each case”.

These criticisms of the SJP were reinforced by a major scandal that emerged in mid-2024, when it was revealed that the SJP was being unlawfully used to prosecute train fare evasions.

The single justice procedure and train fare evasion prosecutions

In June 2024, an investigation by the Evening Standard found that a number of rail firms had been using the SJP to prosecute people for evading rail fares. The prosecutions were brought under section s.5(3)(a) of  the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which sets out the penalties for avoiding a rail fare.

However, this regulation states that failure to pay your rail fare is punishable by up to three months in prison. On this basis, it is not eligible for prosecution using the SJP. As we mentioned above, the SJP is reserved for offences that cannot result in imprisonment.

Following the Evening Standard report, a number of rail operators quickly acknowledged that they “got it wrong” by using the SJP for these cases. They accepted that all the convictions should be overturned. In August 2024, the Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring declared six test cases to be void and stated the SJP should never have been used.

While it may take time to identify the full number of cases involved, it’s estimated that as many as 75,000 convictions could be thrown out. Not only will these people be entitled to a repayment of any fines they paid, but they may also be entitled to seek compensation. Read on below to find out more.

Affected by the train fare evasion prosecution scandal? HNK Solicitors can help

The SJP has been touted as a way to streamline the way that minor offences are dealt with, freeing up court time and making things simpler for defendants. However, there have been some significant controversies resulting from the use of the SJP – not least the unlawful prosecution of people for evading rail fares.

If you have been unlawfully prosecuted in this way, you aren’t just entitled to recover any fines they have been paid – you may also be entitled to seek compensation through a civil action against the train companies. This is because, given your conviction was unlawful, any data the train companies have passed on to the police, about you may also be processed and retained unlawfully. This could result in job applications being denied, travel visas being rejected and issues in child custody proceedings.

If you have been prosecuted for rail fare evasion through an SJP, it’s important to explore the options you have available. This is particularly important if the retention of your data led to any additional damages such as exacerbating a pre-existing mental health condition, loss of earnings or reputational damage.

Here at HNK Solicitors, our experienced solicitors have helped many people to claim compensation for unlawful retention of their data. Our team offers free consultations, so if you have been affected by this major scandal, get in touch today to find out how we can help. Call us on 0151 668 0809, or email us at enquiries@hnksolicitors.com to get started.