Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 32
32
Paragraph: 90
However, given the relatively small number of covid-19 cases and their public importance, we do...
Conclusion
However, given the relatively small number of covid-19 cases and their public importance, we do not think that all covid-19 offences in the regulations should necessarily have been specified to allow the procedure to be used. The use of the single justice procedure to deal with covid-19 offences has been problematic in the wider context of public uncertainty over what was prohibited and what was allowed, Covid-19 and the criminal law 37 caused by the fast-changing nature of the covid-19 regulations. We also appreciate concerns expressed to us about the transparency of the single justice procedure. In a pandemic it is also important for the integrity of offences that justice is seen to be delivered in line with the principles of the rule of law.
Paragraph Reference:
90
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
It is a matter for prosecutors to decide whether it is appropriate to prosecute a defendant under the SJP, and work was done quickly with police forces and court staff to reduce error rates in COVID-19 prosecutions. Defendants do not have to choose the SJP procedure and have the right to request a traditional court hearing at any point before their case is considered. A case dealt with under the SJP is dealt with in the same way as any other case, except that a single magistrate can deal with it and the hearing need not be in public. The magistrate must comply with the same legislative safeguards as all other proceedings, and the Sentencing Council’s Sentencing Guidelines apply in the same way. The Government is not aware of any evidence to suggest that the error rate for prosecuting COVID-19 cases is higher under the SJP than any other court procedure or that the SJP procedure was the specific cause of those errors. As with all cases dealt with by the magistrates’ court, there are safeguards in place to address such issues where they occur. If an error is made by the court, whether upon conviction or sentencing, the court will always notify the defendant and correct any error following the case being re-opened. There are a number of additional safeguards built into the SJP process to ensure a defendant’s fair trial rights are protected. Defendants prosecuted under the SJP have an automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court against conviction and sentence. In the event a defendant was unaware of the proceedings, they are entitled to make a statutory declaration which revokes the conviction and recommences the proceedings. We are consistently working to improve the service provided under this procedure. Following consultation with users, we have recently revised the SJP notice and process to identify vulnerable users and make the process even clearer. Given the safeguards in place and the Ministry of Justice’s ongoing commitment to continually review and improve the SJP process, we do not agree with the Report’s recommendation that a formal review of the use of the SJP in COVID-19 cases is required.