The SJP, introduced in 2015, allows a single magistrate assisted by a legal adviser to decide adult, summary-only offences such as not having a TV licence, driving without car insurance or speeding.
The Magistrates’ Association this week published 12 recommendations for reform and warned that many of its members are ‘uncomfortable’ with the current process, while a ‘significant proportion’ feel they do not always get enough time to consider each case properly.
Mark Beattie JP, national chair of the Magistrates’ Association, said: ‘We believe the principle of the SJP is good.
‘Every year it spares thousands of defendants the ordeal of having to attend court for minor offences, and it allows for more efficient use of court time, which means speedier justice and a focus on more serious offences. However, it is not a perfect system.’
Beattie said members ‘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 SJP.’
Among the recommendations, the association wants to make it a requirement that prosecutors, such as TV Licensing or the DVLA, see all pleas and mitigations from defendants before the case is heard by the magistrate. It wants improved training, which emphasises that magistrates can ‘use their discretion fully and without reservation, including the ability to refer cases back to the prosecuting authority’.
It also wants to ease time pressures on magistrates, boost transparency by publishing more data on guilty pleas and requests to come to court, and researching potential improvements to help the vulnerable or those with communication challenges.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=49be51b1_1)
