Over 60% of ‘fast-track justice’ defendants never enter plea

People accused of minor offences are increasingly ignoring fast-track court proceedings because they do not recognise they are at risk of being convicted, the Magistrates Association has said.

Two-thirds of defendants sent summary offence notices under the single justice procedure (SJP) never enter a plea, according to the latest Ministry of Justice figures.

The high level of disengagement from the justice system is exposed as the process – which does not require court attendance – expands rapidly to cover hundreds of thousands of cases a year.

The rulings, made by a single magistrate sitting with a legal adviser, cover lesser offences such as TV licence evasion, speeding, fare evasion and failing to tax a vehicle. More categories are likely to be added in future.

But the Magistrates Association, which represents all magistrates in England and Wales, and the campaign group Transform Justice have questioned whether decisions are sufficiently transparent, whether defendants not summoned to court appreciate the legal significance of a conviction and whether the right to a fair trial is prejudiced by a process that appears administrative rather than judicial.

The SJP, introduced in 2015, now accounts for 57% of the 1.5 million cases passing through magistrates courts in England and Wales each year.

The MoJ has confirmed the SJP non-response rate is about 67%. Virtually all are consequently found guilty. The department says a large number of defendants did not turn up for minor offences before the system was streamlined.

There is evidence, however, that the no plea rate has increased significantly. A separate MoJ statistics table shows the overall proportion of defendants entering no plea at magistrates courts has risen from 52% in 2010 to 74% currently. A government factsheet in the run-up to the 2015 Criminal Justice and Courts Act noted that about half of defendants involved in summary motoring proceedings entered no plea, though for other cases the proportion was higher.

Defendants who plead not guilty retain the right to a full hearing in open court. SJP cases only involve non-imprisonable offences, though they can result in fines and loss of a driving licence. An SJP notice is delivered by post and gives defendants 21 days to respond in writing and explains the consequences of not responding.

It is not clear why so few people respond. Some may not have received the letter. One woman interviewed by the Guardian, who wished to remain anonymous, said she was wrongly sent a TV licence notice but had moved house and the notice was never forwarded.

She was convicted without knowing about the case. When she discovered it, she had to tell her employer about the conviction. It took several years to have it quashed. “It’s horrible to find you have a conviction and didn’t know about it,” she said. “It was a computer error. I had to prove my innocence in a court.”

In an effort to maintain open justice in a system where defendants no longer turn up in public courts, the MoJ publishes a daily list of SJP cases naming defendants. The results are supposed to be available by ringing a telephone number. It has proved difficult for the media to find details that would normally be readily available at a court hearing.

John Bache, the national chair of the Magistrates Association, said: “One of the fundamental principles of the justice system is that justice is not just done but is also seen to be done, and it is essential that openness and transparency are not compromised. How the single justice procedure can be opened to public scrutiny must be addressed, particularly as we head towards further digitisation of the court process.

“There is an additional risk that if the whole process is done without a hearing, individuals may not fully appreciate its implications. This is a serious process regarding a criminal offence, but as the system may appear to be administrative rather than judicial, people may not realise the importance of responding and thus risk ending up with a criminal conviction without entering a plea.”

Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate and director of Transform Justice, said: “The single justice procedure appears to have been introduced to make it cheaper to deal with people who don’t engage with the criminal justice system. But people need to engage if they are to understand what they’ve been charged with and, if innocent, how to plead not guilty.”

A MoJ spokesperson said: “Prior to the introduction of the single justice procedure many defendants did not turn up to court and hearings simply went ahead in their absence anyway.

“This process is a straightforward way to administer justice for those who plead guilty which allows them to resolve their case without having to go to court. Defendants are made aware of the proceedings by letter and the consequences of not responding to the notice is made clear.”