Thread by @kirkkorner

A simple speeding case involving Chelsea's Antonio Rudiger provides clear proof of everything that is wrong with the Single Justice Procedure. Open Justice is not being well served, if you ask me.

standard.co.uk/news/crime/rev…

Firstly, the basics: The case was dealt with behind closed doors, in a back office with just a single magistrate and a court official present.

There was no access for the press or public. Scrutiny of the decision-making process was non-existent.

The first hearing was listed for May 24. After receiving the court list & with 3 days to go before the hearing, I submitted a request to the court. Marked as urgent, I requested access to the paperwork in Rudiger's case.

No one read or acted on my email in time for the hearing (which happened behind closed doors), I send a reminder the following week, and two days after that, on May 30, someone replied to say my request would passed to a District Judge to decide on.

Four days pass, and the judge replies, acknowledging it would have been better if the magistrate dealing with the case had seen my request. He asks me for further submissions on my request, and says he's written to the prosecutor and defendant, asking what they think.

I find out Rudiger pleaded guilty & will be sentenced on June 25 but that's the extent of the detail I can get

When the Single Justice Procedure was introduced in 2015, it was guaranteed that results of cases would always be sent to the press. In London, it simply doesn't happen

Back at the court, I send in my submissions (again - I'd laid them on in full in my initial request), & a full 8 days later the court acknowledges it has received my email. Another 5 days pass and a letter lands, saying that the judge will deal with the request on the papers.

I'm asking about some other cases at this stage, I reply to say perhaps the request for Mr Rudiger's papers can be dealt with swiftly, and agree an 'on the papers' decision is fine by me. Nearly there, I think to myself.

No response for a week. It's impossible to call the court these days, so I send a reminder email.
Rudiger's sentencing hearing happens on June 25. Again behind closed doors.
Another week passes & the court replies. My emails were missed, 2 weeks have passed and nothing happened

Another nine days whistle by, and then the papers finally arrive. It's been almost two months since the initial request. No one objected to me having them, not the prosecutor nor defendant. Court officials are now ridiculously overloaded and surely shouldn't be burdened with this

Rudiger got a 14 day driving ban for his particular indiscretion. He'd served it by the time I found out enough details to report the sentencing hearing.
By holding secret court hearings, I believe it's essential you request paperwork to try to understand what went on.

Even after all this, I'm still in the dark on why the sentence was passed in the way that it was. Sentencing guidelines played a part, surely, but the rest, who knows.

Many will ask, why does this matter? It's only speeding, leave it alone. The former Courts Minister was on record saying the next legislative stage of courts reform is likely to include an expansion of cases dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure.

At the moment it's low level offences that can't carry a prison sentence and there's no victim (fare dodging, speeding, no paying TV licence). If it's expanded to cases that people care about, it's vital that they stop tossing Open Justice out of the window.

Aside from complaints that the very principle of closed-door hearings is wrong, the very basic things MPs and ministers said would be done to protect Open Justice back in 2014/2015 are being roundly ignored.

As an addendum, the latest innovation is to list SJP cases online, but without including defendant's first names. Just an initial.
gov.uk/guidance/singl…
Somewhere in the MoJ, a bizarre decision has been taken to partially anonymise defendants.

The effect of this is thousands of court cases happening in secret, with no one really knowing who the defendant is, let alone what exactly they are accused of, & the press are not in a position to report on anything at all. Is this really what our justice system should be doing?