Thread by @kirkkorner

There are some serious problems at the top of the justice system right now. That's undisputable and very concerning.

I'd like to take a moment to highlight an issue at the bottom of the system, which unless commented on, might pass by unnoticed.

141 suspected lockdown breakers are being shovelled through the justice system this week, under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). Those familiar with my musings will know this involves closed-door hearings, little scrutiny, & sometimes a mighty battle to find out what happened

The SJP system is set up for summary only, non-imprisonable, victimless crimes, so there's no question offences brought under coronavirus legislation in place between March and mid-May fits the bill. As far as I can tell the courts are entitled to deal with these cases like this.

SJP is usually applied to driving offences, fare dodging, TV licence cases, etc
To be frank I think SJP is an affront to open justice. While there's an argument for dealing with these low-level offences more efficiently than in the past, SJP presents real issues with transparency

But for the moment we are stuck with it.

Dealing with lockdown breaches in this way is a new frontier - I think there should be concern that new criminal offences, created in a hurry by govt, and initially wrongly used by the police, are being dealt with in private sessions.

It's easily forgotten that a whole raft of lockdown breach cases were wrongly charged, convictions had to be overturned and prosecutions abandoned: standard.co.uk/news/crime/doz…

The CPS review happened after media reporting of the first botched case: thetimes.co.uk/article/police…

Turning to the SJP lockdown breach prosecutions at Westminster magistrates court, Piers Corbyn is the headline act: standard.co.uk/news/crime/pie…
If he follows his previous pattern, he'll plead not guilty and his case will come out of SJP for a trial.

With the 140 others, I understand they are said to have not paid the fixed penalty notice. It's possible they won't respond to the court case so will be tried in absence.
This will happen in a closed-door session, possible by a magistrate sat at home. No scrutiny of the process.

It's also highly unlikely those pleading guilty in writing will have received legal advice before doing so. If there had been a court hearing, they may have been offered a chance to speak to the duty lawyer prior to entering a plea, but that doesn't happen in SJP.

Then there are the charges:
- 2 cases brought under Welsh regulations, when offence was committed in England.
- 3 cases brought under the Coronavirus Act, using powers supposed to be used only for infectious people, when offences are not going home and drinking beer in the street

Scrutiny can be done by journalists requesting papers in the case. It's not a substitute for an open court hearing & there are gaps always left over, but it's something.

However, the time delay can be chronic. One request I made 9 months ago is still live.

I find all this troubling. Not a conspiracy but because part of the justice system was swept into darkness in the name of efficiency, & the shadow is now covering an area of public concern.

The magistrates could order all these case into public session. But I doubt they will.