Curious goings-on at Westminster magistrates in prosecutions for breaking the first coronavirus lockdown:
- Convictions for offences ppl weren't prosecuted for
- Hefty fines handed out which may exceed the legal maximum
- Police allowed to try again when paperwork is botched
- Convictions for offences ppl weren't prosecuted for
- Hefty fines handed out which may exceed the legal maximum
- Police allowed to try again when paperwork is botched
Westminster mags is using the Single Justice Procedure for these cases, behind-closed-doors with just a magistrate & legal advisor present to deal with them 'on the papers'.
Finding out what's happened hasn't been easy (story from last month): standard.co.uk/news/london/co…
Finding out what's happened hasn't been easy (story from last month): standard.co.uk/news/london/co…
I'm happy to report the #OpenJustice issues I highlighted have been looked into, the court has apologised and promised things will be different in the future.
The paperwork now I've seen, however, raises some brand-new questions.
The paperwork now I've seen, however, raises some brand-new questions.
A 21yo from Guildford was prosecuted for being in west London on April 6. He was convicted of an offence under the Welsh law.
But court papers reveal that he was actually prosecuted correctly under the English regs.
Somehow, magistrates wrongly recorded his conviction.
But court papers reveal that he was actually prosecuted correctly under the English regs.
Somehow, magistrates wrongly recorded his conviction.
That same man was actually convicted of two offences - being in a gathering of more than 2 people and contravening the restrictions on movement.
He was given two £250 fines, one for each offence, but the papers show they both related to the exact same incident.
He was given two £250 fines, one for each offence, but the papers show they both related to the exact same incident.
The evidence supporting these prosecutions is very thin:
Note from officer: "Found in street with 4 other males, stated he was staying with a friend (not his home address) which was some distance from his home address."
That's the full extent of the evidence the court had.
Note from officer: "Found in street with 4 other males, stated he was staying with a friend (not his home address) which was some distance from his home address."
That's the full extent of the evidence the court had.
The cases don't appear to come with signed statements from the police officers (as they do in bog-standard traffic cases).
In this case, it sounds like he committed both offences, but quite why he needed to be prosecuted twice is not clear.
In this case, it sounds like he committed both offences, but quite why he needed to be prosecuted twice is not clear.
Another case to raise eyebrows is a 26yo man convicted under the Coronavirus Act & fined £250.
Red faces all round in May when it emerged the Coronavirus Act - designed only for infectious ppl - had been misused & prosecutions had to be cancelled: standard.co.uk/news/crime/doz…
Red faces all round in May when it emerged the Coronavirus Act - designed only for infectious ppl - had been misused & prosecutions had to be cancelled: standard.co.uk/news/crime/doz…
There's no sign in the papers that this man was infectious, & his case appears to have been brought correctly by the police under the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) Regulations 2020.
A blunder by the court again, maybe, and the wrong offence is now on his record.
A blunder by the court again, maybe, and the wrong offence is now on his record.
A 3rd case - 30yo man caught out & about on April 12 when he had no good reason. Except he was convicted of gathering in a group outside a church while "singing with and playing the guitar".
Again, sounds like he broke lockdown, but didn't commit the offence he was convicted of.
Again, sounds like he broke lockdown, but didn't commit the offence he was convicted of.
The obvious conclusion here is that the court's record of someone's offending can't be trusted in these lockdown breach cases.
It then raises the question of whether enough time and attention was paid when convicting all these people.
It then raises the question of whether enough time and attention was paid when convicting all these people.
On some days, an average of just two-and-a-half minutes was given to dealing with each case.
Mostly, the defendants had not engaged with the court so the magistrate had to grapple in that time with whether there was enough evidence to convict & what the sentence should be.
Mostly, the defendants had not engaged with the court so the magistrate had to grapple in that time with whether there was enough evidence to convict & what the sentence should be.
The inconsistency is striking, when you compare similar cases dealt with on different days by different magistrates.
On 18/4, a 23yo was out & about when he shouldn't have been. £100 fine + costs
Same day, different part of London, 21yo committed the same offence. £1100 + costs
On 18/4, a 23yo was out & about when he shouldn't have been. £100 fine + costs
Same day, different part of London, 21yo committed the same offence. £1100 + costs
I could be wrong here, but the law in place in March/April sets out a max penalty of £960. It makes a £1100 court fine hard to fathom, & it wasn't an isolated case
On some days the fines were consistently around the £150 mark, on others £600 was the routine penalty. Not sure why
On some days the fines were consistently around the £150 mark, on others £600 was the routine penalty. Not sure why
While money isn't the objective, it's worth noting that Westminster has handed out more than £100,000 in fines & costs bills to lockdown breakers in the last two months.
It's a hefty amount, with bailiff threats for not paying, so it's fair to check they are doing it correctly.
It's a hefty amount, with bailiff threats for not paying, so it's fair to check they are doing it correctly.
There are cases where police appears to have been given a 2nd go at prosecuting someone:
The court notes: "To check date of offence on SJN. May require re-serve of documents."
Getting the date of the offence wrong is pretty basic - what else has gone through in error?
The court notes: "To check date of offence on SJN. May require re-serve of documents."
Getting the date of the offence wrong is pretty basic - what else has gone through in error?
Regular followers will already know of my dislike of the Single Justice Procedure - efficiency trumping transparency.
The issues feel particularly acute here - new laws, applied in a rush, could do with a degree of care and attention when they reach a court.
The issues feel particularly acute here - new laws, applied in a rush, could do with a degree of care and attention when they reach a court.
Most of these issues would've been ironed out by a prosecutor during an open court hearing. But there is no prosecutor in SJP & it appears magistrates couldn't/didn't have time to catch everything.
Defence lawyers may also have intervened, but they are few & far between in SJP.
Defence lawyers may also have intervened, but they are few & far between in SJP.
Many may shrug at all this - lockdown breakers deserve what they get.
My point is not to excuse breaking the rules. Far from it. I'm concerned about a flawed system.
If we are to use the law to enforce the lockdown, we should be able to trust that it works properly.
My point is not to excuse breaking the rules. Far from it. I'm concerned about a flawed system.
If we are to use the law to enforce the lockdown, we should be able to trust that it works properly.
The Single Justice Procedure is heralded by some as a success story, and may be used to justify replacing more open court hearings with online systems.
It feels like I've only scratched the surface in these case and found a multitude of issues.
It feels like I've only scratched the surface in these case and found a multitude of issues.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
