Thread by @JUSTICEhq

This thread covers Part 2 (the criminal sections) of the #JRandCourtsBill #JudicialReviewBill which make significant, and potentially very damaging changes to how the criminal courts work.

There’s so much wrong with this part, and we’ve set out key examples below → (1/17)

Clause 3 would introduce a new way for people accused of crimes that are not punishable with prison to plead guilty entirely online.

It builds on the existing ‘single justice procedure’. (2/17)

This is where you receive a letter accusing you of a crime, and you can respond either pleading guilty or not guilty.

Your case will then be heard by a single magistrate in a closed session.

The prosecutor/defendants’ case must be made in writing. (3/17)

There are many issues with the SJP.

It disproportionately impacts women, ethnic minorities, and those with mental health and neurodivergent conditions.

Many people miss the letter, or don’t understand what it means. (4/17)

In fact, estimates suggest 71% of people don’t respond at all.

What’s more, if you don’t respond, you can be convicted anyways. Most people are. (5/17)

#JRandCourtsBill #JudicialReviewBill

Despite this, the Government refuses to acknowledge the issues and work to fix this clearly broken system.

Instead, they want to push it even further and remove the already weak safeguard of the single magistrate.

That’s what Clause 3 will do. (6/17)

While limited to three (seemingly small) offences to begin with (travelling on a train or tram without a ticket & fishing with an unlicensed rod & line), they can easily add more later on through secondary legislation.

This does not get as much scrutiny as a normal Bill. (7/17)

We oppose Clause 3 because it will worsen all the issues with the SJP & create others.

We worry that people will not fully understand the consequences of ticking the ‘guilty’ box. Criminal records can really impact lives, from future employment to costs of car insurance. (8/17)

As a result, poor and disadvantaged people will face the brunt.

There’s also no exception for neurodivergent people, or those with mental health conditions.

This is unacceptable. (9/17)

We think Clause 3 should be removed from the Bill entirely.

At the very least, there should be safeguards and protections to mitigate some of the worst potential harms. We suggest amendments that could help. #JudicialReviewBill #JRandCourtsBill (10/17)

Clause 6 would also introduce a new pre-trial allocation procedure.

Rather than going to court, and having access to the support available there, the Government wants people to enter pleas online, through their lawyer. (11/17)

Clause 8 does the same for children.

It’s well-evidenced that children tend to plead guilty more than they should. This is why they are vulnerable, and need protection.

We’re really concerned by these clauses, and think both should be removed – especially for children. (12/17)

Finally, Clause 9 would allow magistrates to continue a case in a defendants’ absence much more easily.

This is really problematic. (13/17)

The new test means a mag can continue a case when they think there isn’t an “acceptable reason”, even if the defendant’s lawyer isn’t there.

However, how can they know if a reason is acceptable or not if they haven’t heard it? (14/17)

It is important that defendants are able to engage in their proceedings.

To allow cases to continue so easily weakens the very concept of a fair trial. (15/17)

We’re working with other NGOs (@fairtrials, @transformJust1) to highlight all these problems, and call on the Government to think again.

You can read our briefing here (16/17) → #JRandCourtsBill #JudicialReviewBill

bit.ly/2ZZBTdv

You can read our previous thread on judicial review here (17/17) →

https://twitter.com/JUSTICEhq/status/1485961189884669956