I'm wondering,
What might help anyone convicted on a wrong understanding of s.5(1) now?
It might be thought disappointing that after Northern and GA admitted prosecuting people based on misunderstanding 5(1):
Evening Standard said:
Northern and Greater Anglia have also conceded during the legal proceedings that they have wrongly brought criminal prosecutions, in SJP and in normal open court, against people who had a “full defence” to a fare evasion allegation, when their legal rights were overlooked.
Seven train firms have been unlawfully using the Single Justice Procedure
www.standard.co.uk
not only did the Chief Magistrate not mention this problem in his judgment, but he repeated the error in paragraph 4:
Chief Magistrate said:
"Section .5(1), ‘fail to produce a ticket for inspection’..."
One effect of that error is that
it could mislead journalists and the public, some of whom may be directly concerned - they have been wrongly convicted and now the CM is in effect again misleading them that they were guilty. It was clear that the existence of this judgment would be widely reported.
Is there a way the Chief Magistrate can do something to correct the impression he gave there?
What would the government, the companies and the court service be doing that is within their power if they were trying hard to rectify these miscarriages of justice?
Was the Chief Magistrate right to refuse to deal with the substantive issue of the prosecution/conviction of obviously innocent people under s.5(1)?
If there is case law to the effect that higher courts don't like convictions being reversed after a guilty plea, is it really sensible to think that should apply where:
a) there has been an obvious "slip" by
i) the courts (magistrates/advisers),
ii) prosecutors,
iii) senior judges who wrote the sentencing guidelines,
iv) those who wrote the handbook, and/or
v) those who decided the content of the electronic system,
and
b) the defendants were obviously likely to have been misled into pleading guilty (and could well have been even if they tried to read and understand the statute)?
Why, under these circumstances, wouldn't the "slip rule" (s.142 Mags' Courts Act) apply?
Is this anything to do with damage limitation, at a time when the courts and governments want the justice system to be perceived as functioning well because of riots?
Why was the CM going on about
prosecutions by train companies being wrong when the main problem is
convictions by magistrates who are supposed to check these things?
(I am not here putting blame on magistrates rather than on the advisers, senior judges who issued the guidelines, people who decided what went in the electronic system or wrote the handbook, politicians who defunded the courts, etc. But formally, magistrates have a relevant duty.)
There might also be concern at the emphasis put by the Magistrates' Association on
train companies needing to answer questions rather than anyone else:
Tom Franklin, the Chief Executive of the Magistrates’ Association, said:
“This ruling has big implications for tens of thousands of people, and there are serious questions that the prosecuting authorities – in this case the train companies – need to answer as to how this was allowed to happen."
This ruling has big implications for tens of thousands of people, and supports our call for reform of the Single Justice Procedure.
www.magistrates-association.org.uk
It's the courts which "allowed" it to happen!
The Magistrates' Association statement does mention reform of SJP and improved training for magistrates, but overall it may mislead people that the problem is basically due to train companies and that magistrates had no great role in the convictions occurring through the wrong method, and with the wrong level of scrutiny.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport may mislead in a related way:
HMCTS MoJ DoT said:
"The decision to use SJP is a matter for prosecutors. When cases come to court, magistrates decide on conviction and sentence, advised by legal advisers.
...HMCTS, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice are aware that several train companies have prosecuted in error"
www.gov.uk
Would the public, including people affected by these issues, not easily conclude as a result of those two passages that magistrates have to go along with the "decision" of the prosecutor? How is it not misleading to say "the decision to use SJP is a matter for prosecutors" when one of the tasks of magistrates is to send cases inappropriately begun by (purported or real) SJP notices for a full hearing?
On the issue of people convicted who are obviously innocent, if HMCTS/MoJ/DfT are aware of this, why have they said nothing to those affected?
Even if technically an appeal would be needed to a higher court for a case to be overturned
within the court system (which may not be clearly the case) is there really nothing that the companies, the court service or the government can do?
