The Missing Pieces of the SJP Jigsaw

As has previously been mentioned, all TV Licensing prosecutions in England and Wales are dealt with via a process called the Single Justice Procedure (SJP).

It has been a while since I last mentioned the SJP, so I'll start with a reminder of some of the key details.

Key information:

The SJP allows a single Magistrate to deal with certain non-imprisonable, summary offences on the basis of written evidence. TV licence evasion is one such offence commonly dealt with via the SJP.

A person accused of TV licence evasion (who I'll refer to as the defendant) is sent a SJP Notice in the post, which requires them to provide one of the following responses within 28 days:

• Either, admit the allegation as described in the Notice and proceed via the SJP route: If they do this the court will convict them and a single Magistrate will consider the case and sentence them;
• Or, admit the allegation as described in the Notice and proceed with a full court sentencing hearing: If they do this the court will convict them, but they will appear before the court in person to be sentenced;
• Or, deny the allegation as described in the Notice and proceed with a full court trial hearing: If they do this then they will need to attend a trial to determine the matter. They will be entitled to full disclosure of TV Licensing's evidence - this means everything TV Licensing will rely on as evidence at the trial, as well as any additional evidence (referred to as "unused material") it holds that might undermine its own case.

Significantly, for reasons that will become apparent, any response is made directly to the court and not to TV Licensing.

If the defendant fails to respond to the Notice, then the prosecution will proceed via the first of those routes by default. This is the worst position to be in, because only TV Licensing's evidence will be taken into consideration.

Barring some glaring error or omission on the part of TV Licensing, this will invariably result in the conviction of the defendant. Furthermore, the lack of response means the court will not be able to consider the defendant's mitigation or financial circumstances, so they will likely receive a higher fine than they should have done. Failure to respond also means there will be no credit for an early guilty plea.

It is TV Licensing's choice to use the SJP as the default prosecution method, as it invariably results in a faster turnover of cases and less scrutiny of each individual case.

The prosecutor is not present during SJP cases, which means there is no opportunity for case-damaging questions being aimed in their direction.

As SJP cases can be heard by any Magistrate, sitting at any court in England or Wales, the system is also cheaper and more efficient to manage from the court's point of view.

Strict liability offences:

TV licence evasion is a strict liability offence. In simple terms, this means the offence is committed merely by the act of not having a TV licence when one is needed, irrespective of the defendant's intent or reasons why.

Evidential and public interest tests:

TV Licensing claims to use the same prosecution standards as the Crown Prosecution Service. This means that a prosecution should only be brought if:

• The evidential test is met: This means the prosecutor believes its evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction;
• The public interest test is met: This means the prosecutor believes there is sufficient public interest in pursuing a conviction. Further details of the factors considered are given in the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors.

If either of these tests fails, then the prosecution should not be pursued.

Criticism of the SJP:

In recent months, thanks mainly to the tenacity of Evening Standard journalist Tristan Kirk, some serious flaws have emerged with the SJP.

As mentioned earlier, any SJP responses are sent directly to the court. This means that TV Licensing remains unaware of any mitigation put forward by the defendant - mitigation which, if it were known, should cause TV Licensing to reassess the public interest in pursuing the prosecution.

Tristan has highlighted a number of cases where people suffering from serious physical disabilities, mental incapacity, admitted to hospital who have been prosecuted by TV Licensing.

There is no public interest in prosecuting first-time offenders in this category yet TV Licensing, despite pretending prosecution is a last resort, is seemingly very comfortable in doing so.

The whole SJP system, in its current format, stinks from the head downwards.

The way TV Licensing abuses the criminal justice system, just as the Post Office did, is an affront to justice.

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.