Dr Stephen Colman, Associate Professor of Law, University of Suffolk
Dr Charlotte Walker, Lecturer in Criminology, York St John University
Introduction
The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 as a way of increasing efficiency in the magistrates’ court. In the first quarter of 2025 (January to March), there were 196,011 cases received via the Single Justice Procedure, equivalent to over 65,000 per month (Ministry of Justice 2025). The SJP allows a wide range of non-imprisonable offences to be tried by a single magistrate sitting in private without a formal court hearing. Defendants can plead guilty online, without attending court. Whilst this can be beneficial to some, it raises serious concerns for unrepresented and vulnerable defendants (Colman and Walker 2025).
The SJP was recently brought to the foreground in Northern Trains v Ballington (unreported, 15 August 2024, Westminster Magistrates’ Court), in which the Chief Magistrate ruled that over 74,000 cases brought as private prosecutions by railway operators should be nullified, as the offence prosecuted was not eligible to be dealt with under the SJP. This case not only raised concerns about eligibility under the SJP but also drew renewed attention to the broader risks associated with the SJP.
Pressure to plead guilty and the problem of equivocal pleas
One major concern is that the procedure may incentivise defendants to plead guilty when they are factually innocent. The prospect of resolving the matter quickly and avoiding a court appearance is likely to appeal to many defendants. However, there is an increased risk that vulnerable defendants will plead guilty without fully understanding the case against them and without seeking legal advice. It is unclear how many defendants in such cases self-represent and are vulnerable, in the sense that they have a disability, mental health issues, or learning difficulties. Nevertheless, the proportion is likely to be high, given that legal aid is unavailable for cases dealt with via the SJP (Transform Justice 2025) and a significant number of defendants are recognised as having additional support needs (Jacobson and Talbot 2009).
The SJP also weakens safeguards against equivocal pleas, which have traditionally protected vulnerable defendants. In conventional court hearings, magistrates and legal representatives are alert to such pleas, where a defendant attempts to plead guilty in a way that is qualified or ambiguous. In Rochdale Justices ex parte Allwork (1981) 73 Cr App R 319, the Divisional Court indicated that in such circumstances, the court should ensure the defendant fully understands the charge against them and the nature and effect of their plea. A single magistrate deciding the case on the papers is less likely to identify an equivocal plea than a full bench with the defendant present, since there is no opportunity to question the defendant to check their understanding. Even if the defendant had entered a guilty plea by post under the previous system, any mitigation that they put forward would be heard by the full court and a potentially equivocal plea identified. The absence of a prosecutor further reduces the likelihood of an equivocal plea being recognised. If a defendant were to appeal their conviction to the Crown Court on the basis that they had entered an equivocal plea, much of the evidence that would traditionally be available from an in-person or virtual hearing – evidence setting out the circumstances in which the plea was entered – would not exist.
No response cases
Although not guilty pleas are diverted out of the SJP for a trial, cases in which the defendant fails to respond to the SJP notice are dealt with in a particularly controversial way. If a defendant fails to respond to the SJP notice, the case may be decided by a single magistrate without a formal trial in open court. This can occur at any point after 21 days have elapsed without the case being listed for a hearing. The magistrate decides guilt or innocence based solely on the papers that have been served on the defendant. Despite the burden and standard of proof remaining the same as in conventional criminal cases, the decision may be based on a prosecution summary rather than the evidence itself.
One of the most concerning aspects of the SJP, in cases where no response has been received from the defendant, is that the adjudication takes place outside the courtroom without the defendant or a prosecutor being present. This effectively creates a private form of justice, reducing the trial process to an administrative or back-office function that lacks transparency and proper scrutiny. Hearing cases in open court lends a sense of formality to the proceedings and ensures transparency, as members of the public or the media might be present. Open justice is an important part of accountability and democracy in the criminal courts and the presence of observers can result in changed behaviour by legal professionals (Townend and Welsh 2024, pp. 33-36). The absence of a prosecutor also means that the case is considered in isolation by a single magistrate rather than in the multi-agency forum of the courtroom, which typically includes a bench of magistrates and at least two other legal professionals. Cases are decided quickly, with limited opportunity for discussion since only the magistrate and a court legal advisor are present; by contrast, standard cases are determined by a majority decision of three magistrates. In addition, there is no opportunity for the case to be reviewed against the evidential and public interest stages of the Code for Crown Prosecutors should the circumstances require it. The need for review may result from fundamental gaps in the evidence or representations made by the defendant. Although there are risks for all defendants, these are heightened for vulnerable defendants who may not understand the allegation, the process, or how to complete online forms. SJP has potentially reopened the debate about the desirability of moving to out-of-court forms of summary justice. This debate was previously concerned with the increased use of police cautions and fixed penalty notices, but now concerns a private model of justice within the magistrates’ court (Morgan 2008).
Conclusion
The SJP is a classic example of a ‘crime control’ device and a managerialist initiative, prioritising efficiency in the criminal courts over fairness to individual defendants. While SJP is currently limited to summary, non-imprisonable offences, there is a risk that policy makers may be tempted to expand the reach of the procedure in the future in an attempt to address the ever-increasing strain on the criminal justice system. If this were to include more serious offences, the risks would be even greater. Given the concerns discussed, there is an urgent need for empirical research to properly investigate how these powers are exercised in practice and whether sufficient safeguards exist for vulnerable defendants. Equally important is the publication of demographic data on those dealt with via the SJP, so that their needs can be better understood.
References
Colman, S. and Walker, C. (2025) ‘The single justice procedure: a slippery slope towards private justice’, Criminal Law Review, vol 8, pp. 469-481.
Jacobson, J. & Talbot, J. (2009) Vulnerable defendants in the criminal courts: a review of provision for adults and children. London: Prison Reform Trust. Available at: https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/old_files/Documents/vulnerable%20defendants%20in%20the%20criminal%20courts.pdf [accessed 30/11/2025].
Ministry of Justice (2025) Statistics in Development – Single Justice Procedure. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025/statistics-in-development-single-justice-procedures [accessed 30/11/205].
Morgan, R. (2008) Summary Justice: Fast – but Fair? Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Townend, J. & Welsh, L. (2024) Observing Justice: Digital Transparency, Openness and Accountability in Criminal Courts. Bristol University Press.
Transform Justice (2025) Industrial-scale prosecution? Available at: https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Industrial-scale-prosecution-FINAL.pdf [accessed 30/1
Defending Vulnerability 