The BBC has blamed magistrates for harsh convictions against vulnerable people in Britain’s fast-track courts, and is opposing a key reform that could end the scandal.
TV Licensing prosecutions have been in the eye of a storm over the last two years around the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), a court system in which magistrates hand out convictions in private.
The Standard’s award-winning investigation has revealed deep flaws in the SJP system, and exposed that sick pensioners, people with complex mental health problems, and bereaved families are regularly facing criminal convictions for not keeping up with household bills.
The Labour government is considering changes to the fast-track justice system, including forcing prosecutors – like TV Licensing and the DVLA - to read all mitigation letters so that cases which are not in the public interest can be withdrawn.
Magistrates have backed the idea, suggesting prosecuting bodies should be engaged throughout the criminal process and assess all the evidence and information that comes to light.
But the BBC is opposing the change, The Standard can reveal, suggesting it would be “impractical and “inefficient”, and accusing magistrates of failing to intervene to highlight troubling cases passing through the courts.
The Corporation’s stance earned an immediate rebuke from the Magistrates Association, which insisted all prosecutors have a duty to monitor the public interest of its cases and TV Licensing “cannot outsource this responsibility to others”.
Tom Franklin, the association’s chief executive, said: “Cases should not be coming to court if they do not pass this public interest test – causing distress to vulnerable defendants, and clogging up overburdened courts.”
Cases that have emerged from the SJP system in recent months include a mother prosecuted for not paying her TV Licence as she mourned the death of unborn son.
Another mother was convicted in a TV Licensing prosecution for not keeping up with her bills while she was caring for her sick baby in hospital.
In another case, a woman was convicted and sentenced for not paying her TV Licence at a time when she was being detained for mental health treatment.
Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas is among those who have called for SJP reform, and he expressly backed a new rule that prosecutors should read all letters of mitigation – where the heartbreaking circumstances of some defendants are revealed.
The Magistrates Association, the body which represents JPs across England and Wales, and the Bar Council, the representative body for barristers, are also in favour of this reform.
But the BBC, in its response to the government’s consultation, suggested it should remain the job of magistrates to flag to prosecutors cases which may not be in the public interest.
“In cases brought under the SJP there should be a clear channel of communication from the court back to the prosecutor”, it set out.
“This should be coupled with an expectation that the court will use those channels if relevant, material mitigation is raised by a defendant which will ordinarily not be seen or considered by the prosecutor before a case is determined by a magistrate.
“Decisions to refer cases back to prosecutors should, however, remain at the discretion of the independent judiciary (rather than taking a blanket approach).”
Around 25,000 people were convicted in the year ending June 2024 of not paying their TV Licence. This is down nearly 80 per cent from the numbers taken to court in 2019.
The BBC said it conducts a public interest test, based on the information it has at the time, before starting each prosecution, and more than 1,000 cases in 2024 were discontinued at this stage on public interest grounds.
The corporation has told the government it supports the idea of a new Code of Practice for private prosecutors, the creation of a new inspectorate to monitor practices, and a requirement for all prosecutors to consider public interest before launching a criminal case.
In March last year, in response to the growing SJP scandal, a memo was circulated to courts and legal advisers saying that SJP cases could be referred back to prosecutors if a mitigation letter from the defendant suggests a public interest check could be needed.
A direct email line to prosecutors was also established, alongside this reminder to magistrates of their powers. But the BBC said that line was used just 26 times in TV Licensing cases over the course of more than a year.
The Standard has found cases involving widows prosecuted while grieving the deaths of their husband, domestic abuse victims held liable for bills they did not control, and a woman dying of cancer prosecuted for not paying her TV Licence – all apparently not referred back to the prosecutor for a public interest check.
In spite of this, the corporation told the Ministry of Justice it believed the existing system should be maintained, but with “support…to improve the processes for referrals, and to establish guidance for magistrates as to when it is appropriate to refer a case back and when it is for the court to hear the case and take the mitigating evidence into account itself, as part of sentencing.”
The BBC also suggested an MoJ investigation into the actions, or non-actions, of magistrates over referrals, to determine “is it because magistrates are not familiar with the system, because it has not been widely promoted to them, or simply because there are not many cases magistrates determine it appropriate to refer?
“We stress, however, that once a case has been sent to court by a prosecutor, the main responsibility for decisions about the case, including whether to refer it back for reconsideration of the original decision to prosecute, should remain with the court.
“We think that accords with the role of the independent judiciary but it is also impractical and inefficient to expect prosecutors to be responsible for monitoring SJP cases continuously, to check for later-delivered mitigating evidence.”
The BBC added that the courts system must command public confidence, but it “remains imperative however that the SJP is not: seen to be weakened such as to encourage non-compliance with the law; made significantly less efficient for the courts and prosecutors; or made more complex, inconvenient or distressing for defendants.”
The government’s consultation concluded at the start of May. Courts Minister Sarah Sackman has said the responses are being assessed, but no timetable for reform has yet been set.
A BBC spokesperson told the Standard it wants “a system that is fair, efficient and transparent, and we have given our views on the proposals put forward by the Government to improve the process.
“Now the consultation has closed, we await the Government’s consideration of all the responses and a decision on what changes will be made.”
The Magistrates Association published a 12-point reform plan last March, which included recommendations that only experienced magistrates deal with SJP cases and there is better training within the judiciary.
Courts told to report cheating motorists to police over 'plea farm' scam that could lead to jail
Widow convicted in fast-track SJP court over car tax when husband had just died
Rogue prosecutors should be banned from fast-track Single Justice Procedure courts, say magistrates
Pensioner, 81, in care home convicted in fast-track court of not paying car insurance
