To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Written Question
Administration of Justice
Wednesday 28th February 2024

Asked by: Wayne David (Labour - Caerphilly)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to assess the potential vulnerability of people prosecuted under the single justice procedure.

Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government does not intervene in individual cases, including Single Justice Procedure (SJP) cases, which are a matter for the independent judiciary.

SJP is used by a number of approved prosecutors. It is a more proportionate way of dealing with straightforward, uncontested, summary-only non-imprisonable offences. The prosecuting body cannot choose this route for any case which falls outside of these criteria. SJP also cannot be used in cases where a defendant pleads not guilty.

Where a guilty plea is submitted, defendants are able to enter mitigating circumstances, if they wish, alongside their guilty plea, to be considered by the magistrate dealing with their case. Cases where defendants have not responded to a notification that they are being prosecuted may also be dealt with under the SJP.

For prosecutors, guilty pleas and any entered mitigation are available on the system for them to review as soon as the plea is received online, or as soon as scanned into the system if received by post, however, prosecutors are not required to view this.

Often the defendants’ circumstances and any potential vulnerability are not known until they provide their mitigation. Any mitigation provided under SJP is considered by the magistrate in the same way that it would be in open court. Although prosecutors decide whether to offer defendants the option of having their case dealt with under the SJP, magistrates may refer a case to open court if they think that would be more appropriate rather than continuing under the SJP.

The mitigation provided sometimes suggests that the prosecution may not be in the public interest; a magistrate can then adjourn the case and ask the prosecution to review the mitigation. Alternatively, the magistrate can reduce the penalty imposed and even deal with the case by way of a conditional or absolute discharge. Guidance for magistrates on mitigating factors is provided in the sentencing guidelines.

Support channels are also available to defendants who require clarification of information and processes ranging from web chat or telephone assistance to more intensive face-to-face assistance.

The Government keeps all policies under review and listens to feedback from stakeholders on how they are working.


Written Question
Administration of Justice
Wednesday 28th February 2024

Asked by: Wayne David (Labour - Caerphilly)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what (a) support and (b) information is available to defendants who are prosecuted under the single justice procedure if they believe their prosecution is not in the public interest.

Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

It is down to the prosecutor to decide whether the prosecution is in the public interest. The defendant can seek independent legal advice if they wish to.

There are several safeguards built into the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) process to ensure a defendant’s fair trial rights are protected. Defendants retain the right to request a court hearing at any point before their case is considered by a magistrate under the SJP. SJP is available where they waive that right, either expressly, or by failing to respond to the notice, but only in circumstances where the court has first satisfied itself that the relevant documents were served on the accused.

HMCTS provides support channels to defendants who require clarification of information and processes in relation to the SJP ranging from web chat or telephone assistance to more intensive face-to-face assistance via our Courts & Tribunals Service Centre and the ‘We Are Group’ which provides digital support, advice and support.


Written Question
Administration of Justice
Wednesday 28th February 2024

Asked by: Wayne David (Labour - Caerphilly)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of cases under the single justice procedure were not progressed to prosecution because they were deemed to not be in the public interest due to the vulnerability of defendants in each year since 2021.

Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Whilst information on the number of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) cases withdrawn or dismissed is available, we do not hold information on the number of prosecutions not progressed due to not being in the public interest due to the defendants' vulnerability.


Division Vote (Commons)
27 Feb 2024 - Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Wayne David (Lab) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 150 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 179 Noes - 294
Division Vote (Commons)
27 Feb 2024 - Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Wayne David (Lab) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 151 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 170 Noes - 299
Division Vote (Commons)
27 Feb 2024 - Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Wayne David (Lab) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 151 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 169 Noes - 306
Division Vote (Commons)
27 Feb 2024 - Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Wayne David (Lab) voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 152 Labour Aye votes vs 0 Labour No votes
Vote Tally: Ayes - 171 Noes - 300
Scheduled Event - 23 Feb 2024, 9:30 a.m.
View Source
Commons - Private Members' Bills - Main Chamber
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill 2023-24
MP: Wayne David
Speech in Commons Chamber - Fri 23 Feb 2024
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

Speech Link

View all Wayne David (Lab - Caerphilly) contributions to the debate on: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

Speech in Commons Chamber - Fri 23 Feb 2024
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

Speech Link

View all Wayne David (Lab - Caerphilly) contributions to the debate on: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill