I think firstly you need to separate from this debate, the argument whether Railway Fare evasion, TV Licence evasion and the like should be criminal offences. The fact is at present they are and they must be dealt with as such.
One notable statistic (already mentioned in part above) is that 96% of the over 22,000 rail fare evasion cases prosecuted through SJP in 2022 were not responded to (and presumably found guilty on the papers).
But it is fairly clear that in many of those cases the accused would not respond whichever court process was used. Although I don't have figures, I would imagine that the percentage of non-respondents was similar before the SJP was introduced when those accused were invited to court via postal requisition. The SJP actually makes a response easier because it provides a simple method of disposal without the need to attend court.
I think the point was that the SJP makes it all too easy to prosecute for trivial offenses and little regard is given by the Justice to individual circumstances.
Under the earlier system it is just as easy (or difficult) to prosecute those offences. And when it comes to court the process is exactly the same: all the court hears is a "statement of facts". In open court it is read by a prosecutor; in a SJ court it is read either by the legal advisor to the Justice, or by the Justice him/herself. That is all of the individual circumstances of the offence that is heard. If the accused wants other individual circumstances or mitigation relating to either the offence or himself, he must make representations either in writing or in person. That may disadvantage those less competent to do so, but that disadvantage is visited on them whether their case is heard under the SJP or the "traditional" court process.
But the important point is that nobody is forced to have their matter heard under the SJP. The SJPN makes this quite clear. The argument that vulnerable or disadvantaged people would be less likely to note this within the SJ paperwork they are sent than they would be if their case was dealt with in the traditional court does not really hold water. Many of them have no intention of engaging with the court process, however it may be convened.
The article does also seem to be under the illusion that the SJP means that the prosecutor doesn't ask for costs.
Then the article's author is misinformed. The principle under which the SJP operates is that the sentencing guidelines used are identical to those used in the traditional court and any supplementary orders are also identical. There is no advantage to be gained by agreeing to be dealt with under the SJP but more importantly there is no disadvantage to be suffered if the defendant insists on a normal hearing. Interestingly, in an earlier thread in this section involving Govia Thameslink, a letter to an accused from GTR stated that they may ask for additional costs if the matter is not concluded by a Single Justice. This is completely contrary to the principle of the SJP and I was surprised to read it. I would be even more surprised if any court agreed to a claim for increased costs in such circumstances.
