A 93-year-old woman suffering from dementia and living in a care home has been convicted for failing to insure her car, in yet another controversy linked to the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). Despite providing a handwritten letter explaining her situation, the pensioner was prosecuted by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and now holds a criminal conviction.
The case has reignited concerns over the fairness of the SJP system, which allows magistrates to rule on minor offences in a fast-tracked process without the defendant being present in court. Critics argue the system disproportionately affects vulnerable individuals, with this latest case highlighting the rigid and impersonal nature of the process.
A dementia diagnosis overlooked
The pensioner, who resides in a rehabilitation home in Dudley, West Midlands, faced prosecution after it was discovered in September last year that her car insurance had expired. In her letter to the court, she explained that she had not driven since November 2023 after being diagnosed with dementia.
“I have not held a driving licence since 10.11.23 due to a diagnosis of dementia,” she wrote.
“The car has been kept on the drive during this period.”
She admitted she had forgotten to declare her car as off-road with a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN), adding:
“Mail has been hidden away by myself due to the dementia, meaning family have not had access to it.
“After having a stroke, I am now in a rehabilitation home recovering.
“I have been here since the middle of November.”
Despite this explanation, her case was fast-tracked under the SJP system, and she was convicted in her absence at Taunton Magistrates’ Court last month. While she received a six-month conditional discharge—meaning she was spared a financial penalty—the conviction remains on her record.
Failure of the system?
It has since emerged that the DVLA, which brought the prosecution, did not see the pensioner’s letter before her case was presented to a magistrate. Under normal circumstances, prosecutors can choose to withdraw a case if it is deemed not to be in the public interest. However, the design of the SJP system meant this step was not considered.
The case has drawn criticism from legal experts and campaigners who argue that the SJP process lacks adequate safeguards for vulnerable individuals.
“The reality is that people with dementia, disabilities, or other vulnerabilities are being criminalised unnecessarily under this system,” said a legal expert familiar with SJP cases.
“The DVLA should have reviewed the case properly before pushing for prosecution. A simple check would have shown that pursuing charges against a 93-year-old dementia patient living in a care home was completely unjust.”
Government review underway
Following a series of similar cases, the government launched a consultation on Thursday into potential reforms to the SJP system. Proposed changes include a requirement for prosecutors to read mitigation letters before proceeding with cases and a new code of practice compelling agencies like the DVLA to engage with vulnerable defendants.
However, the consultation is not set to conclude until 8th May, meaning the existing system will continue operating in the meantime.
The Evening Standard has been investigating the SJP since August 2023, when it first exposed that defendants with dementia were being prosecuted over unpaid bills and minor offences.
More Read
Magistrates do have the power to refer cases back to prosecutors if they believe a case is not in the public interest. The DVLA, meanwhile, advises defendants with strong mitigating circumstances to contact the agency directly.
DVLA defends actions
A DVLA spokesperson defended the agency’s approach, stating:
“We urge anyone who receives a letter about potential enforcement action to get in touch with us if there are mitigating circumstances we need to know about.
“A Single Justice Procedure notice will only be issued when we have exhausted all other enforcement routes, including issuing multiple items of correspondence, to which the customer can respond with their mitigation.
“Once progressed to SJP, any defendant can request a hearing in open court. For those pleading guilty via SJP, any mitigation provided is considered by a magistrate, who can refer cases back to the DVLA if they deem it necessary.”
Despite these reassurances, critics argue that the system is failing to protect the most vulnerable members of society. Many are now calling for urgent reforms to prevent similar injustices from occurring in the future.
For the 93-year-old pensioner, however, the damage has already been done—her name now carries a criminal conviction, all for an administrative oversight brought on by a debilitating illness.
