In a rare instance of a government department being prosecuted, the Ministry of Justice Speeding Conviction has drawn widespread attention after a van registered to the Department was caught exceeding the limit. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was convicted and fined, with the case processed through the contentious Single Justice Procedure (SJP) – a fast-track court system often used for lower-level offences.

Case details

On 11 January, a van registered to the MoJ was recorded driving at 75 mph in a 50 mph zone on the M62 motorway near Greater Manchester. Police sought identification of the driver, sending multiple communications to the Department’s nominated PO Box address in Gwent, Wales but the MoJ failed to respond.

When formal prosecution notice was issued on 12 August and the 21-day response period expired with no plea entered, the MoJ was tried in its absence. A magistrate at Manchester City Magistrates Court found the Department guilty of failing to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle when required.

Outcome & reaction

The Department was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £120 in costs, plus a victim surcharge of £400. According to a spokesperson, the MoJ did not receive the original notice because it was sent to a contractor-managed PO Box rather than the correct address. The Department said it intends to apply for the case to be reopened via statutory declaration.

Wider implications for the SJP system

The SJP system introduced in 2015 allows certain low-level offences to be handled without a full court hearing and often without the defendant appearing. The Standard’s reporting has flagged that only one in three cases processed under SJP sees a plea entered, and that the system has been criticised for being opaque and secretive.

The fact that the MoJ itself was convicted via the SJP process raises new questions about how the system applies even to large public bodies, not just individuals. The Department is reviewing the processes involved and pledged to correct its addressing issue so such an error does not happen again.

What happens next?

The MoJ’s application to reopen the case may result in a fresh hearing or alternative resolution. Separately, the incident puts renewed spotlight on how the SJP handles service of notices, including for defendants who may not receive documents and whether safeguards are sufficient.

Key read-out: Even major public organisations are not exempt from algorithm-driven rapid justice processes like the SJP – the MoJ’s conviction serves as a potent illustration of the system’s reach.

Source: The Standard

Frequently Asked Question

If you’re facing a motoring charge, Single Justice Procedure notice, or any criminal investigation involving digital or documentary evidence, Newgate Solicitors can help. Our experienced criminal defence team provides clear guidance, swift representation, and strategic support to protect your rights from the very first stage. For confidential advice or urgent assistance, contact Newgate Solicitors today.