An 81-year-old pensioner living in a care home has been handed a criminal conviction for not insuring his car, in the latest scandalous case to emerge from the Single Justice Procedure.

The octogenarian was taken to court by the DVLA over the unpaid bill on his Renault Scenic when the insurance expired and he did not declare it ‘off road’.

His wife then wrote to the court to explain that her husband is not longer able to manage his finances or personal affairs as he lives in a care home.

Despite the heart-rending details in the letter, the criminal prosecution was not stopped and a magistrate decided to impose a conviction – albeit without any added punishment.

“I am completing this on behalf of my husband…as he is in a care home”, the wife wrote, while submitting a guilty plea on his behalf.

“My husband has been residing in a care home since February 2024.

“Due to his health, he has been unable to manage his financial affairs personally, and as a result the insurance for the vehicle was unintentionally left unpaid.

“Given his situation, the vehicle was not in use during this time.

“I sincerely regret any oversight in notifying the DVLA about this sooner.

“If necessary, I can provide the supporting documentation confirming my husband’s residence in the care home and his inability to oversee his financial responsibilities.

“In light of these circumstances, I kindly request that you reconsider the fine imposed and, if possible, waive it. I appreciate your understanding and consideration of this matter.”

The pensioner’s home address in Cambridgeshire was replaced on the court file with his current address, a care home specialising in dementia.

His conviction happened behind-closed-doors in the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), a fast-track court system for low-level criminal offences which magistrates themselves have acknowledged is broken.

A government consultation is underway on possible changes, but no action has been taken to stop tens of thousands of cases passing through the SJP system before any reforms are introduced.

The Standard’s long-running investigation into the system has exposed a litany of flaws, including the fact that prosecuting bodies – like the DVLA – do not routinely see mitigation letters due to the streamlined design of the court process.

It is the decision of prosecutors whether to withdraw a case as not being in the public interest.

Magistrates have the power to proactively refer cases back to prosecutors if they believe a public interest check may be needed. But some are still opting to convict defendants in dire situations and impose a discharge instead of a fine, rather than sending the case back.

The DVLA has acknowledged the flaw in the system, and has urged any defendant who feels they have important information to contact the agency directly, as well as entering it on the SJP system.

“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 to DVLA with their mitigation”, a spokesperson said.

“Once progressed to SJP, any defendant can request a hearing in open court, but for those pleading guilty via SJP, including those with mitigating action, are considered by a magistrate. These can be referred back to DVLA but whether or not to do so is a decision taken by the magistrate.”