PTSD sufferer faces prosecution for failing to pay her TV license while undergoing mental health treatment

A person suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder has been prosecuted for failing to pay his television license despite receiving psychiatric treatment.

The 32-year-old woman was visited by a television licensing inspector in May and told she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and was “not feeling well”.

She was given a payment plan and was later prosecuted under the Single Justice Procedure court system for failing to comply with the payments.

However, it emerged that the woman had started psychiatric treatment at the hospital in June when she forgot to pay the fee.

The woman wrote a letter to the court last month apologizing for her missed payments and pleading guilty, but prosecutors ignored it and convicted her anyway.

The 32-year-old woman was visited by a television licensing inspector in May and began psychiatric treatment in hospital in June when she forgot to pay the fee

The SJP process handles cases based solely on written evidence, meaning none of the prosecutors have ever seen the letter.

The letter, seen by the Evening Standard, said: “I am currently detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act.”

“I have been in hospital since June this year and have struggled with my mental health for a long time.”

“I did not intentionally fail to pay my television license, but due to my state of mind during the offense I forgot to pay and I am sincerely sorry.”

The television licensing authority said it had no knowledge of the woman’s circumstances at the time and was now investigating the case.

A TV Licensing spokesperson told The Standard: “Our primary aim is to help people keep their license and avoid prosecution, which is always a last resort.”

“We followed established procedure in this case and requested further information, however the details that the customer had provided to the court were not provided to TV Licensing.”

“We will now contact the customer to review her case.”

The SJP process handles cases based solely on written evidence, meaning none of the prosecutors have ever seen the letter (file image)

The SJP was created in 2015 to allow judges to rule on minor crimes such as using a television without a license or driving without car insurance, without the defendants having to go to court.

Since its inception, there have been a number of incidents in which citizens have been prosecuted.

In February, a pensioner with severe dementia who stopped driving two years ago was prosecuted by the DVLA under the controversial Single Justice process.

The 83-year-old kept his classic red 1975 MG in his garage despite giving up driving two years ago. He had been moved to a care home and the very next day he was accused by the DVLA of “letting his car insurance cover lapse”.

In response to the Single Justice proceedings, his daughter sent a letter to the court explaining her father’s health and also stating that he was living in a nursing home.

Due to the way the contentious court case is run, the DVLA did not consider the evidence provided by his daughter and he was ultimately convicted criminally.

In a major intervention, the Magistrates’ Association – which represents justices of the peace across England and Wales – called for an overhaul of the “secret” SJP.

The MA said there were concerns that cases were being brought before judges without prosecutors, such as the DVLA or TV Licensing, which provided for remedial action.

An Evening Standard investigation last month found that a pensioner suffering from Alzheimer’s was prosecuted over £3.34 he owed the DVLA under the SJP (stock photo)

It added: “Law enforcement agencies may sometimes pursue cases that are not in the public interest, particularly when the defendant is at risk.”

“This could mean that pursuing legal action is disproportionate or unfair given the circumstances.”

It argued that prosecutors should be required to read all evidence so that they can “withdraw the case if they believe it is no longer in the public interest to pursue it.”

The panel has called for improved training and, in its opinion, does not currently emphasize that “judges can exercise their discretion in proceedings”.

Research should also be carried out into how to improve the system for vulnerable people, including those with “learning difficulties” and “communication difficulties”, it said. It added that accredited journalists should have the opportunity to observe SJP meetings.