We had a run-of-the-mill no-railway-ticket case in the other day, and as usually happens the defendant sent in a postal plea of guilty. Even with the plea discount, the fine surcharge and costs usually amount to a hefty sum compared with the few pounds that a ticket costs.
This was an unusual one, though, as the previous convictions list showed that the chap was on a suspended sentence of 9 months from the Crown Court last Autumn, so this latest offence amounted to a breach. There was much leafing through law books and scratching of heads before the clerk announced that we would have to write to the fare dodger telling him that he would have to attend the Crown court and try to convince the judge not to implement all or part of the 'bender' as the pro's call it. That will have been a nasty surprise for our man.
My heart bleeds. No doubt his get out of jail free card will work for a second time.
ReplyDelete"Even with the plea discount, the fine surcharge and costs usually amount to a hefty sum compared with the few pounds that a ticket costs."
ReplyDeleteIt all depends, I should think. From recent experience, Edinburgh to Glasgow, it's probably true. Edinburgh to Manchester & return -- not sure since we paid in advance on the web, but not a small sum nonetheless. Land's End to John o' Groats -- maybe not true (if indeed doable by rail at all).
I'd hate to get nicked twice, though.
Why was there "much leafing through law books and scratching of heads"?
ReplyDeleteThe bloke was on a suspended sentence and had committed a crime...
Am I missing something here? Or was this in order to try everything possible to avoid the poor sap from his own sentence?
Proportionality, dear boy. Effectively the man was being sent to prison for not buying a rail ticket.
DeleteQuite, E(NB).
DeleteNo, he was being sent to prison for whatever he got the suspended sentence for in the first place and then not buying a rail ticket.
DeleteAlthough I concede whoever gave out the suspended sentence didn't expect it to be activated in such a manner!
Bill
We always hear about the need for austerity. Rather than a fine issued and a few minutes of a magistraits courts time, he would have to be sent before a judge, have counsel for him and the CPS briefed, court time set aside etc etc, costs that could well amount to over £1000 for a ticket that was probably only £30. The suspended sentence was probably for something unrelated and not paying a railway ticket, whilst an annoyance, is hardly a great danger to society requiring a person to be sent to prison.
DeleteSeeing if they can avoid such an absurdity is sensible, especially as the judge is likely to not activate the sentence and simply give a stern telling off. Whatever the official legal reason for imprisonment if he were imprisoned, it would still be a nonesense result.
I agree that they did the right thing in passing it on to cc, however the fact remains he did require a prison sentence as thats what he got ( all be it suspended).
DeleteBill
"Effectively the man was being sent to prison for not buying a rail ticket." No, he was being sent to prison for being a scofflaw.
DeleteEver broken the speed limit, genius?
DeleteCrown Court judges don't like lowly magistrates benches interfering with their (CC) suspended sentences; that's why it went off up.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall our recent LASPO training, activation of any suspended sentence should always be the starting point for any offence committed within the operative period with very good reasons being given for failure to do so. I'm sure proportionality was probably in there somewhere but given the current state of the CJS who knows???
ReplyDeleteCAB etc. sometimes advise people to plead guilty to this kind of offence on the grounds that it isn't worth fighting, even if there is a possible defence (for example, off the top of my head I believe the no ticket offence requires intent).
ReplyDeleteInstances of grossly excessive costs for not guilty pleas tend to somewhat bear this advice out, but this post is a stark reminder that such advice shouldn't be given lightly.
From the pronouncements :
ReplyDelete"If you...commit another offence...you can expect to serve this prison sentence".
Not :
"If you...commit another offence, providing it's a big one...you can expect to serve this prison sentence".
People are told to keep their nose totally clean, not proportionally so.
My understanding is that the process is a) magistrates decide whether to activate or not. b) if not, sentence and notify Crown Court of the breach, c) if decision is to activate, commit to crown court for sentence. Am I wrong?
ReplyDeleteTallguy, Anon 11:15. Not my understanding. The default is that the sentence will be activated if a further offence is committed. The deal goes something like this : your crime is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified. However, for various reasons relating to you or the circumstances it is not necessary or appropriate to send you to prison today. However, if during the period of the suspension you reoffend and plead or are found guilty of doing so, you WILL go to prison for THIS matter and any sentence for the new matter is additional. So it is not about proportionality for the £30 rail ticket as only rarely will that pass the custody threshold. The question is how much to add. One option is to fine, VS, costs etc and add this as days in default if the defendant can't pay.
ReplyDeleteYou missed out the power of the court to refuse to impose the original sentence if it considers it unjust to do so (Para 8 Sch 12 CJA 2003). That means it is about proportionality. Hope you don't make mistakes like that in court.
DeleteThe Sentencing Council publish a document setting out the law on suspended sentences (at p24) and breaches (p30).
ReplyDeleteSchedule 12 of CJA 2003 provides the relevant law. Para 11 provides that if mags convict during suspended period, they may either "commit him in custody or on bail to the Crown Court, [or] must give written notice of the conviction to the appropriate officer of the Crown Court". Para 8 provides what the original sentencing court must do.
What will happen is likely to depend on the original offence, and on the circumstances of the ticket "evasion". It will be open to the original court to decide it would be unjust to impose the suspended sentence (para 8(3)).
This is my understanding BS. The expectation is that the court will activate it unless this would be unjust. Which is sometimes the case :). In my own experience, we activate more often than not.
Deletewould the method of prosecution for fare evasion not have an effect - whether it was prosecuted as theft, forgery, railway offence or bylaw?
ReplyDeleteI hate the word scofflaw
ReplyDelete