Regular readers of the blog will be aware that I have never been a fan of the so-called Victim Surcharge.When it was first brought in I was able to explain it to John Humphrys on the Today programme.
The amounts are arbitrary, and the proceeds do not go to victims, but rather to various bodies such as the CPS. With the changes that have been in place since October 2012, the surcharge is extended to many more sentences. The surcharge on a fine is now 10% (as opposed to a flat £15) with a £20 minimum and is capped at £120. What that cap means is that very large fines (such as those for environmental or Health and Safety breaches) carry a proportionately lower charge than that levied on a small-time drunk or shoplifter.
The details are here.
The genius who cooked up these new rates only needs to spend a morning in a courtroom to see what a high proportion of those dealt with are broke, the majority on benefit.
Dafter still, an immediate prison sentence carries a surcharge of £80-£120 depending on its length. This will prove difficult to collect, and even if the effort is made, the cost will far exceed the amount recovered.
Let's give it time to settle in, and we can do an FoI request to find out just how much has been collected.
I refuse to describe it as a 'victim' surcharge. It is a sentence tax.
ReplyDelete"The genius who cooked up these new rates" ... has missed a number of golden opportunities.
ReplyDeleteDoes not the "S" in CPS stand for "Service"? And when we receive a service do we not expect to pay? Surely the banks have taken notice of the parity between "service" and "fee" in devising such services as "teller service fees" or "ATM service fees" or "fee for foreclosure" and such like.
So, why is there no fee charged for prosecution service? To counter the inevitable outcry from the aggrieved left, such fees can be assessed in terms of rental of floor space before the bar, in the dock, and for use of the conveyance facility from the tombs below up to the court. Merely add these to the surcharge bill without notice, much the way new fees appear on your wireless bill.
There's a gold mine to be dug here -- just waiting for the right minded and determined bureaucrat.
The Government is broke. It is a tax which they reckon the general public will not object to (unlike many that the Deputy Prime Minister has proposed).
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that the prison sentence part of the VS is only applicable in the Crown Court at present.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else come across offenders offering up offences to be taken into consideration (TICs) and then invoking their age at the time of the said offence and/or the fact that the said offence was committed pre-1/10/12 to benefit from the lower surcharge?
ReplyDeleteI'll wager money on the fact that the geniuses who come up with these ideas will have no practical experience of life as JPs know it.
ReplyDeleteThere is a charge for CPS service - it's called 'costs' isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt's even more of a nightmare in the Youth Court where mum or dad will be expected to cough up the dosh..
ReplyDeleteParticularly galling when he or she is the victim. Actual example - 13 year old girl assaults her mother, not for the first time, and the disposal required a £15 surcharge to be levied. In practice it was determined (knowing look to solicitor) that it couldn't be paid immediately, so one day's detention deemed served.
Deleteor if in care then the care home pays or Ta Dah! it can be deferred until the youth is 18 yrs old.
DeleteWith regard to VS I always refer to it as Government Charge.
Two points to make.
ReplyDeleteThe first is that I have heard in the legislation it's called a surcharge and not a 'victim' surcharge. If true we should drop the word victim when passing the sentence. At least let's call it what it is.
The second is that I asked how much had been collected in our area few years ago and was told that nobody knew. The reason was that the computer that handled fines, compensation and costs had no field for the surcharge so it was not being specifically recorded. I have never heard that this has changed and would be surprised if any money had been spent on any systems so they could record it properly.
I would certainly like to know, since the introduction, how much has been levied, how much has been paid, and if every system can now register it specifically.
There is no such thing as a 'Victims Surcharge' the legislation that created this monster does not refer to it as such- but merely a surcharge.
ReplyDeleteI realise the country is skint but everyone knows its a tax and little or none of it goes to victims. In fact HMCTS could not add up how much was coming in under the VS.
It is a penicious penaly and is creating more injustic than justice. Yes criminals should pay a price- but when they are on skid row anyhow its a bit much, especially whan the penalty can accrue to an offence where there is no victim.
It becomes an even bigger farce when one considers the numbers who default on payment and they call in the bailiffs. Trying to get more money out of defaulters who are on benefit is folly, if anything for those on benefits there should be a limit to how much they can owe on fines, if they go over then some other penalty used.
FARCE,FARCE,FARCE and there is no sign of it getting better!
I also refuse to describe it as a 'victim' surcharge. I refer to it as a 'statutory' surcharge.
ReplyDeleteMe too or if the defendant is not likely to understand 'statutory' then I just say it's an amount the law requires us to impose...
Delete'an immediate prison sentence carries a surcharge of £80-£120 depending on its length.'
ReplyDeleteThe idea is that it appears on the government records as 'money owed' which helps to lessen the costs vs return figure, so making the difference slightly more appealing. Any company will tell you that their books may look good, but getting the cash is the problem.
Perhaps a better use of the money might be to spend it on the effing defence??????
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember being told (in the early days of VS) that the money went to training Victim Support workers and the like. I had my doubts then and still do.
ReplyDeleteI, too, refer to it as a tax.
http://www.crimeline.info/case/chief-constable-of-sussex-v-taylor
ReplyDeleteworth a look at this for a laugh para 30 onwards
Laugh? I nearly commented on a blog.
DeleteThe reason the money is spent (so far as it is collected at all and not spent on administration) on worthy victim-support outfits rather than being divvied up among victims is not far to see.
ReplyDeleteSome victims are very unpopular people.
Imagine a convicted and released rapist or worse a child-molester assaulted by his victim's family - or just assaulted for being in the wrong place at the wrong time as sometimes happens.
And imagine him getting compensation from the VS money.
And now imagine the reaction of those newspapers popular with the nation's motorists some of whom have paid the VS.
And all will be explained.
I suppose, indeed, that if a released kiddie-fiddler is assaulted and seriously injured by his victim's family while he is having a quiet drink in the pub and harming nobody he would have a claim under the criminal injuries compo scheme, and that would not be too popular either!
I sincerely doubt it. Eligibility for Criminal Injuries compensation is drawn very tightly; not only is anyone with an unspent conviction specifically excluded, evidence of 'bad character' can be used to scale down or withhold compensation that would otherwise have been paid. Anyone with any kind of record is going to have a hell of a time getting compo out of the CICA, even if the injury they suffer has nothing at all to do with the crime they committed.
Delete