(Scene:- the Old Bailey, a Red Judge presiding, the law showing its full majesty)
"You have been convicted of an appalling series of crimes resulting in death and injury to innocent people. The offences are aggravated by the factors that I have already mentioned. You will go to prison for life, and I recommend a minimum term of forty years before you may be considered for parole. Oh yes, and there will be a victim surcharge of £120. Will you pay by cash or cheque?"
Ludicrous.
It's as ludicrous as sending the unemployed, no fixed abode town drunk inside for 14 days because he has become a repeated nuisance and has no money to pay any fines the magistrates' bench might impose. As from 1st September, an £80 victim surcharge has been added to his punishment, which he also can't pay.
ReplyDeleteQuite so.
ReplyDeleteIn the past when we have sent someone inside it has been a chance, if we wish, to remit any outstanding fines so they come out with a clean/ish sheet. I believe we can continue to remit them, but not the surcharge, and by the way the word 'victim' does not appear anywhere in the act that brought it in. It was simply called surcharge. Now we have the ludicrous situation of someone with no address, no money, no job, no benefits and probably no chance of many of these, coming out of prison owing, at least, £80.
"Now we have the ludicrous situation of someone with no address, no money, no job, no benefits and probably no chance of many of these, coming out of prison owing, at least, £80."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, but blame the Government. Magistrates have to apply the law as it is, not as we would wish it to be.
"Indeed, but blame the Government. Magistrates have to apply the law as it is, not as we would wish it to be."
DeleteI do. It is imposed because it's a legal requirement to do so.
And, of course, the follow-on to all this is if he comes out of prison and cannot pay the surcharge, is he then sent back inside (for another 7 days if the amount outstanding is under £200) in default of payment?
ReplyDeleteFarce- and just makes the legal system look foolish
ReplyDeleteThe Court of Appeal I suspect agree. Certainly they have approved the laconic sentence: "The surcharge provisions apply to this case and the order will be drawn up accordingly." Has the advantage that My Lord does not have to remember or pronounce the amount. Magistrates aren't as lucky.
ReplyDeleteI get very fed up of the anti this anti that ant everything emanating from comments on this site. Its easily resolved... If he/she cant pay the cash, make him or her do something good for the community like litter pick for a few days QED. no need to grumble about it any more guys and gals...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your suggestion Anon at 14:10.
DeleteThere is only one difficulty I can see, the law as it stands does not allow us to.
Well Guys put it to the Govt then, if not as a magistrate as an individual voter. There are signs in West Sussex saying it costs £100000 a year to pick up litter dropped my motorist. As an aside, I was talking to a Highways worker who was telling me how dangerous it was working by the side of the road, not least from the people who pee into water bottles whilst driving(rather than stopping) and then eject this like a missile from the car . I was absolutely lost for words.. but apparently it happens a lot..
ReplyDelete