Monday, December 01, 2014

Routine Doesn't Have To Mean Dull

When I find myself allocated to the non-CPS court my heart sometimes sinks, because that is where we deal with the odds-and-sods cases that are privately prosecuted. That can include TV licensing, Local Authority summonses, fishing licences and suchlike. The cases can be low-level, but that doesn't mean that they have a low impact on the people summonsed. When a truly poor person comes in, summonsed for having no TV licence dropping litter or whatever, the potential penalty can easily run into hundreds of pounds, which is a fortune to someone scraping by on benefits.
Turning, as we must, to our Guidelines, we find that for someone who doesn't tell us their income we must presume they are getting £400 per week. Apply that to the usual fine scales, and for no TV licence we are imposing fines of several hundred pounds, plus costs of a couple of hundred more, plus the iniquitous surcharge, and the bill can rocket to £400 and more. We solemnly make a Collection Order, but I can tell you a secret - most of these impositions will never be paid.

We had a shabby looking couple last week, who were summonsed for failing to send their two kids to school. They stood in court holding hands, her eyes cast down,while she quietly sobbed and he stood looking at us in a bovine and uncomprehending way. I thought that this was a clear case for the social services rather than the justice system, but of course kids must go to school.

I am just not convinced that this is the best way to make them.

10 comments:

  1. Non CPS courts can be the earth's end in terms of interest and professional challenge - 150 fare dodgers in a day is enough to try anyone's patience. But it can perk up sometimes, with slum landlords to chastise or a really spectacular Environmental Health prosecution of a (formerly) treasured local restaurant. These can bring refreshing and different challenges to the regular procession of domestic assaults, drug-fuelled shoplifting and people not driving while using their mobiles, honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Turning, as we must, to our Guidelines, we find that for someone who doesn't tell us their income we must presume they are getting £400 per week"

    I do get the main point of the topic but perhaps if the defendant had been more forthcoming and filled in the Means Form (as they are required to) then perhaps the fine would have been more proportionate to income? You may gather that I have little sympathy for those who fail to disclose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try your hand at a CIE court or Continuous Insurance Enforcement. 250 cases in the morning, hardly anyone turns up and each has to be read out. Standard fine, costs and surcharge and we fine about 40k-50k per session. I just wonder how much of it is actually collected!!

      Delete
    2. Is it an offense not to complete the Means Form? Presumably any non-public spirited person earning higher than £400 has a vested interest to remain silent...

      Delete
    3. Perhaps they should turn up. Under the Road Safety Act 2006 s22 (144b) all they have to do is "raise an issue" that an exception may apply and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt reverts to the Crown.

      For example under (4)(a) of the same section a Registered Keeper may claim exemption if he is not the person keeping the vehicle. The person actually keeping the vehicle does not have to worry since only the RK can be liable to CIE. In any event there is no requirement to name the actual keeper.

      Delete
    4. Surely there is nothing to stop you going through the means form to check that the details provided are correct. If you have any doubts, and the defendant has not appeared, you can always adjourn the case and require attendance. As far as I am aware, it is an offence not to divulge correct information on a means form, and in my book that would include failure to complete.

      Delete
    5. There is neither the time nor the staff resources to check means forms. Imagine the workload to contact employers or more likely benefits agencies for the hundreds of cases that can pass through a busy court each day.

      Delete
  3. No doubt your team are aware of all the steps that are taken by the school, LA and often other agencies before parents (or others) are brought to court for failure of their young to attend school. It really is as a last resort. We often saw these as cases where the youngster is kept from school in order to help out in the parent's shop etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not that the kids will gain much from most state schools right now, especially if they are below average intelligence...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does it not drive you mad when you do a TV Licensing court and have to pass judgments against non-attenders, who have probably been coerced/duped into signing false confession statements by TV Licensing goons financially rewarded for every "evader" they catch? Even if the court was to suspect evidential foul play it's simple enough for TV Licensing to drop the case, then their dodgy dealings would face no closer scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.