This is the latest atrocity to be imposed on the courts by the ministry that calls itself "Justice" with no sense of irony.
Whoever dreamed this scheme up must not only lack any empathy with fragile human beings, but also lack any kind of experience of what day to day life is like in the lower courts, and the rough estates.
Most of our defendants are poor and many are ill-educated and close to unemployable. A high proportion are in receipt of benefits.
Now, in addition to the courts' sanctions we must, without judicial discretion, impose large financial penalties on those who appear before us. We may not take account of ability to pay, which has been an underlying principle for as long as I have been on the bench.
The impositions are unlikely to be collected (Blood/stone principle) and the amount outstanding will rapidly escalate into the multi-millions.
So much for the fine principles of rehabilitation.
When our revolving-door druggy shoplifter is released from his latest prison sentence, along with his release grant he will be handed a bill for potentially hundreds of pounds to pay out of his princely seventy-odd quid a week benefit. What is he likely to do?
Go back to crime, of course.
Simples.
Well it took thirty years but finally the UK has caught up with Terry Gilliam's "Brazil":
ReplyDelete*Interviewer:* Nevertheless, Mr. Helpmann, there are those who maintain that the Ministry of Information has become too large and unwieldy...And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national product.
*Mr. Helpmann:* I understand this concern on behalf of the tax payers. People want value for money. That's why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval charges. It's absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and for the Information Retrieval Procedures used in their interrogation.
And so the UK takes another step towards the American cesspit of fines and fees used as an alternative to taxation on those that can pay and doom the poor to a never-ending treadmill of poverty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
ReplyDeleteQuite BS and I did (as you may have seen) post a very similar sentiment on the Magistrates Association Website Forum. Unfortunately I can no longer access the website since they have introduced a new one which doesn't seem to recognise my username or passwords anymore. And they have apparently done away with the Forum anyway. Grrrrr...(with apologies for the O/T rant!!)
ReplyDeleteI have met my MP many times and have followed things up with him before. Unfortunately it has usually taken weeks to get a reply, and of course now parliament has been dissolved it's a perfect reason to ignore my comments as a magistrate, about how utterly bonkers this plan is. We do though have one small measure we can take.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment the imposition of costs is a decision for us, although normally requested as a matter of routine by the prosecutor. I think I may now much more often find myself not awarding costs. The defendant will need all the money they have to pay the absolutely barmy courts charge.
For nigh on 30 years I have practiced law in one form or another, defending, prosecuting and judging and I have never felt more depressed about the state of "justice".
ReplyDeleteI am all for punishing the wrongdoer- but that has to be appropriate and not dogmatic. General guidelines are helpful but often never really do justice to the case unless they are tweaked. Prescriptive sentences and punishments like 3 strikes and your out are blunt instruments often causing more injustice than is needed.
There has been a creeping and incidious trend over the years to make the courts a going concern and business, which is not justice and defeats the very thought of fair and proportionate sentences. Surcharges, costs and the disappearance of legal aid mean that justice is a little thin on the ground. It cannot be right to impose finacial burdens on those WE KNOW cannot pay.
Moreover, it is clear that far from being a fair system of justice the old ways of doing things need to change. We stil lsend far too many cases to the Crown Court that could be dealt with more properly in the lower courts( and more cheaply). In addition speed is not always the better cheaper disposal- sometimes taking ones time actually saves money.
In the civil courts almost no ordinary person can afford or risk litigation. The trouble with a civil case is the huge costs of preparation, even for a straightforward case. Lawyers bang on about peoples rights to justice but if there is no access or you can't afford it thete is no justice at all. The system needs to be completely simplified and to be honest most cases could be dealt with far quicker if we had something like a Judge Judy type of tribunal. Everyone gets there say but all the bullshit is cut away and a sensible judgement delivered. It might be rough justice but it is better than the mess we have now.
The Magna Carta's most memorable clause read “No free man shall be arrested, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled … except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” If are you are convicted of an offence and have had to pay for your court appearance, surely someone must have been selling it?
DeletePity the poor Justices' Clerks who will have draft yet another unwelcome Practice Note reminding the Bench that they have sworn / affirmed they "will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm".
ReplyDeleteHowever "right" this "law" is or is not, it will be applicable in law from mid April.
The pronouncement will surely stick in many a judicial throat, all they way from lowly JPs to the LCJ.
One wonders how loud, happy and free it must resonate in the (lay) world of the Lord Chancellor...
When some many years ago I contemplated my forced retirement through age from the Bench I imagined that it would be with regret. My exit from the car park after my final sitting last week was without that regret. It had crawed in my throat when so called victim surcharges had to be applied. It has been reinforced by the number of low income defendants deprived of legal aid who have had to be spoon fed their defence by a legal advisor and an increasingly intervening chairman. It boiled over by announcements that county courts had to be self financing and that convicted criminals should in addition to a tick box sentence pay financially for their offending and be transformed into good members of society by an emasculated part privatised probation service. Having resigned from the Magistrates Association long ago that organisation should be headed for the litter basket for all the good it does its members. Enjoy your remaining years Bystander and friends.
ReplyDeleteI have 3 years to forced retirement, but have seriously considered resigning now as I don't like the way things are going, Closing local courts, trying to force us to sit on Saturdays, At the end of the day we are volunteers but we are no longer treated with the same respect as when I started eleven years ago.
DeleteCriminal Courts Charge - please tell me this is a joke; it is 1 April.
ReplyDeleteThe really frightening thing is the fact that some people actually believe this. How low our expectations of the Establishment have become. It really is time for the Revolution.
ReplyDeleteI don't have an issue with the charge per se; it's no different to awarding prosecution costs in that only the guilty will pay and it's their own actions that have brought them before the court. I don't see that the charge will dissuade someone who is genuinely innocent from going to trial, but it might make those who know they are guilty think twice.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, the charges are too high and an element of judicial discretion should be available. A simple summary guility plea will cost £150, compared to the £85 or thereabouts that the CPS will ask for. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't see how the cost of running the court for a short plea and sentencing hearing is greater than the cost of preparing the prosecution file.
It also can't be right for a quick and simple trial to attract the same charge as a complex multi-day listing, or for an either-way offence to automatically cost more than a summary one. It wouldn't be difficult to draw up a guideline based on the approximate length of the trial and/or sentencing hearing and to let judicial officer holders exercise their discretion. It's something we're rather good at.
I'd be interested to hear Bystander's rationale for presumably being prepared to inflict what he considers to be an "atrocity" on people who appear before him. If I were ever to feel that my Judicial Oath was forcing me to be party to atrocities, then I'd resign immediately.
"If I were ever to feel that my Judicial Oath was forcing me to be party to atrocities, then I'd resign immediately".
DeleteLet's hope not. On the basis of the discussions I have had so far, if every swearer of the Oath resigned rather than implement this charge, we would have no judiciary.
I have yet to speak to an active JP or judge who thinks it is anything but an appalling idea.
All about getting reelected really. 'We are tough on crime', then when the unpaid fines reach unmanagable proportions, blame the lib dems!
ReplyDeleteHere is the guidance from the Essex and Cambridgeshire Justices Clerk; "The requirement to impose the charge is separate from the determination of the appropriate sentence. Courts are expressly prohibited from adjusting any other part of the sentence to take account of the charge. So prosecution costs can’t be reduced to pay the courts costs." This is a fundamental change to the justice system. There has been no meaningful consultation or discussion. The Magistrates Association is too busy redesigning its website to properly represent the views of its members and has rolled over in the same way that it did on the introduction of the so called Victim Surcharge. The whole business is a tragedy for the Criminal Justice System. I am having to seriously consider my position after nearly twenty five years on the Bench.
ReplyDeleteThe requirement to impose the charge may be separate but, in determining costs and fine levels we are supposed to consider ability to pay, and length of time needed to pay. I will be asking our legal advisors why we can't refuse costs etc. based on ability to pay, and then levy the ridiculous courts charge.
DeleteWhen we do impose a financial amount we should make a collection order and if we don't, it doesn't exist for that defendant. I wonder if we can refuse to make a collection order? That would stop the bailiffs turning up and charging a fortune for the very little they are ever likely to take away.
An interesting comment about the MA and it's web site. I wasn't aware of that but then I stopped my membership of that organisation many years ago when I realised what an utter waste of my money it was.
Point 16 in the circular has to be the most absurd of all. "We recognise that more must be done to improve the collection of financial impositions and we are in the process of contracting out our Compliance and Enforcement Service. An external provider will bring in the necessary investment and technology needed to help increase fine collection, reduce enforcement costs and importantly ensure more criminals pay."
ReplyDeleteI would love to know from the clown who dreamed this up how it is that imposing more and higher costs will do anything other than drive up the enormous amount that is currently uncollected. All the technology in the world isn't going to get money from people who have none, live in a council property paid for by the state and who have no goods for the bailiffs to seize. Maybe they believe it will cover the cost of the extra new prisons that will be needed to house the ever increasing number of defaulters we are going to get.
But it will give enhanced benefits for the business case to send 100s of millions of pounds on (private) technology to collect it.
DeleteBiscuit.
the prisons in this land are already dangerously over full, and this policy plus the latest thru the gate probation service plans which will result in many ore recalls under licence breach can only result in more over crowding, less time out of cell, less education, and ultimately more assaults and suicides , Mr Grayling should hang his head in shame
ReplyDeleteThis works in two ways. It makes the books look better having an income column in a balance sheet showing an increased amount incoming. But as any company will testify, having an invoiced amount and actually receiving payment and often far apart. This may make good reading over the coming months when the courts appear to be taking in more from the convicted. But even further in the future will be the uproar when it is revealed how much is actually collected.
ReplyDeleteLook, I agree with all the sentiments so far expressed, both here and elsewhere, but...
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that this will happen and judicial office holders will impose the appropriate charge because they have no choice. No doubt some tweaking to this abomination will take place but the main thrust of it will remain.
All the sabre rattling and huffing and puffing will change nothing. Resignations? There maybe a few but nothing dramatic and anyway there simply isn't a need for the numbers of magistrates we have now in any event.
Justice is being irreparably damaged but the general public doesn't know it. Their focus is on the NHS/immigration/cuts and any number of other issues. Justice isn't on their radar because most people never come before the courts. They simply fail to grasp the harm being done and cannot see how this erodes our freedom.
So, complain away if you like, but no one who can make a difference is listening and the general public don't care.
"Justice isn't on their radar because most people never come before the courts."
ReplyDeleteExactly. And if they are a victim of crime, one can hardly expect them to be sympathetic to the wrongdoer.
So the media and the politicians can continue to outdo each other on who's being tougher on crime.
I'm leaving after 15 years on the bench. This is the final straw on the camel's back. I'd like to think I made a difference in my time. I simply can't continue and impose these additional, disproportionate charges with a clear conscience. What's next - charging for time spent in the cells? The van to get to court?
ReplyDeleteAt least I can walk away - I feel for the paid judiciary who may sympathise but need a salary.
I would doff my hat to you if I wore one
DeleteThis is yet another of the many reasons that I shall not be voting Conservative at the General Election.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is that the last Labout government was quite capable of cominmg up with much the same sort of nonsense.
One despairs.
Quite amazing. It just will not get paid. As simple as that. Ability to pay should be the overriding principle in all impositions we make. A total waste of time and will achieve nothing except to alienate all parties further. The Aviator
ReplyDeleteIn view of the forthcoming election I thought I might throw this ball in from the far right field.
ReplyDeleteIt's all well and good arguing about court imposed charges at the direction of the State but until as a society we tackle such basics as literacy, numeracy, health education and the treatment for the subsequent addictions of the resulting under class masses no amount of disgruntlement about 'Justice' will make any difference.
What's more, in my view, we are probably so far down the road of social, educational and financial division that there is no way back - only an opportunity for well meaning political posturing and the best efforts of the charitable sector.
There is always a way back. This re-imposition of pre welfare state norms and attitudes is the reaction of the deposed employer-dominated, free market consensus. But in its turn, it can be deposed as well. If one didn't believe that, what would be the point of having democracy and elections at all? Just a charade, to cover up the lack of real choice and power over one's fate? Too many people believe that already.
DeleteThere is another side to these increasing charges, that directly impacts justice and the possible conviction of the innocent, at least at the minor end of the scale.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the scale of charges, might not some solicitors/advocates advise that it might be cheaper and less risky to plead guilty in the mags court, just to get the lower Criminal Courts Charge? Overall, the total penalty (assuming a fine, rather than imprisonment was most probable) could be significantly lower.
I raise this as some one who was wholly innocent of a charge yet still found guilty, very many years ago. There was evidence that an offence had been committed in my house (unknown to me at the time, the offence had deliberately been committed at the behest of my estranged wife). My solicitor presented my defence as best he could, yet I was still found guilty, as I had no way of proving my innocence and no idea how the offence had been committed, or by whom.
It was only a few weeks later that I found that my estranged wife had sent her then boyfriend around to my house when I was out, and let him use her key to gain entry and perform the actions that resulted in my being charged and found guilty, because I had refused to have her back after she'd run off. She had also anonymously reported whilst I was at work this to make sure that I was caught. I doubt this sort of thing is that uncommon, given the complexities of human relationships and the bitterness that can result.
At that time (in the late 1970's) I was given a fine of around £150, IIRC, and a criminal record for theft (the latter having been the most galling thing as it has dogged my life ever since in various ways, coming up regularly on security checks, CRBs etc, even though it is now nominally "spent").
Under the new system I would hazard a guess that I would be strongly advised to make an early guilty plea, even though I was innocent, in order to reduce the costs.
"as I had no way of proving my innocence ". Your solicitor didn't have to prove your innocence. The prosecution had to prove your guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't say if the verdict was right or wrong, not having heard the evidence, but your starting point as you have noted it above is wrong.
DeleteWe have not yet left justice entirely behind and have not yet reached the stage when someone is guilty until proved innocent.
Unfortunately our "justice" system does require a defendant to prove their innocence no matter what the rhetoric claims. If you can't prove your innocence you will get convicted. Simple truth.
Delete" If you can't prove your innocence you will get convicted. Simple truth."
DeleteNot in any court in which I sit!
Suffice to say there are some charges arising from offences in one's own home where the presumption of innocence does not apply in practice. I won't go into details, but it is perfectly possible for someone to be set up such that they will be convicted unless they can prove their innocence, and that it can be impossible to prove their innocence in practice.
DeleteI'm sure those here can think of a few such offences if they put their minds to it.
You are all fortunate that you can at least have a say in the next government; here in John Bercow's Buckingham constituency there are 77,000 of us who cannot vote for the party of our choice because tradition decrees that no party stands against the Speaker. We are therefore disenfranchised for the second successive general election.
ReplyDeleteI live in a save seat, that is one in which the result is a forgone conclusion. In Aal the the elections while I've been living here nobody bothered campaigning. You wouldn't know there was an election on.
Delete"...until as a society we tackle such basics as literacy, numeracy, health education and the treatment for the subsequent addictions of the resulting under class masses ..."
ReplyDeleteI too used to believe that, until I commenced a small construction company. I have hired perhaps 100 of the "under class masses" in the last 10 years. It is simply not possible to teach calculus to a horse, nor literacy, numeracy, and health education to the masses.
I feel badly for them, they are no-hopers, not capable of much save rough manual labour. Often they are kindly, friendly and even hard working. But they can't learn much and they can't help smoking, drinking, drug taking, spending all their money, fighting, stealing, lying and generally fcuking up.
The lucky few intelligent and skilled higher ups in this human race of ours, despite their big brains, have trouble understanding that those on the other end of the bell curve are ... on the other end of the bell curve and simply cannot do some things. Like pay these absurd charges.
Rather than bolting on neverending bits and pieces making the system more complex and much more harder to follow why don't the powers that be just simplify it . Get convicted of any offence and we will have your b**** off, or just take them round the back and get a good hiding- cheap effective but also rather barbaric!!! a bit like all these never ending charges that most wont be able to pay.
ReplyDeleteI've had a look at the provisions an apparently after a period the charges can bve remitted. I rather think that will apply to murderes etc and if that is right what is the point of imposing it in the first place?? No point at all!!!
I've been thinking about this Criminal Courts Charge, slow, I grant you that, but I've got there in the end!
ReplyDeleteIsn't it discriminatory? Surely the prosecution (CPS, Police, Local Authority etc) should be charged similar sums in the event of an acquittal? Otherwise the perception might be that the court has a vested interest in securing convictions. I am sure that that would not be the reality, but it's not just being fair, it's about being seen to be fair.
For criminal prosecutions, how about having the prosecuting solicitor(s) and barrister(s) serve the sentence if the accused is found not guilty. This would provide some motivation for Doing Things Right.
ReplyDeleteIt would provide motivation for never prosecuting anyone. It seems you haven't entirely thought that through.
DeleteWe're already making great strides in that direction, so what's the difference?
ReplyDelete