Look, I know I have had a lot to say about the Criminal Courts Charge, so I shan't repeat it, but today we saw a glaring example of its day to day effect. A scruffy man was arrested for begging at a Tube station. The facts related by the prosecutor made it quite clear that there was no aggression, such as walking up to people, but rather a request for 'any change' from a seated position.
He pleaded guilty, so he ended up with a fine of £50 (after discount for plea) £85 costs, £20 'victim'surcharge and a Courts Charge of £150, a total of £305 to pay from a man on the minimum level of workless benefit.
It will never be collected in the forseeable future, so what the hell is the point?
Won't it be collected by docking his benefits by £5/week for the next year and a bit?
ReplyDeleteOf course, he'll probably resort to begging to make up for that £5, and the fine and charges for that offence will be difficult to collect. Is there not a non-financial sentence that could be given? Some community service may well do him some good.
Indeed. The logic therefore might be to deem the amount served by a day's detention in the court precinct?
ReplyDeleteOnly the fine can be deemed served by time in custody. The CCC cannot be handled in this way and nor can the VS. The prosecution costs can be reduced or waived but even taking these out of the equation the D is still looking at £170 to pay. Just for begging.
DeleteI don't have any answers to the problem of begging but I do know that it is bizarre in extremis to impose this charge on someone who has no money, who probably has an addiction and who may well already have a string of unpaid fines.
Welcome to justice in 2015.
I believe it can all be off set by detention in the court house or police station.
DeleteThat is how I understood it but I believe some Magistrates Legal Advisors are agreeing CCC can be dealt with in this way.
DeleteI imagine the MoJ don't care how much they don't get from people who can't pay. They care about how much they will get from people who can pay. Maximising the latter amount is the policy goal.
ReplyDeleteMmmm... I think that doesn't make sense in reality. society expects unpaid fines/charge to be chased, and that costs money. At £5/ftnt the admin costs of just processing the payment wipeout the income even without any significant enforcement.
DeleteJust curious but how much extra will he have to pay in fees and interest because he needs to pay this in installments? Also what will happen if he "misses" a payment (or at least four) because his benefits get sanctioned?
ReplyDeleteThis foolishness was never thought through at Petty France just like so many of the other 'initiatives' This was included in the bill before it became an act and should have been scrutinised by our MPs in committee stage. We have MPs who also JPs and where were they when this should have been scrutinised ? Not only that we now have Lord Chancellors who have no legal traing or understanding of the workings of the courts. I am also disappointed in Michael Gove who should be listening and acting on advice from his LEGAL advisors. The other thing I can't understand is the judges. The silence from them is deafening and yet the mumbling at the lunch time in the Crown Court about this issue is way above a wisper. Are they afraid to step out of line and risk rebuke from the SPD or similar? Don't want to put the pension at risk is my guess.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem for sentencers with the CCC is that they have no discretion over it; it must be applied without any consideration of ability to pay. The whole point of the fines system is that offenders are means-tested and fined according to their ability to pay within a reasonable (usually 12 months) period.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of someone on benefits (JSO or whatever) that is calculated at £5 per week, so if the the fine, prosecution costs (usually £85) and Victim Surcharge (£20) total no more than £250, that is deemed payable within a year. But adding an extra £150-plus CCC means that you are quite possibly setting them up to fail, and when you then consider the legislation that allows HMCTS to add interest on the unpaid portion, it seems to be totally unjust.
The only redeeming feature is that the courts can remit the charge two years after sentence (or release from custody) if not fully paid. But then one reads that HMCTS is no longer in a position to collect these fines, costs and charges itself, so is "contracting out our compliance and enforcement service..."
My understanding is that, after two years, the court can indeed remit the amount but only if satisfied there has been a real attempt to pay it. Whether there has, or hasn't, how much will that court time cost?
DeleteIt's unclear if it will be the courts remitting the charge. I suspect they won't let us near that decision.
DeleteI am not a magistrate, but if this came before me, I would suggest very strongly to the prosecution that, in the circumstances, they should drop the case.
ReplyDeleteIt's not really the magistrates' roll to tell the crown what to do. However, a creative mag faced with the above situation might conclude that punishment would be inexpedient and use an absolute discharge. Costs awards can still be made if you didn't want someone to get off scot free. Although if cps stopped getting their costs for stupid cases they might be less bothered about pursuing them!
DeleteSo you lot haven't sussed out how rotten the (present) Con Party is yet? And you are supposed to have a real world view of life? Why don't you know what is going on? The Con Party is DELIBERATELY vindictive and nasty, it's what they are, they have utter contempt for those outside their circle, and if it causes needless hardship and suffering, then so much the better (to howls of laughter).
ReplyDeleteAn interesting contribution to the discussion on Criminal Courts Charge. It’s always nice to see the Bystanders fan club in action, demonstrating open-mindedness, constructive criticism and a willingness to help to solve the problem.
DeleteGovernment appears to have had this brain wave post the Victim Surcharge money started coming into their coffers ( well actually money went elsewhere I believe) anyway with VS there was a provision and pecking order for payment in the legislation and several times I waived it as compensation was the priority - I am now told I can't do this and that discretion has been removed....?
ReplyDeleteHowever the CCC is entirely different and notwithstanding the power to remit after 2 years if real effort has been shown to pay etc the charge has enticed innocent people to plead guilty, as they are appearing unrepresented (changes in legal aid) and simply see paying £150.00 far better than the prospect of being found guilty and face £1000 CCC - so much for the justice system being FAIR!
Perhaps all parties in the Judicial System should demand that the duty imposed within the bill for the Lord Chancellor to review (in three years of implementation) and repeal it if considered to be appropriate based on the outcome of the review be taken now - the charge whilst understanding the principal is not appropriate or in any way just in the way it has been imposed on us.
Only good thing I guess is that it is the last in the pecking order of charges ie Comp; VC, Fine, CPS, CCC so if levels are set at appropriate rate possibly the two year remitting the CCC may be reached.
Adult Chair