Wednesday, December 16, 2015

This Isn't What I Signed Up For Three Decades Ago

I went in to Court today to fill a gap in the rota. I found myself in a non-CPS court dealing with TV licensing offences, and local authority Council Tax cases arising from non-payment of the tax.
Never the most riveting work, we were faced with a number of poor people , mostly with a poor command of English, and little understanding of what the  cases were all about. The TV licensing cases are usually over in a few minutes but two cases between them took us over an hour.

Then we moved on to the majority that had simply ignored the summons, so we dealt with them by way of Section 9 statements read out by the prosecutor. That's where I started to feel uncomfortable. A colleague had her i-pad with the useful sentencing calculator. We have a fines matrix that ordains someone living on benefits to have an income of £120 per week, but those who do  not submit a statement of means are deemed to have a Residual Weekly Income of £440 per week. Hence, someone whose unlicensed viewing was for six months or more and who does not have the benefit of credit for a guilty plea faces a fine of £440 plus costs of £120 plus a 'victim' surcharge of £44 plus, even today, the Criminal Courts Charge of £150. Announcing these sentences stuck in my throat, given that the offenders are largely poor and inarticulate.

21 comments:

  1. Do you have discretion to set a lower fine? And if so, why not use it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not to mention the fact that half of them probably hadn't committed the offence anyway. I wonder how many of those cases TV Licensing would have pulled if the defendant indicated their disapproval with the "evidence". Probably quite a few.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder where the money came from to buy the TV in the first place, or what they are watching. Perhaps only the Jeremy Kyle show. Is it too hard-hearted to suggest that perhaps they shouldn't have been watching the TV in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Those offenders have had plenty of chances to avoid being in that position.

    They've chosen to have a television without a licence. They've chosen to ignore many reminders to purchase a licence. They've chosen to ignore the summons.

    Leaving aside the CCC, if they'd entered a a guilty plea and provided a means form, your notional offender would in all likelihood have received a fine of £80, surcharge of £20 and a good chance of no costs due to limited means. That's less than the price of the licence itself, and might be viewed as a bargain.

    I'm with you on the CCC. It bears no resemblance to the costs of hearing a TV licence case in absence; a decent prosecutor and competent bench will take about a minute to go through the whole process.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I often deal with non payment of railway fares - non attenders have ended up with £500 / £600 to pay - on an avoided fare of £3 or £4 - and compensation is awarded for the amount of the evaded fare! Sometimes quite disproportionate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are not there to be a social worker, you are there to apply the law. If they are inarticulate that doesn't mean they don't knowthat they are doing wong.. Given that fines for most are a waste of time and often not collected.. get them litter picking or clearing up dog turds on council football pitches, something useful anyway... the Govt needs a rethink, pay the fine now or work for the community.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is a good case for tv licence infringments to be dealt with through civil claims rather than criminal law. However, that would not necessarily mean the penalty would be reduced.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While fines like this leave most Magistrates' uncomfortable we are there to deal with the law as it stands.
    The defendant can appeal the fine and charges and we have the power to remit the fine in appropriate situations.
    Had the defendant turned up we could have considered their financial situation and listened to any mitigation.
    It's a highhanded judgement that they can afford a TV or watch Jeremy Kyle, people circumstances change, there may be children at the home all day.
    I agree we should not be collecting the BBC tax for them, this is a matter for the legislators.
    If Magistrates' do not like enforcing the existing law then perhaps they should consider their position.
    The good news is that the Criminal Court Charge will not be applied after 24/12/15

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. So don't do it. Walk away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And be replaced by what? Someone who doesn't give a toss about such things?

      That is one of the reasons I, personally, stay when faced with such conflicts between my duty and my feelings.

      I'm with you on this BS.

      Delete
  10. Do you have any cases where the defendant has been found to be watching programmes on the net rather than TV? Without accessing the ISP's records or the defendant's device, it would be hard to prove. In this age anyone watching a television without a license is asking to be caught.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I understand it, if you are watching TV on a device that is not capable of receiving live broadcasts e.g. catch up TV, iplayer or equivalent, you are not required to have a TV licence.

      Delete
    2. Actually you only need a TV licence if you watch or record live TV.

      From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/Live-TV-and-how-you-watch-it.

      One simple question makes it easy to know if you need a TV Licence:

      Am I watching or recording live TV on any device?

      Live TV means any programme you watch or record at the same time as it's being shown on TV or an online TV service.

      An online TV service is a service that mainly aims to provide TV programmes over the internet, e.g. on a website or through an app or Smart TV.

      If you only ever watch on demand programmes, you don’t need a TV Licence. On demand includes catch-up TV, streaming or downloading programmes after they’ve been shown on live TV, or programmes available online before being shown on live TV.

      Delete
  11. Better still, get rid of the BBC, other than radio. It meant something when there were only three or four TV stations to choose from but now the selection is enormous and it is a pointless waste of money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cannot be serious (quote J McEnroe). The BBC is an essential part of British life and its remit must not be whittled away by an unholy alliance of right wing Tories and resentful Scot Nats.

      Delete
  12. BBC is so out dated like most of the quangos, just money generating item, be honest BBC lost the plot a few decades ago, the programming is so out dated it should be in History museum . To-day it is commercial T.V. and the programming content is 100% better and quality.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scrap the license fee..19 December 2015 at 18:05

    £120 costs x around 100 defendants......£12,000 costs in one afternoon....The licensing people are raking it in !!!!.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think that's "raking it in", try counting up what is collected (sorry, ordered) in a CIE (continuous insurance enforcement) court. 400-500 cases listed, and with the CCC included, £250,000 in a day is easily reached.

      Delete
  14. It's a known fact that even when people don't need the licence, the Capita Thug sent round will often try and commit fraud by just asking the householder to "just sign here to show I spoke to you, for our records" and if the householder doesn't read what they are signing, they get a shock a couple months later when a court summons arrives complete with a witness statement saying they agree they were watching without a licence, and unarguably signed and dated by them at the bottom. Never, ever sign something without reading should be stamped on peoples heads.

    I know people who have been watching TV without a licence for years, but because they live in flats where the communal entrance is locked, the Capita people have no chance of catching them, as they obviously wont buzz them in and go to the door.

    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.