Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Ker-Ching!

This article summarises planned increases to the maximum fine levels that may be imposed by magistrates. The press have mostly jumped to the conclusion that the maximum fine will become he usual fine. It will not - after all when did you last hear of a simple drink-drive attracting the maximum £5000 fine? Courts must impose fines that are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, and within the ability of the offender to pay within a reasonable period. Really hefty fines are usually levied on businesses with deep pockets, often for Health and Safety or Trading Standards offences. In practice, our run-of-the-mill customer on JSA is unlikely ever to face a fine of more than about £250 , because deductions from benefits at £5 per week will take a year to pay off at least.

So in reality, not a lot will change. A whacking fine that is uncollectable simply makes a mockery of the system.

19 comments:

  1. Quadrupling the available level of fines seems to be to be an abuse of power. There is no possible justification for these increases. The "Bloody Code" of the 18th century enforced hangings for many trivial offences; are we not going back to this, albeit without the hanging and flogging, and presumably that will be next on the list !

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the record I have never had as much as a parking ticket. However, it should not be an issue of collectability but rather proportionality. Someone with three offences at (say) 36 mph in a 30 mph or 56 mph in a 50 mph zone without associated charges of recklessness, DUI, etc, can already get a 6 month ban, which is a punishment that is often meted out to those with much more egregious violations. I know cases of homicide by motor vehicle in England that have resulted in only a 6 month driving ban.
    This proposal is yet a further measure TO PERSECUTE THE MOTORIST as a fertile money sources for those who collect the fines and direct them to their favourite uses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When first announced on the news yesterday it was to the effect that fines were to be quadrupled. They then changed it to the maximum fine being quadrupled. I dare say it will lead to the levying of some larger fines in some cases, though not many for the reasons given by Bystander already, but all that is likely to happen is that the one billion pounds plus in uncollected fines will rise even more quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A maximum fine that is no deterrent to the well-off also makes a mockery of the system, I would suggest. Admittedlt, driving offences are slightly different as penalty points and a ban apply regardless of income.

    ReplyDelete
  5. War weary citizen11 June 2014 at 11:50

    You are to kind to this announcement, in reality it is utter bollocks!!
    I cannot remember the last time I ever heard of anyone getting near imposing the current maximums never mind something like this.

    There are two types of people who end up getting fined: the generally law abiding citizen, usually working and who occasionally breaches minor regulatory offences. They get find and usually pay up. Hammering people like this is not justice and will have no effect other than pissing decent people off. Having said that there are individual troublesome offences such as usung a mobile phone where something else should be done. In that regard a qwift 28 day ban would probably solve the problem overnight!!

    Then you have the vast majority of people who end up with fines which are the flotsam and jestsam odf society- the mad,bad and sad. Quiet often unemployed and on benefits. What earthly use is it fining people like this. Some( and by that I mean many) end up with large amounts that they will never pay off. This means a court has the farcical task of remitting quite a lot of it.

    Yes, there might be the odd footballer who does a bit of speeding who might cop for one of these excessive fines but in reality it is another s*** policy that does nothing for justice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The average fine for a motoring offence is one weeks pay. On that basis these changes will only apply to people earning over £50K a year

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is presumbaly some expectation that the higher maxima may lead to some increase in the overall level of fines. But for the reasons that Bystander explains, any change in the general level of fines may be only gradual and is unlikely to be very dramatic.

    What would be unacceptable would be a change in the sentencing guidelines seeking to force courts to impose much higher fines. It is the sentencing guidelines (and their near compulsory application) that are the most pernicious aspect of government intereference in the CJS. Courts should be given far more discretion over sentencing, so as to take account of the facts of the case and the circumstances of the defendant, without being strait-jacketed into imposing a sentence which they consider inapproriate or unjust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The guidelines are exactly that. Guidelines. They are not a straight jacket. They are for reference purposes so as to try to inject a bit of consistency in sentencing which was very lacking previously. Also please don't forget that the original concept of guidelines came from the magistracy itself; a fact so conveniently overlooked by many magistrates. The first guidelines were published by the MA. The MA is regularly consulted and takes an active role in the formulation of the guidelines in partnership with the Sentencing Council.

      JPs already have discretion in sentencing based on the facts of the matter and generality of circumstance. If appropriate then the we can move outside the guidelines and I do whenever I feel it in the interest of justice to do so. The real reason why many magistrates whine about the guidelines is that they were appointed at a time when there was a good deal less accountability. They don't like the idea of guidance and have an arrogant and outdated attitude to towards the concept that they should be accountable and professional in their approach, Fortunately these dinosaurs are slowly disappearing. To those who remain and find the guidelines an affront then I say to them exercise your prerogative and resign.

      Delete
    2. I think it was the last Lord Chief Justice who said that we 'should' follow the guidelines but that changed with the new one who said we 'must' follow the guidelines, but I could be wrong about who it was. I was in a group of magistrates who heard Lord Judge say to use they are 'guidelines not tramlines' but that does not seem to be the current thinking. There are ever more attempts to limit what we do and how we do it.

      Delete
    3. Nothing to do with any Lord Chief Justice. It’s imposed by statute:

      Coroners & Justice Act 2009 s.125(1) “Every court must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender's case ……unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so”.

      Delete
    4. All the courts need to do is have the moral and intellectual wherewithal to decide whether the interests of justice require going outside the guidelines and to articulate how and why. Not exactly a high bar to clear, yet instead it seems an easier path is just to moan about this simple, clear legal standard.

      Delete
  8. My view has long been that increasing fine levels is largely a waste of time as they rarely get paid anyway!! Far more effective at least as far as motoring matters are concerned would be the imposition of higher points leading ultimately to a disqualification under the totting up procedure.

    It seems a pity to me that apparently, no one bothered to speak to the Magistracy (and I don't mean the MA in this context although at a pinch that might have helped) before coming up with this proposal. No change there then...

    ReplyDelete
  9. It would help of course if we really knew what income a defendant was on. We get a means form, which could be a complete work of fiction, and base the fine on that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not like speeder scum know how much the fine is, so it will be no deterrent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since speeeding seems to be the only offence talked about, it might have been more palatable if the speed limits on motorways were increased. Cars these days can stop much better than they could years ago and on the whole a limite of 80 or even ninety wouldn't be a problem. I don't buy the agrument that it would creat more danger, in fact I think it would do the reverse. Then if we had realistic limits you could stuff those who break the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Am I correct in reading that the maximum tv licence fine has gone up to £4000? Even if not, fining people shows what contempt the Government has for the people whom they are supposed to serve: how can someone be fined for watching a FOREIGN tv broadcast live!??? Yet it's OK to watch a recorded bbc production free, which costs money to make, and for which the bbc consequently receives £NOTHING. Clearly, whoever thought that 'logic' up has SFB, as have the subsequent Ministers responsible for perpetuating this farce.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No. The - maximum - is likely to go up, but nobody is ever likely to be fined that amount - it would be illegal for one thing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What would happen if you gave the maximum fine to an ordinary case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The clerk would probably draw your attention to the guidelines, and if you went ahead anyway there would almost certainly be an appeal to the Crown Court - likely to succeed.

      Delete

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.