Thursday, December 03, 2015

There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.......

Glory be....the MoJ has seen sense

I just hope that the poor sods lumbered with this crass and unjust impost get their money back. Ideally, taken from Grayling's paycheque.

16 comments:

  1. So what happens between now and 24th December when it officially stops? The law that says we have to impose it, regardless of means, is still in place. Would anyone care or chase if we simply failed to do so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With luck our clever legal advisers will come up with some fancy footwork.

      Delete
  2. On a day when the rest of the news is so grim, this was the only chink of light I saw.
    I feel so sad, though, for the loss of my Bench colleagues who resigned rather than impose the CCC.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, it's me the cynic again. The day the first bombs fell in Syria was always going to be a good day to bury this story so as not to get too much coverage of another big u-turn.

    What I can't understand is why it wasn't announced with immediate effect. The next three weeks are going to be somewhat surreal.

    All credit to Mr Gove for WHAT he's done. The WAY he's announced it is just bonkers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The charge is being suspended by the introduction of an amending Statutory Instrument that is subject to the “negative resolution” procedure. This requires an SI to be laid before parliament for at least 21 days before it comes into effect. Hence the delay – though this would seem to be the quickest it could be done.

      Delete
  4. Maybe it is Mr Gove's way of having a low crime build up to Xmas......Criminals put off until after Xmas what they would do today..............

    ReplyDelete
  5. If we can now get rid of the, so called, Victim Surcharge...

    ReplyDelete
  6. My understanding is that, as it's enshrined in legislation, it will need legislation to abolish it and that can't be done for some time to come. The way they have got round it is to reduce all levels to zero. What that means is that our pronouncements should include telling a defendant they have to pay the criminal courts charge and the amount is zero. Of course we will simply not mention it.

    Will anyone get their money back? No, It may have been unjust and but it was the law at the time. Almost certainly the only ones who will have paid will be those who could actually afford it, so not many then.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why not adjourn sentencing for three weeks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because date of offence is the determinant.

      Delete
    2. In this case the Statutory Instrument removes all reference of the actual amount on the 24th December. The charge exists, however the amount does not.

      Delete
    3. DCS is wrong. Aside from the 13 April commencement, date of offence is irrelevant. Date of sentencing is everything. The law continues to require a CCC to be imposed at the currently specified amounts in all sentencing up to and including 23 Dec. On 24 Dec the amending regulations come into force and remove the currently specified amounts from the regulations whilst putting nothing their place. Thus, since the primary legislation says the CCC to be imposed “must be of an amount specified by the Lord Chancellor by regulations” and as the LC from 24 Dec onwards will not have specified any amounts, from that date the CCC may no longer be imposed.
      And so the question asked by Anonymous 22.28 nicely points up one more anomaly in this whole daft saga. Prudent defendants might very sensibly seek to have their cases adjourned to after 23 Dec.

      Delete
    4. 'fraid not DCS. Today's Ministerial statement advises that "for all cases sentenced on or after 24th December, the amount of the charge will be zero". So adjournment of sentencing would seem to be a way of avoiding paying the CCC. However, we are later advised that adjournment must not be used as a means of avoiding the CCC: adjournment can only be allowed in exceptional circumstances - and unwillingness to pay the CCC does not qualify as one of these. However, I'm sure that where there's a will .......

      Delete
  8. Technically, Gove has removed Regulation 3 which set the amounts of the charge. Without amounts being specified it cannot be imposed ! The government is reviewing the financial orders so we must wait and see what comes out of that. The possibility of some form of courts charge remains. I have posted about this on my blog. Note: The amendment regulations have to be laid before Parliament for 21 days and so they could not take effect immediately. Hence, it worked out at 24th December.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I could retire to the Côte d'Azur on 10% of today's CCCs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A wonderful bit of news, combined with something else - a friend who is in the loop has informed me about something, not yet public knowledge. Various High Court Judges and bigwigs, have been absolutely horrified after tuning in to watch Channel 5's "Can't Pay? Wel'll take it away" Programme, which mostly follows HCEO's carrying out Section 42 Evictions - unlike a normal County Court eviction, where the Bailiff's take 2 months to perform it, a High Court Section 42 sees the HCEO's turning up within a couple of days, leaving people on the street, as with council advise they tend to plan their leaving for the 2 month eviction.

    There is a very good chance this loophole is going to be closed - Landlords are getting special treatment in the High Court, which no other type of company or creditor gets, which makes the process unfair for all sides.

    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.