New court charges will make conviction more expensive

[Puffing Devil]

Many people will have missed the Criminal Courts Charge being introduced from April.

...Where an adult offender is convicted of a crime, the court will order them to pay the Criminal Courts Charge. The charge will not be linked to the offender’s sentence, but will be imposed at a level set according to the costs reasonably attributable to a case of the class. The court will not be able to take the charge into account when they decide on the appropriate sentence.

The Criminal Courts Charge will also be ordered where an offender is unsuccessful in their appeal to the court or where they attend hearings for breaching certain court orders....

This means that an additional £150 will be added to all penalties in the Magistrates' Court. For someone earning £300/week, pleading guilty to a most basic fare evasion matter, the likely outcome will be as follows:

Fine: £100
Costs: £150 (Varies by TOC)
Victim Surcharge: £20
Courts Charge: £150

Total: £420

This has the greatest impact for someone on benefit, as the fine element would be close to £35, as it is income related.

 

[thenorthern]

I hate state the obvious but there is a simple way of avoiding all these fines and its simple just don't commit the crime.

In principal it seems a good idea to make offenders pay for the court fees although people who suffer a miscarriage of justice its a double slap in the face.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I hate state the obvious but there is a simple way of avoiding all these fines and its simple just don't commit the crime.

In principal it seems a good idea to make offenders pay for the court fees although people who suffer a miscarriage of justice its a double slap in the face.

Some days I really wish there was a Like button (The 1st paragraph that is)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

What is a victim surcharge?

 

[Llanigraham]

What is a victim surcharge?

Google is your friend!! :roll:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ion-for-victims/what-is-the-victim-surcharge/

 

[Agent_c]

What is a victim surcharge?

Its essentially a forced donation by the guilty to groups who look after victims of crime.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thanks, Puffing Devil, for bringing these tariffs to the attention of this forum.

The full table of the new fees are at the end of this page: The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015.

The hasty introduction of these fees has been widely criticised by practioners, e.g. this article by Nick Bano in theJusticeGap.com : a spiteful attack on poor people

These new rules will affect a person’s decision on whether to plead guilty or maintain their innocence. That’s a dangerous interference with justice.

Typically, lawyers only have a few minutes to advise their clients on plea at a first appearance: to assess the strength of the evidence and decide whether the prosecution’s case can be made out. A person charged with an offence will now have to think carefully about whether they can afford to stand trial. The financial impact of a conviction on the defendant’s family will hang oppressively in the air.

This is sure to influence client's decision to plead Not Guilty, and the legal advice given to a person considering a Not Guilty plea.

We wait to see how the challenge to the fees progresses. Meanwhile, changes to legal-aid advice in Police Stations and Magistrates Courts will reduce access to support by over 50%.

Jonathan Black, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association has commented : "We’re staring into an abyss of rough justice. The message sent by these swingeing ideological cuts and policies, coming on top of many other draconian measures, are simple. Don’t be poor, don’t be a victim of domestic abuse and don’t be accused of a crime. Because woe betide you, the state isn’t interested in providing you with the protection of the law."

Let me just put in a good word for the London Legal Support Trust and their counterparts elsewhere across England, who provide funding for legal aid work for accused persons.

[These changes apply to England and Wales only].

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

I assume that these proposed charges would apply even for byelaw offences. I wonder if it will affect the level of settlement that a TOC would be willing to accept. It shouldn't, but a cynical part of me does wonder.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I assume that these proposed charges would apply even for byelaw offences.

Yes, I have seen nothing in the Regulations, the Act or the Guidance Notes to suggest otherwise.

I wonder if it will affect the level of settlement that a TOC would be willing to accept. It shouldn't, but a cynical part of me does wonder.

I can't see how these Regulations have any bearing on whether a Company chooses to reach an Out-of-Court settlement to dispose of an Offence, nor what its costs will have been - costs which determine the Company's recovery settlement. The new 'tax' applies only to Guilty Judgements and are payable only to the Crown. But it will also have to be explained to clients during their case management interview, and will surely reduce the proportion of persons who choose to contest a Prosecution.

Railway Companies will benefit by default, for the very unfortunate consequence that fewer people will be able to afford to contest an accusation leading to a Prosecution, and simultaneously, fewer people will have access to legal aid, while fewer practitioners will be available to assist those who do qualify for legal aid.

My prediction from these arrangements is that accused citizens will increasingly avoid challenging their accuser.
I am sure that legal aid will remain greatly reduced from its recent levels.
I also suspect that yet more legal professionals undertaking Defence work will find themselves out of work as their firms find they lack legal-aid funding for their work.
I also suspect that others working in other roles within the Judiciary will find it difficult to continue.
Meanwhile, the CPS and Police Forces are under tremendous pressure to reduce expense and in the process, to provide less resources to investigate, develop and bring forward Prosecutions, and that when they do, they will fail to do so in a timely manner.

[I can think of more appropriate targets for that 'cynical part' of yours. They might affect us badly in the unfortunate event that we become victims of crime.]

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

A cynical example:

Before the 'tax'
"Dear passenger. If we took you to court, it would probably cost you £200. But we're nice people, so how about you pays us £100 and we'll say no more about it."

After the 'tax'
"Dear passenger. If we took you to court, it would probably cost you £350. But we're nice people, so how about you pays us £200 and we'll say no more about it."

Is there any legal framework to prevent this happening?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Is there any legal framework to prevent this happening?

Yes. There is indeed!

It is entirely lawful.
It has a well established and robust legal framework.
And as a bonus, it is massively less expensive!





. . . . .





It involves the passenger buying a ticket. The catch is that the ticket has to be for the actual journey they wish to take on a train and that there is somewhere to buy the ticket before or during their journey.

Railway Companies don't say "Dear passenger. If we took you to court, it would probably cost you £nnn. But we're nice people, so how about you pays us £nnn and we'll say no more about it" to their passengers who had bought a ticket which is valid for the journey they take by train.

 

[najaB]

It involves the passenger buying a ticket. The catch is that the ticket has to be for the actual journey they wish to take on a train and that there is somewhere to buy the ticket before or during their journey.

Oh, be serious. You can't expect passengers to take responsibility for buying their tickets. Next thing you'll be wanting them to remember to bring their railcards with them when they travel.

 

[455driver]

Oh, be serious. You can't expect passengers to take responsibility for buying their tickets. Next thing you'll be wanting them to remember to bring their railcards with them when they travel.

And remember where they got on the train!

 

[scott118]

Some days I really wish there was a Like button (The 1st paragraph that is)

Oh, be serious. You can't expect passengers to take responsibility for buying their tickets. Next thing you'll be wanting them to remember to bring their railcards with them when they travel.

brilliant..!

 

[Jonny]

I assume that these proposed charges would apply even for byelaw offences. I wonder if it will affect the level of settlement that a TOC would be willing to accept. It shouldn't, but a cynical part of me does wonder.

I was wondering as well - you're not the only one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A cynical example:

Before the 'tax'
"Dear passenger. If we took you to court, it would probably cost you £200. But we're nice people, so how about you pays us £100 and we'll say no more about it."

After the 'tax'
"Dear passenger. If we took you to court, it would probably cost you £350. But we're nice people, so how about you pays us £200 and we'll say no more about it."

Is there any legal framework to prevent this happening?

Probably - but it would be hard to prove any wrongdoing, particularly in defendant-initiated negotiations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hate state the obvious but there is a simple way of avoiding all these fines and its simple just don't commit the crime.

In principal it seems a good idea to make offenders pay for the court fees although people who suffer a miscarriage of justice its a double slap in the face.

Keeping to the law is easier said than done, particularly in a non-railway context. Everyone benefits from the court system, so why not fund it out of general taxation?