Magistrates have begun to resign in protest at punitive court charges of up to £1,200 that they claim can never be collected and encourage the innocent to plead guilty.
The criminal court charge came into effect in April as a means of ensuring that convicted adult offenders pay towards the cost of running the criminal justice system.
The hefty range of penalties is levied on top of fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges or prosecution costs already imposed on those who plead guilty or are convicted at magistrates’ or crown courts.
When the criminal court charge was introduced by the last justice secretary, Chris Grayling, there were warnings the money could eventually prove to be uncollectable, particularly from those on benefits.
The Magistrates Association, which represents most magistrates in England and Wales, has confirmed that a number of experienced magistrates have resigned in protest at the charge.
Richard Monkhouse, chairman of the Magistrates Association, said: “Our members have expressed concerns about the charge from the outset and it shows the strength of feeling when experienced magistrates resign from the bench because of it. The law is the law and we have a sworn duty to apply it, so we’ve made our views known to the lord chancellor and will continue to do so.
“A six-month review is needed with a view to granting judges and magistrates discretion in applying the charge because we know the majority of offenders will never be able to pay, and worse, that it may influence their pleas.” Some reports suggest as many as 20 magistrates have now stood down.
The criminal court charge ranges from £150 for anyone who pleads guilty to a summary offence at magistrates’ court up to £1,000 for those convicted after a trial of a more serious offence at magistrates’ court. In the crown court, the charge ranges from £900 for a guilty plea up to £1,200 for conviction after trial.
Because it costs far less to plead guilty rather than be convicted after a contested trial, some allege it creates a perverse incentive for the innocent to plead guilty rather than run the risk of failing to convince the court.
Bob Hutchinson, who was deputy bench chairman of the Fylde Coast magistrates, has resigned after 11 years. “People are expected to pay off their fines over a 12- to 18-month period,” he explained, “but 85% of people [who come before us] are on benefits and can only afford £5 a week. The criminal court charge – on top of victim surchages, fines and compensation orders – makes a mockery of trying to pay money back over that period.”
Hutchinson said: “It’s a farce. I don’t think the government has thought this through. A lot of colleagues are imposing fines they know will never be collected. It will create a lot of resignations.”
George Lyons, who was a magistrate in North Tyneside for 15 years, has also given up his place on the bench. In a resignation letter to the Magistrates Association’s magazine, he warned that the charge puts pressure on people to admit crimes they have not committed in order to avoid a larger fines.
“This is a terrible piece of legislation introduced through the back door,” he wrote. The rules, over which magistrates have no discretion, would, he added, “criminalise many people because that is the option” for them. “Justice is only going to be for those who can afford it.”
The Ministry of Justice believes that the criminal courts charge reflects the cost of an offenders’ case. As the charge is only imposed on convicted offenders, it is argued, it will not create adverse incentives. Payment by instalments, officials maintain, will ensure that money is collected.
An MoJ spokesperson said: “It is right that convicted adult offenders who use our criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them.
“The introduction of this charge makes it possible to recover some of the costs of the criminal courts from these offenders, therefore reducing the burden on taxpayers.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010
Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress