No evidence MoJ is able to collect punitive criminal court charges, says Bar Council

The Bar Council has warned Peers about the dangers of highly controversial criminal courts charges, ahead of a Lords debate.

Since April, magistrates and judges have been required to impose on those convicted of offences a mandatory charge in addition to fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges, and costs, regardless of an individual's financial circumstances.

The House of Lords is to debate Lord Beecham's recent motion to regret the regulations, which was laid before parliament by the coalition government earlier this year.

The courts are given no discretion to take into account a defendant's ability to pay under the criminal court fee regime, which was brought in under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015.

The Bar has advised that defendants accused of crimes they have not committed are being incentivised to plead guilty to avoid the charges.

The charges, which can be as high as £1,200, are often significantly greater than the penalties for the offence. The Bar Council has submitted evidence to the Justice Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the impact of increases in court fees and charges.

The charge has attracted widespread criticism, including from the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Magistrates Association, and the Law Society.

Alistair MacDonald QC, chairman of the Bar, said that the financial situation of a defendant cannot be ignored.

'Faced with the prospect of a court charge that could be significantly higher than the penalties for a particular offence, defendants who are innocent may have little choice but to plead guilty, simply to avoid the financial risk of having to pay a hefty court fee if they are convicted after a trial,' he said.

MacDonald added that no one should be influenced by the extent of a court charge in making their decision about how to plead.

'This is just one major flaw in the system,' he continued. 'The court has ample powers to award costs and compensation against a person who pleads guilty or is convicted after a trial. Those powers are exercised having taken into account the financial circumstances of the defendant. There is no such discretion allowed in the case of court charges.'

The punitive charge, introduced under Chris Grayling's tenure as justice secretary, has led to the mass resignation of over 50 magistrates and the suspension of another for trying to pay an asylum seeker's fine.

The Bar claims the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has faced problems recovering fines, and there is no evidence to suggest it will be more successful in their ability to recover these court charges.

In addition, it suggests that resources spent on recovering payments will be diverted from more pressing needs.

'The likelihood is that the costs of seeking to recover the charges will outweigh the sums recovered,' said MacDonald.

Professor Mike Hough, the associate director of the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck University of London, recently said the court charges do not guarantee a right to a fair trial and that a review was needed to ascertain whether it was introducing a US-style plea bargaining regime.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal
john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD