Urgent review of Criminal Courts Charge needed, says Howard League

Controversial new court charges which penalise the poor and encourage the innocent to plead guilty are the focus of a new campaign from the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Since April, magistrates and judges have been required to impose a mandatory criminal courts charge of up to £1,200 on those convicted of offences, in addition to fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges, and costs, regardless of an individual's financial circumstance.

Defendants who fail to pay the charge risk being imprisoned giving rise to fears of a return of debtors' prisons.

The government has said it will review the charge after three years, but today the Howard League has called for the review to be brought forward to this autumn. As part of its campaign, the charity will be writing to parliamentarians, raising the issue at party conferences and submitting evidence to the Justice Committee's inquiry into courts and tribunals fees and charges.

The Howard League, along with many criminal practitioners, argues that the charge, introduced in April by the former justice secretary, Chris Grayling, puts pressure on innocent people to plead guilty.

The charge rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates' court to £520 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. The charge at crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. There are even plans to charge interest.

In addition, the Howard League contends that money will be wasted on pursuing debts that people simply cannot pay, and also removes magistrates discretion.

In July, the Magistrates Association, which represents the majority of magistrates in England and Wales, confirmed that several experienced magistrates had resigned in protest at the charge.

In a letter published in the Shields Gazette's in July, an anonymous reader wrote: 'I am due to appear at Newcastle Crown Court in two weeks for an offence that I did not commit. I had planned on pleading not guilty, however I have been told that if I am found guilty I will have over £1,000 in costs to pay. Is this true?'

In June, the Exeter Express & Echo reported on a case where a judge was forced to impose a £900 charge on a homeless man who had admitted to shoplifting. The newspaper reported that, as the defendant, Stuart Barnes, was led away, judge Alan Large asked the courtroom: 'He cannot afford to feed himself, so what are the prospects of him paying £900?'

Commenting on a list of over 30 cases compiled by the Howard League, the charity's chief executive, Frances Crook, said: 'These cases are a snapshot of a failing criminal justice system. Up and down the country, people are being brought to court for minor misdemeanours and being ordered to pay a mandatory charge regardless of their circumstances.

'Some are homeless. Some have addictions. Many will be unable to pay. But the Ministry of Justice is poised to waste money it does not have on pursuing the debts. With more budget cuts on the way, ministers should be looking to shrink the system, not trapping more people in it for absurd offences.'

Crook continued: 'It was the French writer Anatole France, more than 100 years ago, who wrote that 'In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread'. Now the law seems hell-bent on exacting charges from rich and poor alike for the privilege - but it is the poor who will find themselves entrenched in their poverty by these criminal charges.'

The charity's chief exec added that it was now time for an urgent review of an 'unfair and unrealistic sanction', which was doing nothing to tackle crime.

 

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