The Voice of Spalding and South Holland
As someone who is involved in both prosecuting and defending cases I would hope to be well placed to give a balanced view upon the Criminal Courts Charge which has been brought in somewhat hastily with little notice.
It remains to be seen whether this will have unforeseen consequences. I would think that most people would agree to at least some degree with the proposition that those who genuinely commit offences should contribute to the costs of bringing the case. However, it is worth considering that there are already mechanisms in place to achieve this.
A convicted defendant can already be ordered to pay prosecution costs and the victim surcharge in addition to any fine or compensation for the offence as well as possibly paying the costs of their own solicitor or maybe making a legal aid contribution.
In some cases where the defendant has benefited from the crime there may also be a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The question therefore arises as to whether this is this represents a step too far?
The charge is not means tested and it appears that there is no discretion to the judge or the magistrates to decide that it is not in the interests of justice to impose the charge. It strikes me that it would have been sensible to allow those who have heard the case to have the discretion as to whether in all the circumstances it would be fair not to impose the charge or to reduce it in meritorious cases. This would then match the position that exists with regards to prosecution costs.
In my humble opinion, there are two equally worrying consequences that could result from the imposition of the charge.
Firstly, it may result in people who are innocent of offences deciding to plead guilty due to the fear that they could not afford to pay the fees if they lost the case. Such a position would be deeply damaging to justice and nobody would wish to see an innocent person wrongly convicted.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, there could be some defendants who look at the charges and decide that due to the financial hardship it would cause that they have no option but to try to fight the case and take their chance at trial.
This would then require victims and witnesses to attend court for trial adding to the distress and inconvenience to them and the overall effect could then be to increase the cost to the state.
I am not saying that it would be right for people to take either of those approaches but you can well see how it could happen.
A significant concern is as to whether the system of charging fees to cover the costs of running the courts sounds like a good idea in principle but will it actually work in practice?
It is reported that there are over £500m in unpaid fines with over 60 per cent either written off or unpaid.
There was reported to £1.48b in unpaid confiscation orders with the Public Accounts Committee in 2014 suggesting that 26p in £100 was in fact collected.
These are truly staggering figures. Would it not have made more sense to have ensured that what is already ordered is collected rather than adding to the figure.
Only time will tell whether this is a well thought out plan to save the hardworking tax payer money or simply a measure designed to look tough on crime and win public support without actually delivering any savings.
Daven Naghen
Maples Solicitors
Spalding
