UK magistrate resigns over new court fee that 'forces innocent to plead guilty'

[Deleted]

Source: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/...s-over-9752472

UK government introducing plea bargaining by the backdoor? It is even worse than the US system since it is upfront and based on an individual's ability to pay.

A North East magistrate has resigned over new court fees that “force the innocent to plead guilty” and means “justice is only going to be for those who can afford it.”

Since April criminal defendants have had to pay an “outrageous” new levy of up to £1,200 for standing trial - with fees potentially quadrupling if someone pleads not guilty and are then convicted.
...
“This is a terrible piece of legislation introduced through the back door,” wrote Mr Lyons, who fears the rules - which courts have no discretion over - could “criminalise many people because that is the option” for them.

“Justice is only going to be for those who can afford it.”

He is among 20 magistrates across the country to have told the Magistrates’ Association they were resigning amid fears that the system is now both convicting the innocent, and seeing many “uncollectable” fines issued - as many defendants are serial offenders on low incomes who will be unable to pay.

“I can fully understand magistrates resigning over this,” said Magistrates’ Association chairman Richard Monkhouse. “When courts impose fines, they take account of an offender’s ability to pay.

“Yet this charge offers neither judicial discretion nor means-testing at the point it is imposed and seeks to undo any attempts to be fair and proportionate.”

He added: “There are already reports of people under pressure to plead guilty, particularly as they increasingly find themselves acting for themselves.”

Pushback present, but whether it will be effective or not is another matter:

The charges have also been condemned by the Law Society, which represents 150,000 solicitors in England and Wales.

“We think that this charge is counterproductive and against the interest of natural justice,” said the organisation’s president Jonathan Smithers.

“It is a huge incentive for people to plead guilty when they may not be because these are significant amounts of money.”

And the reason the government wants this?

The Government said it had introduced the charges because it “considers that convicted adult offenders who use our criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them” - reducing the “burden” on the taxpayers.

[Kujako]

Happens all the time in the US, well not the resignation part, but the other bit.

[AeneasBK]

Didn't LWT do something about the US bail system being similarly unfair?

[Puremallace]

Who in the flying fuck looked at the US system that I live in and thought this was REMOTELY A GOOD IDEA. This is a literal disaster and will put criminal records on innocent people create what it has done in the US a PERMANENT underclass. People in the UK need to stop this shit now.

It has cost us trillions and an entire generation of people have been forced onto welfare because they cannot get jobs.

[Independent voter]

In the US you only pay if you can afford it, how can you collect from a homeless person for example? They have you fill out a form and depending on what you say, like how much you earn per year, you pay a court fee. Court appointed attorneys are the same.

I'd be surprised if Britain wasn't the same way.

[Shadowmelded]

Just further proof that Grayling doesn't know what the fuck he's actually doing and should never have been anywhere near the Justice department without a legal background. But hey we have a chancellor with a degree in History, not economics so it's par for the course I guess.

[Aeula]

Why is my country forcing me to hate it more and more each year? Seriously what the fuck is wrong with england.

And of course they use the fucking 'taxpayers' as their lance.

The money that would have gone towards justice will now go somewhere less important. Fuck our government.

[Kalis]

I understand the sentiment behind it, but it seems a bit silly that there is no means testing.

- - - Updated - - -

In the US you only pay if you can afford it, how can you collect from a homeless person for example? They have you fill out a form and depending on what you say, like how much you earn per year, you pay a court fee. Court appointed attorneys are the same.

I'd be surprised if Britain wasn't the same way.

The point they are arguing is that this isn't means tested, so regardless of your personal circumstances...

Magistrates Court
If you plead guilty = £150 or £180 charge
If you plead not guilty, but are found guilty = £520 or £1000 charge

Crown Court
If you plead guilty = £900 charge
If you plead not guilty, but are found guilty = £1200 charge


If you are found not guilty, then you pay nothing.

[Miley]

It would be nice if some kind of deposit/fee could discourage actual guilty people from wasting all the time and money proving them guilty. Kind of like having to put a deposit on a beer keg or pool balls to discourage theft of them. Unfortunately for this deposit/ fee to actually accomplish this it has to be a substantial amount which would then hurt innocent people that couldn't afford it.

[Masoner]

Happens all the time in the US, well not the resignation part, but the other bit.

The results are the same "guilty till you can pay to show you are innocent" but the means are different.

[Kujako]

The results are the same "guilty till you can pay to show you are innocent" but the means are different.

Well no, often in the US it's pay or admit your guilt. It's not uncommon for people to be given ridiculously high bail to the point where they'll spend less time in prison if they just say they're guilty then if they wait in jail for a trial because they can't afford the bail. It's all part of the for profit jail system we have here.

[Deleted]

Wait so how does this work?

the state accuses you of a crime, and then you have to pay for the privilege of being accused?

wtf?

[SavoirFaire]

We have that here in California for traffic fines and some minor offenses. Take your chance with not guilty or guilty at trial, or pay a midrange fine and "everyone wins". Had a running a red light ticket at LAX, which I was highly skeptical of, but taking time off work and the risk of being just told I was guilty and paying even more had me take the midrange option.

[Kalis]

Wait so how does this work?

the state accuses you of a crime, and then you have to pay for the privilege of being accused?

wtf?

No, it's more like gambling.

If you think you'll be found not guilty, then don't pay anything and cross your fingers. You only pay if you plead guilty or are found guilty.

[s_bushido]

Lawmakers in the UK must be jealous of how many people we put in prison in the US.

[Deleted]

No, it's more like gambling.

If you think you'll be found not guilty, then don't pay anything and cross your fingers. You only pay if you plead guilty or are found guilty.

hmm thats slightly less bad, but i think it's pretty stupid that you have to pay for (part of) the trial if you are a criminal defendant. Feels like paying rent in prison to me. double punishment.

the fact that you pay more if you "waste the courts time by not pleading guilty" is just wrong too. justice is blind and all that.

[Kalis]

hmm thats slightly less bad, but i think it's pretty stupid that you have to pay for (part of) the trial if you are a criminal defendant. Feels like paying rent in prison to me. double punishment.

Shifting the burden of cost from the taxpayer onto the guilty isn't so bad.

the fact that you pay more if you "waste the courts time by not pleading guilty" is just wrong too.

It would be okay if we had 100% accuracy in convictions.

But we don't, so it isn't.

[Pannonian]

If you want to know more and got a bit of time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU

[Puremallace]

If you want to know more and got a bit of time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU

^ Exactly this. They get you to plead guilty because you are too poor to defend yourself. It is a PURE EVIL way for cities to make money.

[klogaroth]

Even if you get a refund if you later have a successful appeal it's still not acceptable. To be fined what is for many people more than an entire month's net wage, pluis spend time in jail; that's going to destroy the finances of someone who was previously living paycheck to paycheck. Even if you later get found innocent you are going to see negative effects. Miss those fine payments and I guarantee it'll affect your credit score. Couple of years later - "oh I'm sorry, you can't have a mortgage because you were wrongly convicted of a crime you didn't commit, have a nice day".

As far as the burden on the taxpayer bollocks - the taxpayer is the one who benefits from the court system by having the criminals that the Tories love to vilify so much sentenced there so that they can be removed from the streets. Everyone in society is a user of the court system, either by having those who have wronged them prosecuted or by not having crimes committed against them because those who would commit them are locked up, rehabilitated or (in a tiny number of cases) scared to do so through the fear of being locked up.


It's about as short sighted as saying you shouldn't have to pay for the fire service unless your house is on fire. Or the police unless you have been arrested - oh wait......that's exactly what it is right there. Morons.