*/
Bob Hutchinson, who recently resigned after serving for 11 years as a magistrate, outlines the impact of CCCs on magistrates’ discretion and judicial fairness
In April this year the Government introduced the criminal court charge (CCC) in England and Wales.
Prior to this, magistrates had judicial discretion on the financial penalty the court felt was appropriate. These were fines, court costs, the victim surcharge and compensation. Government guidelines allowed magistrates to fine offenders appropriately, ie based on their means, with virtually all agencies agreeing that this was the fairest way to deal with offenders. For example, if compensation was applicable for a criminal damage offence, magistrates had the discretion to reduce, or waive, costs and victim surcharge to allow the financial burden to be repaid in a 12-18 month period, with the priority being compensation.
The introduction of the CCC in April this year came as a shock to most magistrates. The direction given was to sentence as normal, taking into account the offenders’ means, then to add the CCC at the level of £150 for a guilty plea and £520 for a not guilty plea, regardless of the offender’s financial status and totally against the government guidelines with which we previously worked.
Just prior to my resignation, one offender in court was found guilty after trial for stealing a £15.60 joint of meat. Compensation was not required as the goods were recovered. He received a conditional discharge, then £20 victim surcharge, £250 court costs and £520 CCC – a total of £790. In my view, which I believe is shared by a very high percentage of magistrates, this is completely disproportionate. As 95% of all cases stay and are dealt with in the magistrates’ court, the discontent amongst magistrates and the number of resignations is very concerning.
When an offender pleads “not guilty”, we immediately have a case management hearing to determine the facts of the crime, and the timing of the trial, based on the type of evidence to be produced and number of witnesses required to attend. At the same time, the chair of the court will ask the defendant if they know that one-third will be discounted from their sentence if they plead guilty at this hearing. We have also now received direction from HMCTS to emphasise to the offender that by pleading not guilty, then being found guilty after trial, that the financial penalty of the CCC will be considerably higher than pleading guilty now.
In my opinion, if an offender was not of good character and believed he was innocent, he may plead guilty to the charge in order to avoid the higher CCC if the evidence being produced on his behalf was not very strong. This again is very concerning.
In my time on the bench we would regularly remit some of the financial burden on offenders if they had, for example, more than £300 outstanding to the court and were on benefits. Magistrates fully understand the need for offenders to pay for the crimes they committed, but in my view the CCC is unfair, disproportionate and, in a very high percentage of cases, will not be collected due to offenders’ inability to pay.
After careful consideration I resigned on 22 July, having served as a magistrate for 11 years, during which time I had chaired both the Fines Panel and Local Community Engagement Group, and was Vice Chairman of the Bench from 2013. I felt that judicial fairness was no longer a priority, something with which I could not live. Once you take judicial discretion away from magistrates it becomes impossible to have a balanced view and administer justice fairly.
Prior to this, magistrates had judicial discretion on the financial penalty the court felt was appropriate. These were fines, court costs, the victim surcharge and compensation. Government guidelines allowed magistrates to fine offenders appropriately, ie based on their means, with virtually all agencies agreeing that this was the fairest way to deal with offenders. For example, if compensation was applicable for a criminal damage offence, magistrates had the discretion to reduce, or waive, costs and victim surcharge to allow the financial burden to be repaid in a 12-18 month period, with the priority being compensation.
The introduction of the CCC in April this year came as a shock to most magistrates. The direction given was to sentence as normal, taking into account the offenders’ means, then to add the CCC at the level of £150 for a guilty plea and £520 for a not guilty plea, regardless of the offender’s financial status and totally against the government guidelines with which we previously worked.
Just prior to my resignation, one offender in court was found guilty after trial for stealing a £15.60 joint of meat. Compensation was not required as the goods were recovered. He received a conditional discharge, then £20 victim surcharge, £250 court costs and £520 CCC – a total of £790. In my view, which I believe is shared by a very high percentage of magistrates, this is completely disproportionate. As 95% of all cases stay and are dealt with in the magistrates’ court, the discontent amongst magistrates and the number of resignations is very concerning.
When an offender pleads “not guilty”, we immediately have a case management hearing to determine the facts of the crime, and the timing of the trial, based on the type of evidence to be produced and number of witnesses required to attend. At the same time, the chair of the court will ask the defendant if they know that one-third will be discounted from their sentence if they plead guilty at this hearing. We have also now received direction from HMCTS to emphasise to the offender that by pleading not guilty, then being found guilty after trial, that the financial penalty of the CCC will be considerably higher than pleading guilty now.
In my opinion, if an offender was not of good character and believed he was innocent, he may plead guilty to the charge in order to avoid the higher CCC if the evidence being produced on his behalf was not very strong. This again is very concerning.
In my time on the bench we would regularly remit some of the financial burden on offenders if they had, for example, more than £300 outstanding to the court and were on benefits. Magistrates fully understand the need for offenders to pay for the crimes they committed, but in my view the CCC is unfair, disproportionate and, in a very high percentage of cases, will not be collected due to offenders’ inability to pay.
After careful consideration I resigned on 22 July, having served as a magistrate for 11 years, during which time I had chaired both the Fines Panel and Local Community Engagement Group, and was Vice Chairman of the Bench from 2013. I felt that judicial fairness was no longer a priority, something with which I could not live. Once you take judicial discretion away from magistrates it becomes impossible to have a balanced view and administer justice fairly.
Bob Hutchinson, who recently resigned after serving for 11 years as a magistrate, outlines the impact of CCCs on magistrates’ discretion and judicial fairness
In April this year the Government introduced the criminal court charge (CCC) in England and Wales.
On both fronts – representing the Bar’s interests and protecting the rule of law
Kate West discusses how best to interpret a drug test report, and the common misconceptions about what can be learnt from a drug test
Ashley Hodgkinson looks at drug testing methods and some of the most common ways people try to cheat a drug test
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
... have you seen through yours? asks Julian Morgan
Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
In this tale of hope, success really has been the best revenge! A difficult journey teaches Rehana Azib QC invaluable lessons along the way
The Chief Inspector of the CPS knows first-hand the difficulties prosecutors face but is no pushover. He talks to Anthony Inglese CB about Operation Soteria, putting victims and cooperation at the heart of criminal justice reform, and his unique and life-changing career prosecuting the crime of all crimes, genocide
Having represented many Davids against many Goliaths over a 30+year career at the publicly funded Bar, renowned silk Professor Leslie Thomas QC critically assesses what the Human Rights Act currently under challenge has done for coronial law and equality of arms
The future of robotics in surgery is likely to hinge on what it enables does the legal system yet have the tools to protect patients?Conor Dufficy and Finn Stevenson investigate