*/
Dozens of magistrates have resigned in protest over court charges that they claim encourage the innocent to plead guilty and will never be collected.
Former justice secretary, Chris Grayling, introduced the fees, which came into effect in April, as a means of ensuring that those convicted of crimes contribute towards the cost of running the courts.
In the magistrates’ court, the fees range from £150 for a defendant who pleads guilty to a summary offence, up to £1,000 for anyone convicted of an either way offence. In the Crown court, the fees range from £900 for a guilty plea up to £1,200 for conviction after trial.
They are not means tested and must be paid on top of any fines, compensation orders and the victim surcharge.
Chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, Richard Monkhouse, estimated that “over 30” magistrates had resigned since the charges were introduced, but said the number could be “much higher”.
He said: “During my time on the Bench, I have rarely seen an issue strike such a deep chord with magistrates. They have very real concerns about the fairness of the charge and its impact on pleas in court, which frankly goes to the very heart of justice”.
He questioned whether most would ever be paid due to poor collection rates and defendants’ lack of means to pay.
The association has called for an urgent review with a view to granting judges and magistrates discretion over its application, including means testing.
The Howard League for Penal Reform, which is campaigning for the charges to be scrapped, has highlighted the disproportionate impact that they are having on poor and homeless people charged with trivial, low value offences.
Its chief executive, Frances Crook, said: “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.”
Mark Fenhalls QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the charge is “deeply unjust” and he suggested that magistrates and judges should be allowed to take into account an individual’s means.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “It is right that convicted adult offenders who use our criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them.
“The introduction of this charge makes it possible to recover some of the costs of the criminal courts from these offenders, therefore reducing the burden on taxpayers.”
The MoJ will review the charge after three years, but has not indicated that it will bring that action forward.
Dozens of magistrates have resigned in protest over court charges that they claim encourage the innocent to plead guilty and will never be collected.
Former justice secretary, Chris Grayling, introduced the fees, which came into effect in April, as a means of ensuring that those convicted of crimes contribute towards the cost of running the courts.
In the magistrates’ court, the fees range from £150 for a defendant who pleads guilty to a summary offence, up to £1,000 for anyone convicted of an either way offence. In the Crown court, the fees range from £900 for a guilty plea up to £1,200 for conviction after trial.
They are not means tested and must be paid on top of any fines, compensation orders and the victim surcharge.
Chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, Richard Monkhouse, estimated that “over 30” magistrates had resigned since the charges were introduced, but said the number could be “much higher”.
He said: “During my time on the Bench, I have rarely seen an issue strike such a deep chord with magistrates. They have very real concerns about the fairness of the charge and its impact on pleas in court, which frankly goes to the very heart of justice”.
He questioned whether most would ever be paid due to poor collection rates and defendants’ lack of means to pay.
The association has called for an urgent review with a view to granting judges and magistrates discretion over its application, including means testing.
The Howard League for Penal Reform, which is campaigning for the charges to be scrapped, has highlighted the disproportionate impact that they are having on poor and homeless people charged with trivial, low value offences.
Its chief executive, Frances Crook, said: “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.”
Mark Fenhalls QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the charge is “deeply unjust” and he suggested that magistrates and judges should be allowed to take into account an individual’s means.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “It is right that convicted adult offenders who use our criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them.
“The introduction of this charge makes it possible to recover some of the costs of the criminal courts from these offenders, therefore reducing the burden on taxpayers.”
The MoJ will review the charge after three years, but has not indicated that it will bring that action forward.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt
