The case against the Criminal Courts Charge

Any criminal offence committed after 13 April 2015 attracts the payment of the criminal courts charge.　 The premise underlying the charge is that those convicted of offences are responsible for the need for court proceedings and so should contribute towards the costs of those proceedings.　 The charge is intended to be applied to fund HMCTS.

The charge is mandatory upon conviction both in terms of imposition and the sum imposed – as follows:

£100 – breach of a community or suspended sentence order

£150 – trial on the papers with defendant absent at the magistrates’ court, on a guilty plea to summary offence, on breach of a community order or unsuccessful appeal to the crown court, or where permission to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal

£180 – guilty plea in the magistrates’ court to an either way offence

£200 – unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal

£520 – after trial for a summary offence

£900 – guilty plea to an indictable offence

£1000 – after trial for an either way offence in the magistrates’ court

£1200 – after trial for an either way or indictable trial at the crown court.

A defendant can apply to the magistrates’ court for consideration of removal of the charge.　 However, the defendant has to wait for a two year period, be able to demonstrate they have made best efforts to keep up payments of any financial orders made by the court and to have avoided conviction during that period.　 It is anticipated very few defendants will meet the high bar set for “consideration” of removal of the mandatory order.

Magistrates and judges are required to impose the criminal courts charge in addition to compensation, prosecution costs and the mandatory imposition of the victim surcharge.

Practitioners opposed the implementation of the charge and warned the government that it would lead to injustice.　 Since April there has been a growing groundswell of opposition with campaign groups forming to seek the abolition of the charge.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the premise behind the charge, that those who offend should fund the court service, there has been little by way of agreement with the government over the manner of implementation.　 The central concern of the judiciary has been the lack of discretion or reference to the means of the defendant.　 To date around fifty magistrates have resigned their positions in protest at the requirement to impose the charge.　 Nigel Allcoat JP felt so incensed by the “foolish” charge that he offered to pay it for an asylum seeker who appeared before him.　 He pointed out that with no right to work or claim benefits, only receiving weekly food vouchers, there was no means for the defendant to pay without resorting to crime.　 The magistrate was suspended pending investigation by HMCTS and subsequently resigned from his position.　 Richard Monkhouse, chair of the Magistrates’ Court Association, expressed his concerns regarding the large number of experienced magistrates being lost to courts as a result of the court charge.　 He shared the view of many that the vast majority of the charges imposed would never be recovered from defendants who were unable to pay.

What is of greater concern is the potential for a defendant’s choice of plea to be affected by the increased level of charge imposed on those convicted after a trial.　 The criminal courts charge places inappropriate pressure on defendants to enter pleas of convenience to avoid higher charges.　 Those who can’t afford to pay the charge find themselves in a position of disadvantage.　 The charge creates two tiers of defendant whose prospects are governed by their means and not by the justice of the case.　 Practitioners have been required since April to factor the charge into their advice and have expressed themselves as feeling increasingly concerned that defendants are pleading guilty when they should contest matters, particularly in the summary court.　 The level of charge arising following a trial at the crown court has clear potential to impact upon the decision to elect jury trial.

A cynic might form the view that the charge comprises a thinly veiled attempt by government to reduce costs by persuading defendants to plead guilty and not to elect jury trial, irrespective of whether they are guilty.　 It is inappropriate and irresponsible for the state to create this perverse situation.

Those wishing to express their opposition to the charge will find an online petition via the following link:

http://www.ditchthecriminalcourtscharge.co.uk

In the West Midlands the Murray Hall Community Trust has engaged in the debate and can be contacted via the twitter feed @CrimCtsChge.

At a time when government is considering further cuts across the public services and reviewing the means to raise revenue the criminal courts charge is thrown into sharp focus.　 Although the government has a poor track record of listening to the views of professionals at the coal face it is surely our duty to keep up the pressure on Michael Gove to abolish the criminal courts charge.

James Turner

Tuckers Solicitors LLP

Chair – Criminal Law Committee, Birmingham Law Society