"x x x.
Defendants in criminal trials may feel pressured to plead guilty to avoid controversial new court charges, a panel of the country’s most senior judges have said.
In a major blow to the Government, the powerful Judicial Executive Board has submitted evidence to MPs, adding its voice to the mounting criticism of the charges, which are mandatorily exacted from anyone found guilty of a crime, on top of other fines and court costs, and without consideration of ability to pay.
The fees, introduced earlier this year, can rise sharply if someone pleads not guilty but is convicted. In their evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee, the Board, which is led by the Lord Chief Justice, said there was a “danger” the charges could “influence a guilty plea where defendants are concerned about the high cost”. Parts of the Government’s reforms were “unprincipled” and “illogical”, they added.
Compulsory fees are fixed at £150 if someone pleads guilty to a criminal offence, but can rise to £1,200 if they deny wrongdoing but are found guilty.
Judges also criticised the Government’s rationale for the fees. Ministers have said that currently taxpayers are “subsidising” the courts and that criminals should be made to cover more of the cost.
However, in the evidence, submitted last month, the Board stated: “The notion that taxpayers are ‘subsidising’ the criminal justice system, however, appears to the judiciary to undermine the fundamental principle that the protection of victims and the prosecution and punishment of offenders is an integral part of a civilised society from which all members benefit.”
The Board says government policy shows “a rather unprincipled mix of discretion and compulsion”, with courts having no option but to impose the new criminal court charges. The Government is also criticised for failing to carry out a consultation when deciding the level at which to set the charges. There are also concerns the fees undermine courts’ authority to adjust punishments according to an offender’s circumstances.
“Courts are required to take account of a defendant’s means. The aim is for a fine to be a hardship but not force the offender below a reasonable subsistence level,” the Board’s evidence to MPs says. “There is a danger the charge undermines the principle of sentencing that punishment is determined and then adjusted to reflect the individual circumstances.”
Charges of £200 for appeals that judges consider to be arguable, but later fail, were also branded “illogical” and counter to the Government’s aim of preventing “hopeless” appeals.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “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 Government notes the concerns which have been expressed and is keeping the operation of the charge under review.”
x x x."
