The Ministry of Justice is at it again; more interested in headlines
than the pursuit of a rational ethos in the application of all that pertains to
an indispensible branch of government.
Not content with hammering errant motorists (the majority of payers)
with a so called victims surcharge it has now levied such charges on those
receiving immediate custodial sentences at the magistrates` court. Such offenders are more than likely to have
had an alcohol and/or drug problem as the basis of their offending and to be
economically living from day to day at society`s lowest levels and as such be
least able to pay a financial forfeit in addition to a loss of liberty. The new rule will come in from 1
September, and will see those sentenced to 6 months or less ordered to pay £80
and £100 for those given between 6 and 12 months imprisonment by magistrates.
It is expected it will apply to 43,000 cases per year. The government proclaims
that “This change is the final reform
pledged by the coalition in its bid to make offenders pay more to help their
victims”. I don`t sit in the youth
court where existing financial penalties are often paid by parents who have
lost control of their offspring. Those
who have been assaulted by their little darlings have been in the paradoxical
position of having had to pay their little darlings` fines and surcharges. Now those who have been victims of their
children`s serious assaults warranting up to two years custody will have to pay
the additional surcharge. Kafkaesque is
perhaps too simplistic a description of this “innovation”.
There is I believe some obfuscation
where all this additional money goes. It
is somewhat similar to when the National Lottery was founded. At the time we were assured that the cash
raised would not be used for projects that required government funding but
would be used for additional projects in the community. Such was our collective gullibility at the
time that we actually believed that. There is no such charity as Victim Support
registered with the Charity Commission but various organisations have been set
up as per this site. Perhaps the
surcharge has been subject to audit by a non governmental organisation and perhaps
not. However with anything between half
a billion and a billion pounds or more in fines, costs, compensation and this
surcharge already uncollected getting this money
in would surely be a better use of any resources available at Petty France?
Well, so much for Grayling banging out about the indecency of offenders leaving prison with on £46 in their pocket!!! Looks like they'll not even have this, more like nothing and a £34 debt!!
ReplyDeleteThat's going to help them resettle.
It rather reminds one of the old joke - saving Your Worship's pardon - "What do you call a man who takes money off prostitutes: a magistrate!"
ReplyDeleteMost people who are about to be sent down - unless they are former News of the World hacks or bent politicians - aren't going to have the money to pay this latest imposition, so it is pretty damn sure that it is yet another grandstanding publicity stunt by Team Grayling. The comments above regarding the 'victims' (parents of juvenile offenders who have been on the receiving end of some ABH) also being stung for the surcharge reveal that the whole farce is becoming just too bizarre for words.
I suppose this is too obvious: Court sentences to prison, imposes the surcharge and then remits it as offender to be jailed. Guess Grayling must have spotted that.
ReplyDeleteThe sensible offender might well refuse to pay and accept an extra few days clink instead, through wilfull refusal.
I agree. This kind of stuff makes the system look stupid.
ReplyDelete