A fine example?

The recent riots have put law and order in the political spotlight and this, in turn, has highlighted certain failings within the system, as Mev Brown explains.

That many rioters reacted with a sense of, well, injustice at being jailed on their first conviction is an indication of how criminals perceive our criminal justice system. Indeed, it is generally accepted that a considerable number of offences must be committed before there is any serious prospect of a jail sentence.

In Scotland, for example, 25 per cent of Class A drug dealers do not receive a custodial sentence. Something has clearly gone horribly wrong.

After a crime is committed, thousands of taxpayers pounds are spent by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Criminal Legal Aid to bring an offender to trial. And to what effect?

Perhaps it is this kind of question that has encouraged ministers to look hard at how benefits could be taken away and why they are considering a vast array of punitive options when they publish a report in response to the riots next month.

Well, I would suggest getting the basics right. For example, around two thirds of court disposals are court fines. Perhaps making offenders pay their fines would be an excellent start.

In 2009/10, the courts in England and Wales were owed £406 million and received £259 million approximately 64 per cent. But, it must be remembered that many fines issued in that year will not be collected until 2010/11. But, similarly, many fines issued in 08/09 were paid in 09/10.

A key weapon for the courts in the collection of fines is the Benefit Agency’s Third Party Deductions (TPDs) system.

TPDs can be requested by a magistrate’s court in England and Wales, or a Sheriff court in Scotland. Deductions are normally made from income support or Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Currently, there are criteria regarding an offender’s [benefit claimant] consent. In general, courts have to wait for a default in payment before applying for a TPD.

But, where an offender is already an existing defaulter, an automatic application for deductions can be made immediately by the court.

The information the Benefit Agency requires for a TPD is: name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number and the details of their benefits.

While the court can specify the deduction, the Benefits Agency does have its own guidelines in this regard which are published internally for the guidance of its staff.

There is also a mechanism to allow multiple TPDs which affect the actual deduction.

A spokesperson for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) said: The Government takes the issue of fine enforcement very seriously and HMCTS is working to ensure clamping down on fine dodgers is a priority.

The courts will do everything within their powers to trace those who do not pay.

Money can be taken from an offender’s earnings or from benefits if they are unemployed. Warrants can be issued instructing court-employed agents to seize and sell goods belonging to the offender. Ultimately, an offender can be imprisoned for non-payment.

Steps taken to improve fine enforcement across England and Wales include:

• Enforcement officers provided with more tracing tools to track down fine dodgers;
• Working with magistrates to get more fines paid on the day they are imposed;
• Full rollout of new payment methods, including payment cards and the ability to pay fines online;
• Increased telephone debt chasing; and
• Texting non-compliant offenders to warn them of consequences.

This is all very laudable, but there are other, more concrete measures that could be employed to ensure that all fines are collected and paid in full.

Some obvious improvements to the TPD system come readily to mind:

• It would be more productive if police officers collected and verified the information required for the TPD before passing this information to the court.
• If fines are not paid in full when issued by the court, then TPD requests should be made automatically rather than wait for an offender to default.
• Include Crown Courts in England and Wales, and the High Court in Scotland within the TPD system.

For those that work, surely the better collection mechanism would be to modify the offenders tax code to allow H.M. Revenue & Customs to collect the fine. In this way, should an offender change employer the fine will continue to be collected.

The HMCTS stated that prison is the last resort for fine dodgers. Why? Each year this easy option means huge [and multiple] fines are written off.

An FOI request in 2007 showed that 475 so called “B&B inmates” passed thought Scottish Prisons – many [if not most] of them fine dodgers. “B&B inmates”, are those admitted to prison on Thursday afternoon, and released on Friday morning.

This is a complete and utter waste of the Prison Services time and taxpayers’ money.

Regarding foreign nationals, shouldn’t they have their visas cancelled or have future visas refused?

And would it be unfair to have a travel ban for UK/EU nationals with outstanding fines? If they can afford to travel, shouldn’t their first priority be to pay their fine?

As for the BA deduction guidelines, perhaps these should be reviewed upwards. Criminal justice is a corner stone of a civilised society.

What we really need a robust system that uneducated offenders can’t outwit.