North Tyneside magistrate resigns over new court fee that 'forces innocent to plead guilty'

North Tyneside magistrate George Lyons said "justice is only going to be for those who can afford it" after Criminal Courts Charge introduced



A North East magistrate has resigned over new court fees that “force the innocent to plead guilty” and means “justice is only going to be for those who can afford it.”

Since April criminal defendants have had to pay an “outrageous” new levy of up to £1,200 for standing trial - with fees potentially quadrupling if someone pleads not guilty and are then convicted.

Now George Lyons, a member of the bench in North Tyneside for 15 years, has turned his back on the role, and written to the Magistrates Association’s Magistrate magazine claiming the fees put pressure on people to admit crimes they did not commit in order to avoid a bigger bill.

“This is a terrible piece of legislation introduced through the back door,” wrote Mr Lyons, who fears the rules - which courts have no discretion over - could “criminalise many people because that is the option” for them.

“Justice is only going to be for those who can afford it.”

He is among 20 magistrates across the country to have told the Magistrates’ Association they were resigning amid fears that the system is now both convicting the innocent, and seeing many “uncollectable” fines issued - as many defendants are serial offenders on low incomes who will be unable to pay.

“I can fully understand magistrates resigning over this,” said Magistrates’ Association chairman Richard Monkhouse. “When courts impose fines, they take account of an offender’s ability to pay.

“Yet this charge offers neither judicial discretion nor means-testing at the point it is imposed and seeks to undo any attempts to be fair and proportionate.”

He added: “There are already reports of people under pressure to plead guilty, particularly as they increasingly find themselves acting for themselves.”

The Association has told justice secretary Michael Gove of their concerns and want the charge - which comes on top of any fines, compensation for victims, the “victim surcharge, which funds victims’ services, or prosecution costs - to be reviewed after it has been in force for six months.

The fee starts at £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence, rising to £180 for a guilty plea for a more serious, either way offence, where defendants have a choice whether to have their case heard at magistrates’ or crown court.

The surcharge increases to £520 for a conviction after a not guilty plea and trial for a summary offence and £1,000 for a conviction after a not guilty plea for an either way offence.

In the crown court, the charges are £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for conviction after a not guilty plea.

The charges have also been condemned by the Law Society, which represents 150,000 solicitors in England and Wales.

“We think that this charge is counterproductive and against the interest of natural justice,” said the organisation’s president Jonathan Smithers.

“It is a huge incentive for people to plead guilty when they may not be because these are significant amounts of money.”

The Government said it had introduced the charges because it “considers that convicted adult offenders who use our criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them” - reducing the “burden” on the taxpayers.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-tyneside-magistrate-resigns-over-9752472#ICID=sharebar_twitter

And don't say you would never find yourself in court, think of the number of times innocent people are charged.

How absurd.
If they are guilty then they have to pay a heavier fine which I am all for if they wrongly plead not guilty. If the person is not guilty, then they are not going to have to pay anything. How is it going to force people when they know they are innocent? That is just plain absurd to think they will instead plead guilty to a crime they did not commit.
So this will be more about if a person is wrongly convicted, which is not a reason to deny imposing heavier fines on those who are guilty. What a load of fuss to allow those rightly found guilty to end up paying less for their crimes.

The prisons are full of 'innocent' people aren't they!?


From the article...


"...many defendants are serial offenders..."

Only in the UK. This wouldn't happen if you had a written Constitution, with a due process of law provision.

I'm curious: why is the default option 'guilty'? Why not 'innocent' unless the state contributes £1,200? It could be both, depending on the mood of the Magistate that morning. That way you preserve the adversarial system.