Written evidence from Mr Bernard Hunter JP

Critique of Criminal Court Charge

1. It is set at such a level so as to induce an innocent defendant who is poor to plead guilty.
2. It is said to be a principled charge “to make court users pay for the court service”, but fines already do that, and so does the victim surcharge (it is ring fenced, but still covers costs previously borne by the MoJ).
   There ought also to be a debate about whether that underlying principle is correct.
   The courts are also there to acquit the innocent, and courts are part of the infrastructure of civilized society. Society is PARTLY responsible for individuals’ failings and should expect to bear the consequences.
3. The charge is regressive: the poor pay as much as the wealthy.
   If ability to pay, and equal pain are to be taken into account for fines and costs, by what principle is that done?
   And why does that principle not extend to the new charge?
   Would this be grounds for a judicial review? If so, is there a reason for MA not to instigate that, or at least canvass its members on the subject?
4. What NET revenue is expected? (after the costs of collection and administration). Even if the charge can be defended in principle, surely the aggregation of individual pain and hardship it will cause has to be measured against that.
5. Have any estimates been made of the mental health damage to indebted individuals, or of the reoffending rate of those stuck in a cycle of debt?
6. On what principle are we not allowed to fine AND impose a custodial or community sentence? Why does the same principle not apply to the new charge?
   Would this too be grounds for a judicial review?
7. Why wait 3 years for a review, considering the potential profound damage to our system and to vulnerable individuals?
8. The charge is not in the interests of justice; if there is anyone working in the courts who approves of it, they are in a tiny minority. Would a survey not help? Is MA not independent enough to arrange that? Applying legislation should not mean that we cannot lobby against it.
9. Does it meet all human rights requirements? Is there potential for a review or appeal on Human Rights grounds?
10. The level of the charge completely undermines sentencing in many cases as it dwarfs sentences the court might impose. How can that be right?

I note that benches might be tempted to avoid the charge, either by omitting to make a collection order, or by imposing an absolute discharge (where that is less against the interests of justice than applying the charge).

16 November 2015