Court fees in the UK producing '18th century justice'
August 24, 2015 5:29 AM Subscribe
The Independent has been running a series of stories about the effect of new mandatory court fees on the criminal justice system in the UK. Louisa Sewell, who shoplifted a 75p pack of Mars Bars, was fined £330, of which £150 reflected court fees. Janis Butans, who stole 3 bottles of baby milk, was fined £295. Stuart Barnes, a homeless man who shoplifted cosmetics, was fined £900. The judge commented: 'He cannot afford to feed himself, so what are the prospects of him paying £900?'
The new fees have been unpopular with the legal profession and the judiciary, and the Howard League for Penal Reform has launched a campaign against them. Magistrates are complaining that they have no discretion to waive or reduce the fee based on the defendant's circumstances or the nature of the crime and a number of them have resigned. The Magistrates' Association and the Howard League have raised concerns that the fees incentivise defendants to plead guilty, since the fees can rise from £150 to over £1000 if the defendant pleads not guilty. The latest story is that, according to the Howard League, the fees may discourage magistrates from ordering the payment of compensation to crime victims because they have a discretion there but not when it comes to imposing the court fee. Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, has expressed his concerns about access to justice for the poorest in the country and suggested that one solution is for the legal profession to take on more pro bono work.
The new fees have been unpopular with the legal profession and the judiciary, and the Howard League for Penal Reform has launched a campaign against them. Magistrates are complaining that they have no discretion to waive or reduce the fee based on the defendant's circumstances or the nature of the crime and a number of them have resigned. The Magistrates' Association and the Howard League have raised concerns that the fees incentivise defendants to plead guilty, since the fees can rise from £150 to over £1000 if the defendant pleads not guilty. The latest story is that, according to the Howard League, the fees may discourage magistrates from ordering the payment of compensation to crime victims because they have a discretion there but not when it comes to imposing the court fee. Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, has expressed his concerns about access to justice for the poorest in the country and suggested that one solution is for the legal profession to take on more pro bono work.
since the fees can rise from £150 to over £1000 if the defendant pleads not guilty
This is shocking. I keep trying to write something more thoughtful, but all I can do is stare at the screen in disbelief.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:01 AM on August 24, 2015 [27 favorites]
This is shocking. I keep trying to write something more thoughtful, but all I can do is stare at the screen in disbelief.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 6:01 AM on August 24, 2015 [27 favorites]
That's right folks, it's time for another exciting round of "Tory policy or dystopian fiction?". The quotes below are either actual government policy or from the dystopian fever dream Brazil; guess all three correctly and win a free twenty minutes of sobbing quietly under a table without being publicly decried as a timewaster and general parasite on society!
A:
A:
“It is right that convicted adult offenders who use our criminal courts should pay towards the cost of running them. 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.”B:
"I understand this concern on behalf of the tax payers. People want value for money. That's why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval charges. It's absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and for the Information Retrieval Procedures used in their interrogation."C:
"Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."posted by metaBugs at 6:01 AM on August 24, 2015 [45 favorites]
Do they charge them for room and board if they put them in jail?
posted by bukvich at 6:03 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bukvich at 6:03 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
This isn't just a UK thing either. I had to pay a $115 court fee on a $75 speeding ticket that I received while traveling through Virginia (while native Virginians were allowed to pass me like I was standing still). And because I did not pay the fee prior to my court date (because the citing officer explicitly told me that I couldn't), I had to pay an additional penalty. And it doesn't end there. Because I chose to mail them a check rather than pay it online for an additional 4% surcharge, I later received a notice stating that because I hadn't paid the fee in less time than it takes for the court to mail out a bill and for my check to reach the court in return mail, my driving privileges have been revoked in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Of course they'll be happy to reinstate those privileges provided that I pay them an additional $150. (Which has to be paid in person giving them yet another "opportunity".)
I haven't driven in Virginia in 8 years and don't plan to ever do so again. But at least our family didn't burn your state to the ground this time on the way out. 1 for 2 isn't bad.*
*Our family didn't get here until the 1880s and I've been to Virginia more than twice, I just really like using that line.
posted by dances with hamsters at 6:04 AM on August 24, 2015 [23 favorites]
I haven't driven in Virginia in 8 years and don't plan to ever do so again. But at least our family didn't burn your state to the ground this time on the way out. 1 for 2 isn't bad.*
*Our family didn't get here until the 1880s and I've been to Virginia more than twice, I just really like using that line.
posted by dances with hamsters at 6:04 AM on August 24, 2015 [23 favorites]
Working as planned.
posted by wuwei at 6:21 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by wuwei at 6:21 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Every time there's a new "the UK is going to hell" post, I feel very shocked, and then I realize that (except for the ASBOs and the universal cameras) it's already something we do in the US. I think the reason it shocks me is how fast this has come on - it seems like the rollback started with Thatcher, yes, but it really only seems to have picked up momentum in the 2000s with the changes in the university system. Now that I think about it, I bet whatever that law was that targeted raves and traveling kids was a harbinger - that was late nineties. And the first ASBO act, I see, was 1998.
In the US, we've always-already been pretty terrible - except for few brief shining moments in the thirties, the late sixties and the early seventies - so it comes as no surprise.
It's just actively scary how fast you can basically demolish what seemed like a stable, functioning social-democracy-lite, and how it doesn't seem like any kind of opposition ever does any good. You can't convince me that most people in the UK want to get rid of the NHS, for instance, and I don't think the university changes have been especially popular.
posted by Frowner at 6:22 AM on August 24, 2015 [29 favorites]
In the US, we've always-already been pretty terrible - except for few brief shining moments in the thirties, the late sixties and the early seventies - so it comes as no surprise.
It's just actively scary how fast you can basically demolish what seemed like a stable, functioning social-democracy-lite, and how it doesn't seem like any kind of opposition ever does any good. You can't convince me that most people in the UK want to get rid of the NHS, for instance, and I don't think the university changes have been especially popular.
posted by Frowner at 6:22 AM on August 24, 2015 [29 favorites]
How long before countries start changing their official mottos to "Fuck You, Pay Me"?
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:31 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:31 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Who do I vote for if I want a National Justice Service? So far as I know the most radical outer edge of the spectrum of Labour opinion is to consider possibly reversing some recent cuts in legal aid if resources allow, or something equally wet.
posted by Segundus at 7:01 AM on August 24, 2015
posted by Segundus at 7:01 AM on August 24, 2015
Magistrates are complaining that they have no discretion to waive or reduce the fee based on the defendant's circumstances or the nature of the crime
This is nonsense. One size fits all is completely indefensible in criminal justice. A career criminal with assets robs a bank and pays the same fees as a homeless shoplifter? Where is the equity in this?
I don't have a problem with the idea that criminals should pay part of the costs of their own prosecution - but it should be up to the judge to take into account the facts of the case, the defendant's circumstances, and the nature of the crime when assessing the fee.
Or do like the do in Finland and make the fees a flat percentage of income so criminals suffer the same pain regardless of station.
And the first ASBO act, I see, was 1998.
When there was a Labour government and Tony Blair was PM and the UK was a Labour utopia of fairness, prosperity, and equal justice for all.
It's 2015 BTW. It's been a long time and several different UK governments since Thatcher was PM. You might as well blame Heath or Churchill or Disraeli. Blaming the woman for everything is getting a little stale, tastes of bitter misogyny, and gives the execrable Tony Blair a complete pass.
posted by three blind mice at 7:03 AM on August 24, 2015 [7 favorites]
This is nonsense. One size fits all is completely indefensible in criminal justice. A career criminal with assets robs a bank and pays the same fees as a homeless shoplifter? Where is the equity in this?
I don't have a problem with the idea that criminals should pay part of the costs of their own prosecution - but it should be up to the judge to take into account the facts of the case, the defendant's circumstances, and the nature of the crime when assessing the fee.
Or do like the do in Finland and make the fees a flat percentage of income so criminals suffer the same pain regardless of station.
And the first ASBO act, I see, was 1998.
When there was a Labour government and Tony Blair was PM and the UK was a Labour utopia of fairness, prosperity, and equal justice for all.
It's 2015 BTW. It's been a long time and several different UK governments since Thatcher was PM. You might as well blame Heath or Churchill or Disraeli. Blaming the woman for everything is getting a little stale, tastes of bitter misogyny, and gives the execrable Tony Blair a complete pass.
posted by three blind mice at 7:03 AM on August 24, 2015 [7 favorites]
I don't have a problem with the idea that criminals should pay part of the costs of their own prosecution
I do have a problem with this because it turns courts into debtors prisons. Also, here in the States at least, the push for higher and higher fees is made by saying that criminals should pay more and more of the cost and if you don't want to pay then don't be a criminal but it downplays the fact that the law-abiding citizens have an interest in keeping criminals off the streets too.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:07 AM on August 24, 2015 [10 favorites]
I do have a problem with this because it turns courts into debtors prisons. Also, here in the States at least, the push for higher and higher fees is made by saying that criminals should pay more and more of the cost and if you don't want to pay then don't be a criminal but it downplays the fact that the law-abiding citizens have an interest in keeping criminals off the streets too.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:07 AM on August 24, 2015 [10 favorites]
Blaming the woman for everything is getting a little stale, tastes of bitter misogyny, and gives the execrable Tony Blair a complete pass.
Just in case this was in response to my comment - I think there may be a few crossed wires, as what I was trying to say was that while the rollback/NHS privatization/etc seemed to me to have begun with Thatcher (which is a pretty standard and obvious narrative), to my eye it doesn't really pick up until much later, eg the late nineties/early 2000s, and then blam. I will be entirely happy to blame Tony Blair as much as you like. I was just trying to work out some periodization stuff to my own satisfaction..
posted by Frowner at 7:13 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just in case this was in response to my comment - I think there may be a few crossed wires, as what I was trying to say was that while the rollback/NHS privatization/etc seemed to me to have begun with Thatcher (which is a pretty standard and obvious narrative), to my eye it doesn't really pick up until much later, eg the late nineties/early 2000s, and then blam. I will be entirely happy to blame Tony Blair as much as you like. I was just trying to work out some periodization stuff to my own satisfaction..
posted by Frowner at 7:13 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
The simple solution is debtors prison. Also, charge them for their "accomodations", and don't release them until they've paid in full. A homeless man that steals a loaf of bread to feed his family could end up solving the deficit single-handedly!
Also, shouldn't the corporation that he stole from be entitled to a portion of those fees, since they suffered physical and emotional anguish?
posted by blue_beetle at 7:14 AM on August 24, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also, shouldn't the corporation that he stole from be entitled to a portion of those fees, since they suffered physical and emotional anguish?
posted by blue_beetle at 7:14 AM on August 24, 2015 [5 favorites]
Mandatory Fees = Mandatory Minimums for misdemeanor, etc.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:16 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 7:16 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
In the words of the last man to completely clear the court dockets in England by providing swift trials, “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.”
CATCH UP TO THE STATE OF THE ART OF BRITISH LEGAL THEORY OF 1516, YOU TORY FUCKHEADS.
dances with hamsters: " less time than it takes for the court to mail out a bill and for my check to reach the court in return mail, my driving privileges have been revoked in the Commonwealth of Virginia."
Virginia is BULLSHIT about this -- it's one of the states where the court handles attorney registration. My husband is a Virginia-admitted attorney living in Illinois. We got his registration paperwork, filled it in and literally mailed it back the next day, and got sent a fine a week later for filing it "late." He argued his way WELL up through the system that it was unreasonable to do registration by mail for out-of-state attorneys but penalize them for the speed of the US Mail. (Or, more to the point, to have a five fucking day window between when you mail out the registrations and when they're due back.) Finally a Virginia Supreme Court justice's clerk agreed to waive his fee that year. Now we do the registration online because the 4% fee is cheaper than the penalty for "late payment" for using the mail from out-of-state.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:19 AM on August 24, 2015 [20 favorites]
CATCH UP TO THE STATE OF THE ART OF BRITISH LEGAL THEORY OF 1516, YOU TORY FUCKHEADS.
dances with hamsters: " less time than it takes for the court to mail out a bill and for my check to reach the court in return mail, my driving privileges have been revoked in the Commonwealth of Virginia."
Virginia is BULLSHIT about this -- it's one of the states where the court handles attorney registration. My husband is a Virginia-admitted attorney living in Illinois. We got his registration paperwork, filled it in and literally mailed it back the next day, and got sent a fine a week later for filing it "late." He argued his way WELL up through the system that it was unreasonable to do registration by mail for out-of-state attorneys but penalize them for the speed of the US Mail. (Or, more to the point, to have a five fucking day window between when you mail out the registrations and when they're due back.) Finally a Virginia Supreme Court justice's clerk agreed to waive his fee that year. Now we do the registration online because the 4% fee is cheaper than the penalty for "late payment" for using the mail from out-of-state.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:19 AM on August 24, 2015 [20 favorites]
...one solution is for the legal profession to take on more pro bono work.
1. This is an admission that the justice system is broken. Any system which requires heroic effort in order to function normally is not a system that can endure. Not only that: it is also an admission that, in the belief of the speaker, the justice system would be fine if only more people would work for free. Pro bono work is great, and lawyers who do that work should be praised, but that is not the same thing as an actual solution to the many, many hard problems which attend to the administration of justice.
2. It is difficult to see how even an outpouring of additional pro bono work by truly skilled, inspired lawyers at the top of their game would do much to address the problem of mandatory court fees. Yes, with more ready representation perhaps defendants would be less likely to take pleas, but if the problem is that there are court fees and that those fees are mandatory, I don't see the causal connection.
This feels like a convenient nostrum that puts the rest of society off the hook. "If only [people not me] would [spontaneously do something they're not now doing], we wouldn't have this problem."
If only an army of unicorns would bring me a snowshovel, I would happily shovel the driveway, but since that will never happen, it's like my hands are tied.
posted by gauche at 7:23 AM on August 24, 2015 [24 favorites]
1. This is an admission that the justice system is broken. Any system which requires heroic effort in order to function normally is not a system that can endure. Not only that: it is also an admission that, in the belief of the speaker, the justice system would be fine if only more people would work for free. Pro bono work is great, and lawyers who do that work should be praised, but that is not the same thing as an actual solution to the many, many hard problems which attend to the administration of justice.
2. It is difficult to see how even an outpouring of additional pro bono work by truly skilled, inspired lawyers at the top of their game would do much to address the problem of mandatory court fees. Yes, with more ready representation perhaps defendants would be less likely to take pleas, but if the problem is that there are court fees and that those fees are mandatory, I don't see the causal connection.
This feels like a convenient nostrum that puts the rest of society off the hook. "If only [people not me] would [spontaneously do something they're not now doing], we wouldn't have this problem."
If only an army of unicorns would bring me a snowshovel, I would happily shovel the driveway, but since that will never happen, it's like my hands are tied.
posted by gauche at 7:23 AM on August 24, 2015 [24 favorites]
since the fees can rise from £150 to over £1000 if the defendant pleads not guilty
Sure, it's evil, but you have to give it points for being clever. Clears out the docket.
Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, has expressed his concerns about access to justice for the poorest in the country and suggested that one solution is for the legal profession to take on more pro bono work.
Easy for him to say. Has he done significant amounts of pro bono work?
posted by jeather at 7:26 AM on August 24, 2015
Sure, it's evil, but you have to give it points for being clever. Clears out the docket.
Meanwhile, the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, has expressed his concerns about access to justice for the poorest in the country and suggested that one solution is for the legal profession to take on more pro bono work.
Easy for him to say. Has he done significant amounts of pro bono work?
posted by jeather at 7:26 AM on August 24, 2015
dances with hamsters joined MeFi May 22, 2014.
dances_with_sneetches, January 17, 2005.
I am owed 2/3 of the sign-up fee plus $150 processing fees, plus a star-bellied tax.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:27 AM on August 24, 2015 [7 favorites]
dances_with_sneetches, January 17, 2005.
I am owed 2/3 of the sign-up fee plus $150 processing fees, plus a star-bellied tax.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:27 AM on August 24, 2015 [7 favorites]
The enraging thing about this is not just that it inflicts punishing poverty on people who can't afford it, it is that it is, much of the time, inflicting it on them precisely because they can't afford it. The crimes that start this kind of bullshit are usually crimes of poverty in the first place. Then you make the poverty worse in two ways -- by fining and feeing them money they can't afford to pay (and then adding on more fines they can't afford to pay when they fail to pay the first fines) and by giving them a criminal record that limits their ability to find jobs or access social services. And in a shocking turn of events, these people may then commit other crimes of poverty.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:27 AM on August 24, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 7:27 AM on August 24, 2015 [20 favorites]
Enraging. It makes it hard for me to not punch the nearest conservative. Luckily I live in enlightened (don't dig too deep on that, after all, Cory Booker) Colorado, where I can smoke a giant Chech& Chong blunt to chill out.
Sigh
Too bad for me I don't smoke.
posted by evilDoug at 7:36 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sigh
Too bad for me I don't smoke.
posted by evilDoug at 7:36 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Identical to the widespread, toxic use of court fines / fees in the US (recently well-documented in Ferguson), and with a similar motive - sweeping up the table scraps of the 20th c. being one of the last truly domestic growth industries here. The rich are shutting down the factory and extracting the assets that they can - in this case, the trace wealth left in the working and middle classes.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:39 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 7:39 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
I, for one, am perfectly fine with blaming Margaret Thatcher for the ills of society for the foreseeable future, up to and including the eternity that she will spend roasting in Hell with Ronald Reagan.
posted by sexyrobot at 7:43 AM on August 24, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by sexyrobot at 7:43 AM on August 24, 2015 [17 favorites]
If I remember rightly, Labour did promise to scrap the employment tribunal fees introduced by this government in their 2015 manifesto but I couldn't find any comment from a senior Labour figure on the mandatory criminal fees. They have only recently been rolled out, however, and there was no debate in Parliament about them - the government brought them in by statutory instrument and therefore didn't have to get them through the Houses of Parliament - so perhaps someone will comment soon now that the implementation is starting to bite.
In terms of heroic lawyers as a solution to this problem, perhaps Gove was thinking of this sort of thing. The solicitor in that case not only did 100 hours of free work but she also personally indemnified her client against his costs. But in any case, the government seems to think the justice system is there to deliver punishment to criminals and "legal services" (fully paid for) to consumers in civil matters. The idea that 'criminals' are also owed justice, in terms of process and proportionality of punishment, seems a difficult idea for them. I do think some part of the disastrousness arises out of putting Tories who are not even lawyers in charge of the justice system. I suspect a lot of the magistrates and barristers who are horrified by this change are essentially Torys or Tory sympathisers but they still understand how crazy it is.
posted by Aravis76 at 7:44 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
In terms of heroic lawyers as a solution to this problem, perhaps Gove was thinking of this sort of thing. The solicitor in that case not only did 100 hours of free work but she also personally indemnified her client against his costs. But in any case, the government seems to think the justice system is there to deliver punishment to criminals and "legal services" (fully paid for) to consumers in civil matters. The idea that 'criminals' are also owed justice, in terms of process and proportionality of punishment, seems a difficult idea for them. I do think some part of the disastrousness arises out of putting Tories who are not even lawyers in charge of the justice system. I suspect a lot of the magistrates and barristers who are horrified by this change are essentially Torys or Tory sympathisers but they still understand how crazy it is.
posted by Aravis76 at 7:44 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Fining someone £300 for stealing three bottles of baby formula is moving into Jean Valjean territory.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:55 AM on August 24, 2015 [41 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 7:55 AM on August 24, 2015 [41 favorites]
Serco wins contract to open workhouses. Sorry, not workhouses, “Community Debt Settlement Centres”.
posted by acb at 7:59 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by acb at 7:59 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: CATCH UP TO THE STATE OF THE ART OF BRITISH LEGAL THEORY OF 1516, YOU TORY FUCKHEADS.
Those whoforget ignore history are doomed to repeat it can make up shit as they go and pretend it's brand new. Failing that, they can wave their hands and say "eh, times have changed" and hope no one thinks about that too hard.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:02 AM on August 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
Those who
posted by filthy light thief at 8:02 AM on August 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
I do think some part of the disastrousness arises out of putting Tories who are not even lawyers in charge of the justice system.
I don't think these fees are a good idea but this isn't really related.
We don't, as a rule, put subject matter experts in charge in our representative political system. Their senior staff are subject matter experts, but ministers are not.
In any case, the widely unpopular Lansley reforms were about putting doctors in charge of NHS trusts which won't make a difference for the same reason that appointing a lawyer as secretary of state for justice wouldn't make a difference here.
posted by atrazine at 8:17 AM on August 24, 2015
I don't think these fees are a good idea but this isn't really related.
We don't, as a rule, put subject matter experts in charge in our representative political system. Their senior staff are subject matter experts, but ministers are not.
In any case, the widely unpopular Lansley reforms were about putting doctors in charge of NHS trusts which won't make a difference for the same reason that appointing a lawyer as secretary of state for justice wouldn't make a difference here.
posted by atrazine at 8:17 AM on August 24, 2015
Fining someone £300 for stealing three bottles of baby formula is moving into Jean Valjean territory.
If people's reasons for stealing the baby formula in the UK are the same as in the US, then no, it isn't.
posted by Melismata at 8:19 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
If people's reasons for stealing the baby formula in the UK are the same as in the US, then no, it isn't.
posted by Melismata at 8:19 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
since the fees can rise from £150 to over £1000 if the defendant pleads not guilty
Sure, it's evil, but you have to give it points for being clever. Clears out the docket.
And quickly gives G4S' private prisons-stroke-sweatshops more funding-stroke-slaves.
And that, children, is why you should never, ever, ever vote Conservative, anywhere, ever.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:31 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sure, it's evil, but you have to give it points for being clever. Clears out the docket.
And quickly gives G4S' private prisons-stroke-sweatshops more funding-stroke-slaves.
And that, children, is why you should never, ever, ever vote Conservative, anywhere, ever.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:31 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
As a matter of history, though, the justice system has been different: Gove and Grayling are the first non-lawyers ever to take on what is effectively the role of the Lord Chancellor in about 400 years. And it does seem to matter. The principled basis for the NHS is not a medical principle but a political one (socialised medicine). The principled basis for legal aid and proportional sentencing are, however, legal principles; you need to know what the baseline concepts are before you should be given a free hand with the administration of justice.
posted by Aravis76 at 8:39 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 8:39 AM on August 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
>Too bad for me I don't smoke.<
Brownies. Yummy, yummy brownies.
posted by twidget at 8:45 AM on August 24, 2015
Brownies. Yummy, yummy brownies.
posted by twidget at 8:45 AM on August 24, 2015
Here's an article on the traditional reason why Lord Chancellors have usually been lawyers, and setting out some of the risks of appointing a non-lawyer to the role. A lot of what passes for the rule of law in this country, with its unwritten constitution, depends on the politician in that particular role essentially knowing her limits and navigating the legal system with a bit of informed awareness of how it works. The experiment of handing administration of justice over to a career politician with no legal training at all hasn't exactly been a rousing success so far, what with all the human rights stuff, the attempts to kill off judicial review, and the generally cavalier attitude to access to justice.
posted by Aravis76 at 8:50 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aravis76 at 8:50 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
In Quebec the surchages and fees double the prince of the ticket (ticket for jay walking 65 dollars, fees 40, victim surchange 30) and then increase substantially if you cannot pay them. I owe more than a thousand dollars in fines in Quebec and the fees are 60-70 per cent htat.
posted by PinkMoose at 8:56 AM on August 24, 2015
posted by PinkMoose at 8:56 AM on August 24, 2015
So many great comments here, wish I could favorite justsomeebodythatyouusedtoknow's a million billion times.
posted by riverlife at 8:57 AM on August 24, 2015
posted by riverlife at 8:57 AM on August 24, 2015
It seems like some people are really eager to forget that economic justice is necessary if we want to have a just society.
We're moving more and more toward a society where economic justice is something that people don't consider at all, and it's disturbing.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:10 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
We're moving more and more toward a society where economic justice is something that people don't consider at all, and it's disturbing.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:10 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Politicians need to do more pro bono work.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:14 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 9:14 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
do like the do in Finland and make the fees a flat percentage of income so criminals suffer the same pain regardless of station.
For all fees & fines.
I will single-issue-vote for anyone with this platform.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:41 AM on August 24, 2015
For all fees & fines.
I will single-issue-vote for anyone with this platform.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:41 AM on August 24, 2015
This impact is completely intentional. It comes out of two thoughts:
1. If only people would take greater responsibility taxes could be lower and we would have a more entrepreneurial society.
2. If the route to achieving this involves repeatedly beating people until they choose not to be beaten so be it: the end justifies the means.
And of course, if in the process money could be made, e.g. via making prison payphones charge prisoners at a higher rate, great: this ticks both boxes - beating and making money.
The fact this is all introduced by very privileged men who are so little at risk of falling into the hands of these processes speaks volumes about their limited compassion and intelligence (despite Gove and Grayling attending high performing schools and universities).
To me personally the creators of this are emotionally sick individuals.
posted by rolandroland at 9:44 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
1. If only people would take greater responsibility taxes could be lower and we would have a more entrepreneurial society.
2. If the route to achieving this involves repeatedly beating people until they choose not to be beaten so be it: the end justifies the means.
And of course, if in the process money could be made, e.g. via making prison payphones charge prisoners at a higher rate, great: this ticks both boxes - beating and making money.
The fact this is all introduced by very privileged men who are so little at risk of falling into the hands of these processes speaks volumes about their limited compassion and intelligence (despite Gove and Grayling attending high performing schools and universities).
To me personally the creators of this are emotionally sick individuals.
posted by rolandroland at 9:44 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
gauche: This feels like a convenient nostrum that puts the rest of society off the hook. "If only [people not me] would [spontaneously do something they're not now doing], we wouldn't have this problem."
It sounds like typical Big Society nonsense. Desperately flailing around for new words to try to convince us neoliberalism won't suck for the masses this time.
posted by traveler_ at 9:49 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
It sounds like typical Big Society nonsense. Desperately flailing around for new words to try to convince us neoliberalism won't suck for the masses this time.
posted by traveler_ at 9:49 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
concerns that the fees incentivise defendants to plead guilty
Your new norm is established norm for the United States, of course. This thread from the 7th is eye-opening; of particular succinct value are comments from showbiz_liz and from thelonius.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:51 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Your new norm is established norm for the United States, of course. This thread from the 7th is eye-opening; of particular succinct value are comments from showbiz_liz and from thelonius.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:51 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
A homeless man that steals a loaf of bread to feed his family could end up solving the deficit single-handedly!
And in Saudi Arabia, of course, that would be the only way that he would solve anything from that point onwards. Expect an British version just as soon as the BBC can sell it.
posted by rongorongo at 10:04 AM on August 24, 2015
And in Saudi Arabia, of course, that would be the only way that he would solve anything from that point onwards. Expect an British version just as soon as the BBC can sell it.
posted by rongorongo at 10:04 AM on August 24, 2015
As a matter of history, though, the justice system has been different: Gove and Grayling are the first non-lawyers ever to take on what is effectively the role of the Lord Chancellor in about 400 years. And it does seem to matter. The principled basis for the NHS is not a medical principle but a political one (socialised medicine). The principled basis for legal aid and proportional sentencing are, however, legal principles; you need to know what the baseline concepts are before you should be given a free hand with the administration of justice.
Many of the other roles of the old Lord Chancellor were split into Judicial Appointments Commission, the "new" role of Lord Chancellor, and (what is now) the S.o.S. for Justice.
I also disagree that the bases for legal aid and proportional sentencing are particularly technical. Many cases can have such serious outcomes that justice cannot be said to be done if not all parties can afford adequate representation, that's the basis for legal aid in a nutshell. We all get it, Grayling got it. Even if he didn't have a whole staff to advise him he would certainly have understood the principle.
The legal aid cuts went through anyway because of a desire to cut spending before all else, no-one misunderstood what the consequences would be.
posted by atrazine at 10:06 AM on August 24, 2015
Many of the other roles of the old Lord Chancellor were split into Judicial Appointments Commission, the "new" role of Lord Chancellor, and (what is now) the S.o.S. for Justice.
I also disagree that the bases for legal aid and proportional sentencing are particularly technical. Many cases can have such serious outcomes that justice cannot be said to be done if not all parties can afford adequate representation, that's the basis for legal aid in a nutshell. We all get it, Grayling got it. Even if he didn't have a whole staff to advise him he would certainly have understood the principle.
The legal aid cuts went through anyway because of a desire to cut spending before all else, no-one misunderstood what the consequences would be.
posted by atrazine at 10:06 AM on August 24, 2015
Easy for him to say. Has he done significant amounts of pro bono work?
Please don't suggest this. Our best hope is that when Gove finally runs out of government departments, he retires luxuriantly and never does anything but play golf ever again.
posted by Acheman at 10:13 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Please don't suggest this. Our best hope is that when Gove finally runs out of government departments, he retires luxuriantly and never does anything but play golf ever again.
posted by Acheman at 10:13 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
The legal aid cuts went through anyway because of a desire to cut spending before all else, no-one misunderstood what the consequences would be.
Some friends and family worked for the civil service when the coalition came in, and I can confirm that this was the way that decisions were made. The only misunderstanding was that the market would rectify all problems.
(I mean, I was literally told they wanted to undo all the Labour-written laws. Just control-z their way back fifteen years, back to the 'good old days' of the Big Bang. These are not deep thinkers.)
posted by The River Ivel at 10:21 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Some friends and family worked for the civil service when the coalition came in, and I can confirm that this was the way that decisions were made. The only misunderstanding was that the market would rectify all problems.
(I mean, I was literally told they wanted to undo all the Labour-written laws. Just control-z their way back fifteen years, back to the 'good old days' of the Big Bang. These are not deep thinkers.)
posted by The River Ivel at 10:21 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's not that the principles are too technical for non-lawyers but that a sense of their importance is part of legal culture and that Grayling, in particular, didn't fully seem to understand what he was dismantling. There were terrible legal aid cuts under Ken Clarke too but he limited them in response to the complaints of the profession and I can't believe he, or Dominic Grieve, would have introduced mandatory court fees even though they are both Tories. Perhaps my complaint is just that Grayling and, so far, Gove have shown little understanding of the system they're decimating and previous holders of the same post have been somewhat more careful even when I disagree with their policy priorities. I'm treating the thing they have in common as being non-lawyers but maybe they just happen to be more right-wing than their predecessors.
posted by Aravis76 at 10:49 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aravis76 at 10:49 AM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't have a problem with the idea that criminals should pay part of the costs of their own prosecution
I do. All citizens have a vested stake in a fair and transparent justice system. Like healthcare, we all pay for it whether we need it at the moment or not. Criminal justice is not a business enterprise with P&L entries in the ledger.
(ticket for jay walking 65 dollars, fees 40, victim surchange 30)
victim surcharge? for fucking jaywalking? did the idiot clutching their pearls on the sidewalk break one or something?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:51 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
I do. All citizens have a vested stake in a fair and transparent justice system. Like healthcare, we all pay for it whether we need it at the moment or not. Criminal justice is not a business enterprise with P&L entries in the ledger.
(ticket for jay walking 65 dollars, fees 40, victim surchange 30)
victim surcharge? for fucking jaywalking? did the idiot clutching their pearls on the sidewalk break one or something?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:51 AM on August 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Don't underestimate the contempt some branches of the UK government have for its citizens, especially the powerless or needy. Scoring political points, stroking ideological hard-ons and internal pissing contests are far, far more important.
I wish I were just being polemical here. I'm not.
posted by Devonian at 11:58 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
I wish I were just being polemical here. I'm not.
posted by Devonian at 11:58 AM on August 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
my driving privileges have been revoked in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Of course they'll be happy to reinstate those privileges provided that I pay them an additional $150. (Which has to be paid in person giving them yet another "opportunity".)
I haven't driven in Virginia in 8 years and don't plan to ever do so again
So uh, don't look now or anything, but the Driver License Compact and National Driver Register mean that most states share suspension and license point information. If you're suspended in VA, you've also suspended in your home state unless you live in Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, New York, or Pennsylvania, which are not members.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:01 PM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
I haven't driven in Virginia in 8 years and don't plan to ever do so again
So uh, don't look now or anything, but the Driver License Compact and National Driver Register mean that most states share suspension and license point information. If you're suspended in VA, you've also suspended in your home state unless you live in Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, New York, or Pennsylvania, which are not members.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:01 PM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Gove is more liberal than Grayling on prison policy, where his approach has seemed much better (ie he gave them back access to books, hurrah. I don't know if he included a complimentary copy of the special Michael-Gove-inscribed King James Bible that he sent to all the schools, but it was still a nice thing to do.) On legal aid and access to justice, however, his position is pretty much the same as Grayling's, ie that access to justice is a private good that has to be paid for by its consumers:
'As ever, if you’re going to increase the price of any good, whether it’s access to justice or anything else, you can’t know [the impact] until you see how people behave,’ he said. ‘If we find there are cases of rough justice we will revisit. If the market can bear in the future any revision upwards we will be happy to do that.’
posted by Aravis76 at 12:08 PM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
'As ever, if you’re going to increase the price of any good, whether it’s access to justice or anything else, you can’t know [the impact] until you see how people behave,’ he said. ‘If we find there are cases of rough justice we will revisit. If the market can bear in the future any revision upwards we will be happy to do that.’
posted by Aravis76 at 12:08 PM on August 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
victim surcharge? for fucking jaywalking? did the idiot clutching their pearls on the sidewalk break one or something?
I don't know how it works in the US, but here in the UK the victim surcharge is just tacked on to everything, at a fixed rate, regardless of actual victims. It's been around longer than the currently discussed fees but is largely a precursor to the same thing.
Just today, I heard someone in court on a minor cannabis possession charge ask a DJ on hearing of this "Hang on miss, who's the victim". To which she replied "Well, that's a good question".
I feel that it should be noted that everyone actually involved with the courts thinks that all of this is bullshit. Defence (of course) but, also, prosecution and judges/magistrates. Even judges who are generally regarded as being conservative and harsh on offenders. This doesn't just represent something which is unjust, it represents something which is fundamentally unworkable and displays a complete lack of knowledge of day to day justice.
posted by Dext at 12:11 PM on August 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
I don't know how it works in the US, but here in the UK the victim surcharge is just tacked on to everything, at a fixed rate, regardless of actual victims. It's been around longer than the currently discussed fees but is largely a precursor to the same thing.
Just today, I heard someone in court on a minor cannabis possession charge ask a DJ on hearing of this "Hang on miss, who's the victim". To which she replied "Well, that's a good question".
I feel that it should be noted that everyone actually involved with the courts thinks that all of this is bullshit. Defence (of course) but, also, prosecution and judges/magistrates. Even judges who are generally regarded as being conservative and harsh on offenders. This doesn't just represent something which is unjust, it represents something which is fundamentally unworkable and displays a complete lack of knowledge of day to day justice.
posted by Dext at 12:11 PM on August 24, 2015 [6 favorites]
victim surcharge? for fucking jaywalking? did the idiot clutching their pearls on the sidewalk break one or something?
I don't know how it works in the US, but here in the UK the victim surcharge is just tacked on to everything, at a fixed rate, regardless of actual victims.
OTOH, jaywalking does not exist in the UK. IIRC, they tried prosecuting people for violating the territory of automobiles in the late 1960s, but the experiment lasted about two weeks before being abandoned for all time.
posted by acb at 2:06 PM on August 24, 2015
I don't know how it works in the US, but here in the UK the victim surcharge is just tacked on to everything, at a fixed rate, regardless of actual victims.
OTOH, jaywalking does not exist in the UK. IIRC, they tried prosecuting people for violating the territory of automobiles in the late 1960s, but the experiment lasted about two weeks before being abandoned for all time.
posted by acb at 2:06 PM on August 24, 2015
So uh, don't look now or anything, but the Driver License Compact and National Driver Register mean that most states share suspension and license point information. If you're suspended in VA, you've also suspended in your home state unless you live in Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, New York, or Pennsylvania, which are not members.
I don't live in any of those states but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that my state doesn't seem to care unless you're renewing your CDL. They let me renew in 2012 and we'll see what happens in 2018(?). Of course, it's entirely possible that VA never followed through, but I'n not testing that theory. I'm good with going around, flying over, or letting someone else drive that portion of the trip.
posted by dances with hamsters at 3:04 PM on August 24, 2015
I don't live in any of those states but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that my state doesn't seem to care unless you're renewing your CDL. They let me renew in 2012 and we'll see what happens in 2018(?). Of course, it's entirely possible that VA never followed through, but I'n not testing that theory. I'm good with going around, flying over, or letting someone else drive that portion of the trip.
posted by dances with hamsters at 3:04 PM on August 24, 2015
It resells. You shoplift it and sell it on Craigslist (still sealed) for half the retail price; formula is expensive so you make a tidy profit. Which is why most people give their leftovers to friends, crisis nurseries, or DV shelters. It does resell well, like many baby products, but if you list it online the cops definitely want to talk to you!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:52 PM on August 24, 2015
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:52 PM on August 24, 2015
Easy for him to say. Has he done significant amounts of pro bono work?
Arguably all of the work that Michael Gove does is pro boner work
posted by Ned G at 2:32 AM on August 25, 2015
Arguably all of the work that Michael Gove does is pro boner work
posted by Ned G at 2:32 AM on August 25, 2015
It's 2015 BTW. It's been a long time and several different UK governments since Thatcher was PM. You might as well blame Heath or Churchill or Disraeli. Blaming the woman for everything is getting a little stale, tastes of bitter misogyny, and gives the execrable Tony Blair a complete pass.
*deep breath*
First of all, no one gives Tony Blair a complete pass. The blame for Britain going to war with Iraq is definitely his (and it looks like he lied to his cabinet and to the public over it). He also did a bunch of other shitty things like introducing PFIs, selling parts of the NHS to private interests, deregulating the financial sector, introducing university tuition fees and probably some other bits and pieces I can't remember. Blair did some good things too - the repeal of section 28, introducing working tax credits, a minimum wage and the freedom of information act (though he thinks that one was a mistake). Blair and Brown also kept the UK out of the eurozone, which looks like a good move with the benefit of hindsight.
So yeah, Blair was a bit of a scumbag, but the majority of the things he did were just continuations of Thatcherite policies (Iraq being the exception, we can all blame him for that). Blairite privatisations and private finance initiatives pale into insignificance next to the sell-offs of the state owned oil, telecom, steel, water, electricity, public housing and just about everything you can think of in the 80s. The free reign that banks have in the UK also dates back to Thatcher, with her Big Bang stockmarket reforms. Oh, and the top tax rate in the UK fell from 83% to 40% under her.
Blair's New Labour was a product of Thatcher's economic policies. He didn't attempt to change the fundamental neoliberal shift that had happened, and furthered its progression in some cases. However, as it was a Labour government it did at least try to lessen the negative impact of the reforms on less well off people (with the minimum wage, tax credits etc), as well as being fairly good on social issues (repeal of section 28, created a minister for women). So when talking about New Labour, it has to be seen in the context of Thatcher and her Tories, and in that context, it comes across quite favorably. That's why my bile is reserved for Thatcher, and her alone.
Well, that and her behaviour towards the trade unions, football fans, the North of England, and Argentina/the Falklands. Oh, and that she was instrumental in legitimising euroskepticism in the UK, started the culture war that's still consuming the BBC, befriended the Murdoch press and Pinochet, labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist and supported apartheid South Africa. And who can forget that she created a political culture in the UK where it's still perfectly acceptable for the rich to feast on the poor. She may be gone, but the effects of her are still felt far more keenly than any other politician I can name.
Claiming that I dislike her because of misogyny is insulting, and quite frankly, bullshit.
posted by Ned G at 4:00 AM on August 25, 2015 [16 favorites]
*deep breath*
First of all, no one gives Tony Blair a complete pass. The blame for Britain going to war with Iraq is definitely his (and it looks like he lied to his cabinet and to the public over it). He also did a bunch of other shitty things like introducing PFIs, selling parts of the NHS to private interests, deregulating the financial sector, introducing university tuition fees and probably some other bits and pieces I can't remember. Blair did some good things too - the repeal of section 28, introducing working tax credits, a minimum wage and the freedom of information act (though he thinks that one was a mistake). Blair and Brown also kept the UK out of the eurozone, which looks like a good move with the benefit of hindsight.
So yeah, Blair was a bit of a scumbag, but the majority of the things he did were just continuations of Thatcherite policies (Iraq being the exception, we can all blame him for that). Blairite privatisations and private finance initiatives pale into insignificance next to the sell-offs of the state owned oil, telecom, steel, water, electricity, public housing and just about everything you can think of in the 80s. The free reign that banks have in the UK also dates back to Thatcher, with her Big Bang stockmarket reforms. Oh, and the top tax rate in the UK fell from 83% to 40% under her.
Blair's New Labour was a product of Thatcher's economic policies. He didn't attempt to change the fundamental neoliberal shift that had happened, and furthered its progression in some cases. However, as it was a Labour government it did at least try to lessen the negative impact of the reforms on less well off people (with the minimum wage, tax credits etc), as well as being fairly good on social issues (repeal of section 28, created a minister for women). So when talking about New Labour, it has to be seen in the context of Thatcher and her Tories, and in that context, it comes across quite favorably. That's why my bile is reserved for Thatcher, and her alone.
Well, that and her behaviour towards the trade unions, football fans, the North of England, and Argentina/the Falklands. Oh, and that she was instrumental in legitimising euroskepticism in the UK, started the culture war that's still consuming the BBC, befriended the Murdoch press and Pinochet, labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist and supported apartheid South Africa. And who can forget that she created a political culture in the UK where it's still perfectly acceptable for the rich to feast on the poor. She may be gone, but the effects of her are still felt far more keenly than any other politician I can name.
Claiming that I dislike her because of misogyny is insulting, and quite frankly, bullshit.
posted by Ned G at 4:00 AM on August 25, 2015 [16 favorites]
*applauds Ned G*
She also had Gulbidun Heckmatyar down to Downing Street, where she called him a "Freedom Fighter."
posted by marienbad at 6:59 AM on August 25, 2015
She also had Gulbidun Heckmatyar down to Downing Street, where she called him a "Freedom Fighter."
posted by marienbad at 6:59 AM on August 25, 2015
Why would people steal baby formula other than for babies?
Please do not tell me it's used for meth.
Seriously tho, I keep finding out new and horrible things about humans today so please tell me what the deal is.
Yeah formula is ridiculously expensive. I never stole it but I made sure to "ask for samples" every time we went to the pediatrician, and an in-law who was a nurse regularly took the sample packs to give to us.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:36 AM on August 25, 2015
Every time there's a new "the UK is going to hell" post, I feel very shocked, and then I realize that (except for the ASBOs and the universal cameras) it's already something we do in the US.
It's pretty remarkable how many of the signature achievements of British governments over the past decade have involved importing the bits of America that are most shit. Pricing people out of justice is just the latest example: the UK doesn't have formal plea bargaining yet, but the pressure to take guilty pleas will do its job, especially when accompanied by cuts in legal aid.
Another aspect of the legal reforms is to close smaller courts and move their caseloads to regional centres, even if they're inaccessible by public transport.
posted by holgate at 12:34 PM on August 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's pretty remarkable how many of the signature achievements of British governments over the past decade have involved importing the bits of America that are most shit. Pricing people out of justice is just the latest example: the UK doesn't have formal plea bargaining yet, but the pressure to take guilty pleas will do its job, especially when accompanied by cuts in legal aid.
Another aspect of the legal reforms is to close smaller courts and move their caseloads to regional centres, even if they're inaccessible by public transport.
posted by holgate at 12:34 PM on August 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Frankenstein’s Mother | G3DP Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
*rolls eyes*
Nice try, Gove.
Life under a Tory government is terrifying.
posted by kariebookish at 5:57 AM on August 24, 2015 [18 favorites]