Computer deficiencies, not justice, explain the decision to impose surcharges in magistrates' courts, says Paul Firth
It was hard to decide which news story was the April fool. Some magistrates, when they read that a £15 surcharge would have to be imposed on fines from 1 April, must have thought they’d spotted the editor’s trick. But once the new measure took effect, their worships were in public revolt.
But if those same magistrates had known the reasons behind the surcharge decisions, they would not have been merely revolting—they would have been horrified. Anyone looking for a decision based on the interests of justice will be disappointed.
Let me deal first with timing. The legislative authority for the surcharge is to be found as far back as the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCVA 2004). Section 14 of that Act (I shall come to ss 15 and 16 presently) inserts into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the new ss 161A and 161B.
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
