header-logo header-logo

04 May 2007 / Paul Firth
Issue: 7271 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

It's the computer, stupid!

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.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Constantine Law—Anita Vadgama

Constantine Law—Anita Vadgama

New senior partner hire at consultant-led employment / regulatory law firm

Ward Hadaway—Emma Swann & Jill Donabie

Ward Hadaway—Emma Swann & Jill Donabie

Firm adds two partners to growing education practice

mfg Solicitors—Lauren Collins, Emily Stancer & Sara Southall

mfg Solicitors—Lauren Collins, Emily Stancer & Sara Southall

Trio of newly qualified solicitors strengthens Worcester office law firm

NEWS
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
The treasury has sought to reassure the legal profession over concerns about cost, bureaucracy and independence when the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) takes over regulation of anti-money laundering compliance
One out of two barristers has come under pressure from clients to act unethically, according to the results of this year’s Barristers’ Working Lives survey
The Court of Appeal has held the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was wrong to set aside a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decision on unfair pricing of phenytoin, an epilepsy drug
A flagship employment law reform is due to come into effect on 1 July, extending unfair dismissal rights to employees after six months in their job instead of two years
back-to-top-scroll