'Short-lived and much hated' criminal courts charge to be scrapped

The 'much hated' criminal courts charge is to be scrapped from 24 December, the justice secretary told the Magistrates Association today.

The controversial charge has been subject to much criticism from lawyers and campaign groups since its introduction by the former Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, before the general election.

Grayling's charge - which ranges from £150 up to £1,200 - was slammed by MPs as 'grossly disproportionate' in a damning Justice Committee report published in November.

The committee concluded that the charge fettered judicial discretion and created a perverse incentive for defendants to plead guilty. It subsequently recommended the charge be abolished as soon as possible.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Magistrates Association in central London today, Michael Gove announced the government would scrap the charge which has seen more than 100 magistrates resigned in protest since its introduction.

The Lord Chancellor said that the charge had been introduced for the 'best of reasons', namely, 'to ensure that those who impose costs on the criminal justice system make a contribution to those costs wherever possible'. However, he admitted it had fallen short of its 'honourable' intentions.

Gove explained that, since becoming the justice secretary, he had been repeatedly warned by magistrates about the criminal courts charge and its impact upon the justice system.

'It is, however, important to stress that I have not taken this decision in isolation from consideration of the whole range of penalties, fines, and charges imposed in our courts,' said Gove.

'So, today I can also announce that the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the entire structure, and purpose, of court-ordered financial impositions for offenders, with a view to considering options for simplification and improvement.'

The Lord Chancellor admitted that the current array of sanctions was 'complex and confusing' and that he wanted to bring greater 'simplicity and clarity' to court penalties.

Gove said he wanted to give the judiciary greater discretion in setting financial orders and explore ways of making penalties a more effective tool in 'delivering improved non-custodial sentences'.

However, the justice secretary added that he wanted to ensure that money raised through financial penalties played 'an appropriate - and sustainable - role' in meeting court running costs.

The government had expected to raise £265m in charges over the course of this parliament in an attempt to make the courts pay for themselves.

Malcolm Richardson, chairman of the Magistrates Association, saidhe was grateful to the Lord Chancellor for listening to the case made by his group's members.

'In all my years on the bench, I've never seen something strike so hard at the heart of justice,' he added.

'Although we have lost many experienced magistrates, there will be an enormous sense of relief across the criminal justice system.'

While the news has been welcomed by the legal profession and others who have campaigned for its removal, it will be an embarrassment to the government and Chris Grayling, the now leader of the House of Commons.

By contrast, Gove's stock as a liberal justice secretary continues to rise, even if there are still doubts over his suitability for the role.

Nigel Richardson, a criminal defence lawyer at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: 'Short-lived and much hated, the criminal courts charge is to go in December.

'Tens of millions will end up being written off and it will probably have cost far more to implement than it ever recovered. A bad experiment, properly scrapped.'

Raj Chada, another partner at the firm, remarked: 'The criminal courts charge was a poll tax for those that were unlucky enough to be involved in the criminal justice system.

'It applied, irrespective of your means and even encouraged innocent people to plead guilty. It is good news that it is being abolished.'

Also responding to the announcement was the chairman-elect of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, who welcomed the MoJ's decision.

'The charge created a perverse incentive to plead guilty, negated the principle of judicial discretion, reduced compensation awards and was never likely to raise the funds anticipated,' she said.

'The MoJ has clearly listened very carefully to members from both houses and from across all political parties, as well as to the legal profession, and others who have campaigned on this issue.'

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal
john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD

---