BRITAIN: A soft criminal justice system to get even softer

Serious crimes such as assaulting a police officer and mugging will be punished by instant fines of up to 100 pounds from next year under plans to keep hundreds of thousands of offenders out of court. Proposals drawn up by the Home Office, and seen by The Times, envisage a huge extension of fixed-penalty notices from early 2007. They would apply to nearly 30 offences, including assault, threatening behaviour, all types of theft up to a value of 100 pounds, obstructing or assaulting a police officer, possession of cannabis, and drunkenness.

The move, which could remove 250,000 cases from the magistrates’ courts, comes after discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other groups such as the security industry. The plans have yet to be endorsed by ministers, but officials have made clear that the intention is to move swiftly, with legislation this autumn and a start date early next year. That would coincide with a rise in the top rate for a fixed-penalty offence from 80 to 100 pounds.

But the 30,000-strong Magistrates’ Association says the proposals make a mockery of the criminal justice system and downgrade the gravity of offences that should go before the courts. Cindy Barnett, chairman of the association, said: “These are crimes that involve victims, and sometimes violence, and some of them are at the top end of what government research has shown the public regard as serious. They should not be dealt with by penalty notice. What kind of message does this send out?” She said that the change would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system because offenders would not be properly or appropriately dealt with. “Serious offences will end up being sentenced by the police and/or prosecution, and underlying problems such as drug abuse will be missed, because speed is seen as more important than taking people to court through a proper process.”

She added that the association had only just been consulted on the plans and been given only until next week to respond. “Feelings on this are incredibly strong,” Ms Barnett continued. “Magistrates are unanimous and we have already given the Lord Chancellor the very clear message from every part of England and Wales that the Government has already gone too far with these measures.”

The latest proposals are part of a wider initiative by the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary to speed up justice. They are concerned to ensure value for money, to reduce the number of trials and to make sure that offenders are dealt with more quickly. Ministers are determined to divert large numbers of cases from the courts through a series of measures, including the nationwide use of conditional cautioning. Under that scheme, to be fully in force by 2008, so-called low-level offenders who admit their guilt are given a caution by police and the Crown Prosecution Service with conditions such as attending drug or alcohol treatment or apologising to a victim.

But The Times has learnt that officials also want to extend the use of penalty notices and conditional cautions to deal with unruly behaviour. Police would have the power to issue a notice for disorder to youths under 18 or impose a conditional caution for young offenders aged 16 and 17. Other offences that would be dealt with by fixed penalty include possessing drink or “unacceptable behaviour” on railway premises and disorderly conduct on licensed premises.

The police can already impose penalty notices for a range of low-level public order offences, such as littering, criminal damage and shoplifting. But magistrates say that these powers are being misused, with notices wrongly issued where offenders have a record and should come to court. “Serious cases are already slipping through the cracks because the notices are being used inconsistently,” Ms Barnett said. “We have heard of one case where a penalty notice was issued for possession of a firearm.”

She added that moves to divert cases from the courts had, in the view of magistrates, already gone too far. “The test of what is ‘serious’ is being shifted or ignored, so that these cases are not being dealt with in the way that they should be.” Sally Dickinson, chief executive of the association, added: “All these offences also have a victim — and they will not see the offender brought to justice. It cuts across everything ministers are saying about the importance of the victim in the justice sytem.”

Unlike conditional cautions, the fixed-penalty notices do not require the offender to admit guilt, and the penalty is not a criminal conviction. But as with a parking ticket, an offender can go to court to contest it. Magistrates argue, however, that many would not want the bother and would just accept it — in some cases wrongly.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)