Higher fines for speeding
14 January 2005, 03:54 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Higher fines for speeding
The following from the Telegraph. As you can see the aim is to prevent those with the resources to fight a speeding conviction from doing so because the risk would be too great. Currently only the rich can fight speeding fines because they can afford to appeal etc. now they will have no choice but to pay up. However, note the number of people who are "below" the law and who never pay up! As a generally law abiding motorist it is you and I who are paying for these people. Enjoy:
Middle class to pay higher fines for the same offence By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 14/01/2005)
Better-off people will have to pay heavier fines for offences such as speeding under a Bill published yesterday that links penalties to income.
The level of the fine will also be governed by the offender's ability to pay.
At present, magistrates work from a scale of fines depending on the gravity of the offence and can reduce the sum if the culprit cannot pay.
But under the new system - to be applied only to adults in magistrates'
courts - the fine level would be dictated by the income of the offender.
High earners would face fines of up to three or four times more than now. A minor offence that at present carries a maximum fine of £200 would attract a penalty of £750 for the wealthy.
The maximum fine for an offence such as failing to give particulars after an accident would jump from £5,000 to £15,000.
The Government said the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill, "would help rebuild fines as a credible punishment for low-risk offenders''.
It is partly based on "day fine'' schemes used on the Continent, though these tend to be linked to a prison term in the event of default.
Under the proposals in the Bill, the fine would be determined by the number of income units imposed for the seriousness of the offence, multiplied by the financial value of each income unit based on the offender's disposable income.
The Bill sets upper limits for fines, with a maximum income unit of £75.
For level 1 fines, which include minor offences such as being drunk in a pub, the maximum number of units would be 10, making a fine of £750, compared to £200 now.
For a level 3 offence, such as being drunk and disorderly or excessive speeding, the maximum fine would rise from £1,000 to £2,800.
The Home Office said it was not intended to raise the level of fines "but to provide the potential for higher fines where the offender had the means to pay".
Since courts already had to take into account an offender's means when setting a fine, the new scheme would "provide for greater fairness and consistency''.
Courts already consider income but making the rich pay more will widen the gap between what they and somebody worse off would be fined for the same offence.
Also, the better off tend to pay their fines, so the new move risks being seen as a revenue-raising exercise.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is a cynical attempt by the Government to make the middle classes pick up the bill for their failure to manage the criminal justice system.
"This is less about justice, more about raising money."
A scheme to link fines to income was scrapped in 1993 after grotesque anomalies emerged.
These included a drink-driver marginally over the legal limit being fined £1,500 while another driver more than twice the limit was fined £104 at the same court on the same day because he was receiving income support.
A man was fined £1,200 for dropping a crisp packet but this was reduced to
£48 because he failed to fill in his income details properly.
The new Bill will for the first time require magistrates to take into account the availability of prison places when deciding punishment.
This was seen as an attempt to hold back record rises in the prison population.
Mr Davis said: "Sentencing should be determined by the crime not by the number of prison places available."
In the period July to September last year, fines totalling £71.7 million were imposed but only £56 million in payments were collected.
The National Audit Office found that £74 million in unpaid fines and compensation was written off in 2001, largely because the offenders could not be traced, and a further £77 million was cancelled by the courts.
Middle class to pay higher fines for the same offence By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 14/01/2005)
Better-off people will have to pay heavier fines for offences such as speeding under a Bill published yesterday that links penalties to income.
The level of the fine will also be governed by the offender's ability to pay.
At present, magistrates work from a scale of fines depending on the gravity of the offence and can reduce the sum if the culprit cannot pay.
But under the new system - to be applied only to adults in magistrates'
courts - the fine level would be dictated by the income of the offender.
High earners would face fines of up to three or four times more than now. A minor offence that at present carries a maximum fine of £200 would attract a penalty of £750 for the wealthy.
The maximum fine for an offence such as failing to give particulars after an accident would jump from £5,000 to £15,000.
The Government said the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill, "would help rebuild fines as a credible punishment for low-risk offenders''.
It is partly based on "day fine'' schemes used on the Continent, though these tend to be linked to a prison term in the event of default.
Under the proposals in the Bill, the fine would be determined by the number of income units imposed for the seriousness of the offence, multiplied by the financial value of each income unit based on the offender's disposable income.
The Bill sets upper limits for fines, with a maximum income unit of £75.
For level 1 fines, which include minor offences such as being drunk in a pub, the maximum number of units would be 10, making a fine of £750, compared to £200 now.
For a level 3 offence, such as being drunk and disorderly or excessive speeding, the maximum fine would rise from £1,000 to £2,800.
The Home Office said it was not intended to raise the level of fines "but to provide the potential for higher fines where the offender had the means to pay".
Since courts already had to take into account an offender's means when setting a fine, the new scheme would "provide for greater fairness and consistency''.
Courts already consider income but making the rich pay more will widen the gap between what they and somebody worse off would be fined for the same offence.
Also, the better off tend to pay their fines, so the new move risks being seen as a revenue-raising exercise.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is a cynical attempt by the Government to make the middle classes pick up the bill for their failure to manage the criminal justice system.
"This is less about justice, more about raising money."
A scheme to link fines to income was scrapped in 1993 after grotesque anomalies emerged.
These included a drink-driver marginally over the legal limit being fined £1,500 while another driver more than twice the limit was fined £104 at the same court on the same day because he was receiving income support.
A man was fined £1,200 for dropping a crisp packet but this was reduced to
£48 because he failed to fill in his income details properly.
The new Bill will for the first time require magistrates to take into account the availability of prison places when deciding punishment.
This was seen as an attempt to hold back record rises in the prison population.
Mr Davis said: "Sentencing should be determined by the crime not by the number of prison places available."
In the period July to September last year, fines totalling £71.7 million were imposed but only £56 million in payments were collected.
The National Audit Office found that £74 million in unpaid fines and compensation was written off in 2001, largely because the offenders could not be traced, and a further £77 million was cancelled by the courts.
14 January 2005, 04:29 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is a cynical attempt by the Government to make the middle classes pick up the bill for their failure to manage the criminal justice system.
"This is less about justice, more about raising money."
A scheme to link fines to income was scrapped in 1993 after grotesque anomalies emerged.
These included a drink-driver marginally over the legal limit being fined £1,500 while another driver more than twice the limit was fined £104 at the same court on the same day because he was receiving income support.
A man was fined £1,200 for dropping a crisp packet but this was reduced to
£48 because he failed to fill in his income details properly.
"This is less about justice, more about raising money."
A scheme to link fines to income was scrapped in 1993 after grotesque anomalies emerged.
These included a drink-driver marginally over the legal limit being fined £1,500 while another driver more than twice the limit was fined £104 at the same court on the same day because he was receiving income support.
A man was fined £1,200 for dropping a crisp packet but this was reduced to
£48 because he failed to fill in his income details properly.
I can see a few people choking on their cornflakes here...
14 January 2005, 04:42 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brendan Hughes
Interesting. So the scheme was first tried and cocked up under the Tories? yet they oppose it this time?
Labour, on the other hand, are happy to try and force it through despite the fact that it has failed before!
14 January 2005, 04:55 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't about being "fair" it is about stopping those people with an investment in society getting out of their obligation to pay for those who are "below the law" and who pay for nothing.
Look at the number of unpaid fines. Now think about it, none of those are people doing 35 in a 30. They are all serious criminals running about in cars that are unregistered, uninsured etc. etc. Those people are not going to pay, the law is not going to chase them and so you and I are going to pay for them. Some of us have been fighting the system and even, shock horror, getting away with it and so this law is to discourage such behaviour. You wouldn't be so keen to fight that speeding ticket if the likely result is a fine of nearly £3,000 even if you were sure you were innocent.
It isn't about justice or "fair" it is about covering up for the fact that the generally law abiding citizen is the new criminal in society while the real criminals are free to do as they please.
Look at the number of unpaid fines. Now think about it, none of those are people doing 35 in a 30. They are all serious criminals running about in cars that are unregistered, uninsured etc. etc. Those people are not going to pay, the law is not going to chase them and so you and I are going to pay for them. Some of us have been fighting the system and even, shock horror, getting away with it and so this law is to discourage such behaviour. You wouldn't be so keen to fight that speeding ticket if the likely result is a fine of nearly £3,000 even if you were sure you were innocent.
It isn't about justice or "fair" it is about covering up for the fact that the generally law abiding citizen is the new criminal in society while the real criminals are free to do as they please.
Trending Topics
14 January 2005, 05:58 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes release the bad news when the papers full of some thing else! Remember that tatic from before with this Government some thing about certain days being good for bad news.
Of course it is a cynical attempt to raise money from people who will pay the fines rather than chase people who cant be bothered. Also serves the useful purpose of stopping people challanging the courts unless they are on income support and get legal aid. e.g. a criminal with no proveable income. still i am sure if they could work out a way to Tax muggers then they would.
When will Labour learn that wealth redistribution doesnt work and just punishes those who can be bothered to work eventually stopping every body from making the effort.
Of course it is a cynical attempt to raise money from people who will pay the fines rather than chase people who cant be bothered. Also serves the useful purpose of stopping people challanging the courts unless they are on income support and get legal aid. e.g. a criminal with no proveable income. still i am sure if they could work out a way to Tax muggers then they would.
When will Labour learn that wealth redistribution doesnt work and just punishes those who can be bothered to work eventually stopping every body from making the effort.
14 January 2005, 09:37 PM
#10
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would happily agree with such a measure IF the converse was true...
If a "rich person" was given a jail sentence, then the number of days would be in proportion to their income and worth to society. Thus a middle-class taxpayer on, say, 35 grand a year may get a week behind bars for doing 180mph on an empty motorway, but a skiving, dole claiming chav who is a drain on society would get ten years for the same offence!
Secondly, when it comes to legal compensation - chav-scum would get pence, where-as honest decent folks would get several million!
...but that won't happen
mb
If a "rich person" was given a jail sentence, then the number of days would be in proportion to their income and worth to society. Thus a middle-class taxpayer on, say, 35 grand a year may get a week behind bars for doing 180mph on an empty motorway, but a skiving, dole claiming chav who is a drain on society would get ten years for the same offence!
Secondly, when it comes to legal compensation - chav-scum would get pence, where-as honest decent folks would get several million!
...but that won't happen
mb
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM