Criminals to pay costs of prosecution?
Tuesday 27th April 2010, 2:58PM BST.
Offenders, who are foreign nationals, could serve their sentences in their homeland in future
CRIMINALS could be forced to pay their own court costs and foreign nationals in La Moye prison could be deported as part of a series of cost-cutting measures.
Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee issued a series of recommendations to improve efficiency after reviewing the States accounts for 2008. States departments yesterday issued their response to the report – and accepted many of the proposals.
Among the accepted proposals were recommendations to review the court costs system and consider forcing defendants to pay for bringing the case to court.
Defendants would be means-tested and ordered to pay some or all of the prosecution costs after being convicted of an offence. This would bring the system in line with UK courts.
Meanwhile, the Home Affairs Department have accepted recommendations to introduce new laws to allow foreign prisoners to serve their sentences in their homeland. And the Health Department have agreed to consider outsourcing some services if it will achieve a saving.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Sounds like a great idea to me!!
Report abuse
The most practical, sensible headline I have read in some time…..why pay to keep some of these when deportation will save thousands…and cleanse society to a degree.now let’s not get revved up here I am not talking ethnic cleansing…behavioural springcleaning really, and a good money saver.
Report abuse
Maybe a bit cynical but one way of getting Stuart to repay the money he has taken from the taxpayer.
Report abuse
Not again..
This discussion repeats again and again.. and nothing is done, despite the fact that for normal, ordinary law-obeying Jerseman (and not only) the fact that criminals should pay all costs of their prosecution and Imprisonment is obvious…
Report abuse
Good idea all around, particularly drug dealers who make loads of money.
Report abuse
Getting defendants to pay the prosecution costs for appearing before the Magistrates’ Court or Royal Court is long over due. It costs tax payers many hundreds of thousands of pounds – if not millions – each year to bring criminals to justice and it is only right that villains should bear the brunt of this.
In the U.K. when criminals are fined and ordered to pay costs, if they don’t pay up a distress warrant may be issued and their private possessions may be seized, then sold at auction to pay off the money they owe the court.
Criminals need to be hit where it hurts – in their pocket. Why should the public be lumbered with paying for punishing people who commit crime? The sooner this is introduced the better.
Report abuse
Wasn’t this a headline about 3 weeks ago??
Report abuse
JUST get on with it!!!!!!!!!!!
Report abuse
Has been discussed time and time again. Great idea – so therefore doomed to not happen (again).
Report abuse
About time!!!
Report abuse
This is far too sensible for it to ever happen.
Report abuse
You really don’t get the 21st Century do you?
Right to fair trial oops too inconvenient, doesn’t quite fit the Jersey Way.
Sheesh come back Stuart we really do need you before it is too late!
Report abuse
#11 So true. At the moment they’re not even necessarily made to pay for the damage they cause. Something that should be fundamental to paying for their crime surely.
Report abuse
Means tested??
Make them pay regardless of their financial status, as they say “can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”.
Also make them work to earn there keep at Hotel La Moye so the tax payer doesn’t have the burden of doing so, plenty of roads to sweep, beaches to clean, states properties that need a lick of paint!!!
Report abuse
Overpopulated – bit of a silly comment to be honest. Not all drug dealers are raking it in. You will find most of them are making less that the average working person.
But I do like this idea, What going to happen when someone has no money to pay up though? Because lets face it, thats whats going to be the case the majority of the time. People will either have no money to pay or they will at least claim to have no money
Report abuse
Could this persuade an innocent to plead guilty, to keep the costs down as his defence is a bit shaky and “may” end up as a wrongful guilty verdict?
I think its a good idea anyway and am prepared to accept this “collateral damage”, are the rest of you ?
Report abuse
On a serious note one must remember that it is NOT just guilty people who are prosecuted and already there is a certain amount of pressure placed on people to plead guilty on the grounds that the court will take a more lenient view. Whilst not a fan of Deputy Hill and his political correctness there must be a human rights issue in making people pay for their own conviction. Given enough time and resources I am sure the Police could put a strong case against most people for some minor misdemeanour and whilst the crime may not carry any significant sanction the Police costs would bankrupt most people. In such circumstances even the most upstanding Law abiding citizen would have to seriously consider pleading guilty.
Report abuse
No. Criminal proceedings are necessarily coercive. Defendants should not have to pay the costs save in certain circumstances. At the moment, Jersey has the comfort of UK practice and, as is unfortunately the norm, will slavishly follow that practice and feebly hang onto the coat tails of the English. In time, however, such a thing will be shown to be unlawful on a number of levels and we will wonder how it was ever allowed to happen.
Report abuse
P.C. (Political Correctness?) # 14 – Defendants are means tested in the U.K. and would you believe it, they are forced to fill out a form giving details of their income and out goings. Then on top of that they have to swear on oath that the information is correct – the authorities are so naive as to believe they tell the truth and make no enquires as to the truthfulness of their claims. Magistrates then base the fines and payments of costs on this so called means testing.
Lunatics run asylum # 12 Your pseudonym says it all.
One thing the States also need to consider with the idea of the accused pays, is a £15 charge on all defendants, to pay for Victim Support and the Women’s Refuge.
Report abuse
Pinball Wizard # 18. Give one good reason why the general public should pay the costs and justify your assertion that making criminals pay is unlawful. Thats hogwash and your views are myopic.
Report abuse
Surely the logical argument is that Defendants should pay court costs ……. if proven guilty of their crime.
If they plead guilty then, likewise, they pay.
The innocent and falsely accused should not be forced to pay. If a defendant is found “not guilty” then perhaps the prosecution should pay!
Either way the TAXPAYER should NOT PAY!
Personally, I feel there should be some sort of crackdown on lawyers and their extortionate fees. Also, these “TV” lawyers for “no win, no claims” etc.
Some people sue others for simply being stupid and not taking responsibility for their own actions.
I’ve heard burglars suing the owners of a house they were burgling because they fell on a knife in the kitchen when they fell through the skylight!
Funny though,….I never hear of any COUNTER suing in cases like this. Surely the owners of the house could then counter sue for damages and trespassing??
Report abuse
#19
‘Then on top of that they have to swear on oath that the information is correct – the authorities are so naive as to believe they tell the truth and make no enquires as to the truthfulness of their claims.’
I’m sure that Blue Knight, oh, and PJG as well, can tell “just by looking at them” that they are guilty!
Report abuse
Ah, Blue Knight. The personal comments which you make are so poignant.
They also show an intellectual weakness and an inability to enter into mature debate.
I am sure that your former profession might have made your own views “myopic”. They are, after all, all guilty aren’t they?
Report abuse
I don’t think that Blue Knight has heard of such a thing as a “miscarriage of justice”. There were a few such cases exposed in the UK in the 1980s and 90s, e.g the Guildford Four. There have also been such cases here in Jersey.
Making defendants [not necessarily "criminals"] pay the costs of a forced procedure is a weak willed, populist response by a right wing and misinformed reactionary fraternity. As I believe has been mentioned elsewhere, it may also breach international law. It will be interesting to see how the States would propose to repay any such monies as and when the policy is declared unlawful on some future occasion. Perhaps they should establish an escrow fund in order to cover such an undoubted possibility.
At the end of the day, there will be those who will not want to listen to other views and who will attempt without success to attack those who wish to debate the issue. It is closed minds which allow governmental mismanagement to prosper.
Report abuse
Obviously something which will appeal to the intellectally challenged. I don’t believe in miscarriages of justice though. These things just don’t happen and all our policemen are wonderful.
Report abuse
Pinball Wizard # 23. You are entitled to your view, but you still haven’t justified why convicted criminals shouldn’t pay prosecution costs. When you can do that you will have shown you can have a mature debate.
Bungalow Bill # 24. Yes I have heard of miscarriages of justice and you are right there will have been miscarriages of justice in Jersey as there will have been in most parts of the world. Some worse than others. I can’t deny it, the police are not angels.
Since the Guildford Four and similar miscarriages of justice, legislative changes have made this sort of thing less likely, though clearly not impossible.
I believe there is empirical evidence that reveals that the vast majority of defendants plead guilty to the offences they are charged with, eg. assaults, public disorder, theft, fraud, drunk and disorderly behaviour etc.
How can you assert that to make people pay for their crimes is weak willed? I doubt many people will support your perverse stance.
There is a requirement that all legislation in the British Isles is compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights. I think we would have heard before now if making criminals pay prosecutions was unlawful.
Thick Night # 25. A pseudonym with a churlish message. I know that all our police officers aren’t wonderful and if you’ve followed previous discussions on policing, you will have seen that I have hopefully been a objective critic.
Wasn’t there an old rhyme, “Sticks and stones…” etc
Now call me suspicious, but there seems to be a link between 23,24 and 25. The lyrics of Pinball Wizard mention, “That deaf, dumb and blind kid…”
Bungalows have nothing upstairs and as for 25; well the name says it all.
Report abuse
Ooohh! Scaaarryy! These are shameful fear tactics from the States…I bet the poor “criminals” (the white-collar ones who steal millions through financial chicanery) are trembling in their shoes! And, the most chilling thing of all is the ‘image’ chosen for this article…
C Le Verdic 22.
You are a great judge of character!
Report abuse
Hi, Blue Knight. I don’t have to justify anything to you. This is a free forum. I wasn’t aware that you were the editor, self -styled or otherwise.
As for the matter of mature debate which I have raised and which you have sought to hijack for your own squabble, your continued personal remarks show that you are unaware of the concept. Your view is your own. It is as simple as that.
I agree that there is a link between the recent three messages. That link is clear; the commentators have disagreed with your view. Your apparent ability to extract another personal attack further illustrates the weakness of your position.
“Hit criminals where it hurts,in their pocket” you have said in the above. Yes, this does happen. It is called a fine and is part of the sentencing process. The sentence is a punishment or sanction. Costs are something else. It would appear that you have become confused between the two. This is rather worrying, given what you have stated to be your previous occupation as a police officer. I hope that awareness of the distinction is now clear.
Report abuse
I wonder if they will make generous [i.e lawyer rates of at least £300 per hour] payments to defendants who are acquitted or in respect of whom proceedings are discontinued? If it works one way it surely must work re. the other.
Report abuse
Couple of points
One..if you want to charge people sent to court and found guilty then maybe you should consider compensating the ones who are found innocent – in full
Two..As someone said – there is a reduction in sentence of upto 30% for pleading guilty – at times this may seem easier for some… needs considering.
If proven guilty I suggest an order that allows the reclaiming of all proven profits made from crime… that is more important than covering the cost of the trial… look at Mr Warren – they want £100m from him – his trail clearly cost nothing like that
Report abuse
Pinball Wizard # 28. If you examine the chain of comments above, you will see that there are a considerable number of other people who support the view that convicted criminals should pay for the costs of their trial. Therefore the view is not just my own.
I wouldn’t want to stop you having your view, erroneous though it may be. When I asked you to justify what you have said, I should perhaps have said, give a cogent arguement to justify your reasoning.
C Le Verdic # 22 et al, It is not up to the police to determine whether a defendant is guilty, that is the role of a Magistrate or jury. The police are merely evidence gatherers
Myopic Knight # 29. Imitation is a form of flattery. Your pseudonym and the term hinting at miopia in someone’s view sounds familiar.
Vicmel # 30. Would you plead guilty to something you hadn’t done? I sincerely hope not – I know I wouldn’t. As for credit being given for a guilty plea, I believe that is more about deterring criminals who are guilty from pleading ‘not guilty’.
As for defendants who are acquitted following a trial, or after their lawyer has convinced a court that there is no case to answer, I believe they have always been able to claim their costs.
Report abuse
Chap above at 30; there is now the possibility of the state getting illicit profits through the Proceeds of Crime Law. The principle of that law is sound enough, although there are aspects of it which may be legally doubtful. Yes, absolutely right; compensation for the wrongly accused must follow if the state is seeeking to make “criminals” pay for their, ah, fair trials.
Of course, I doubt that it will happen. The punitive costs aspect will simply be rushed through and defendants will then be punished twice. I can’t see a court having the foresight to take the costs payment into account when passing sentence but one can only hope that an advocate with a bit of independent courage will raise the point (and probably get crushed in the process!) The corresponding matter of paying compensation will be either conveniently overlooked or simply brushed aside.
Report abuse
Blue Knight @ 31: You are entitled to your view, biased,unsubstantiated and erroneous that it is.
Defendants should be entitled to claim costs where they are acquitted.
You say: “Vicmel # 30. Would you plead guilty to something you hadn’t done? I sincerely hope not – I know I wouldn’t.”. Well, that says it all really and shows a firmly closed mind! There is of course empirical evidence to show that many defendants plead guity because they are offered a “plea bargain” and they do not want to risk a trial even where they did not commit the crime! I would have thought that such a thing would have been known to anyone who professes to have been involved with the criminal justice system.
Report abuse
Blue Knight “26; the whole point of the song “pinball wizard” in the film “Tommy” was that it showed a disabled person overcoming great odds to acquire a skill. Perhaps you should watch the film and consider that rather than mock disability.
Report abuse
The fellow above at No. 32. Costs are already paid to defendants who are acquitted and there may be the opportunity to take a civil action against the police for abuse of process.
Compensation for victims is an important issue and in my view should take priority over fines and court costs, where the money goes into the States’ coffers.
If acquitted defendants can get their costs, there needs to be a level playing field, so that convicted criminals also pay costs for court cases.
Report abuse
Blue Knight, hello. There is no level playing field because defendants very often don’t get costs. Even when they do, the costs rarely cover their legal expenses and are bound to be set at a lower level than what the authorities would doubtless try to hammer defendants with. An interesting angle, but not really correct. perhaps the matter of compensation for the acquitted should be placed in order before we move onto making defendants pay costs, eh?
Compensation for victims. quite right what you say but a separate issue.
And civil action against the police? Well, that is such a remote possibility as to be discounted in practical terms. Good post though but it needs thinking through a bit more.
Report abuse
I agree with the prison removals but placing court costs on defendants wont help justice one little bit.
Report abuse
I think acquitted defendants do get their costs these days. There is authority to the effect that those costs will not be forthcoming where a defendant acts to exacerbate the process against him but those cases are not usual. The real point, however, lies with the extent of the costs which are awarded. They are not “solicitor and client” costs, which means that the acquitted defendant will only get those costs which are allowed on “taxation” (a form of costs moderating) by the Judicial Greffe. Those costs are almost always way short of the actual cost to the client. What is the result? An acquitted defendant will be left with a significant shortfall of legal costs which he or she will have to pay. Is that justice? No, it is not. Perhaps that side of things should be put in order before the authorities take the easy route of making convicted defendants pay costs.
Clearly, there are those who are of the immovable and entrenched opinion that defendants should pay prosecution costs. Let us not forget, however, that most defendants do not “have two heads” and if, for example, one is fined for speeding (as could happen to any of us) a £50 fine as prescribed by the magistrate’s court guidelines would quickly become a disproportionate sentence if it were to be coupled with costs of, say £100. Then there is the matter of safeguards; what mechanism would be in place to prevent prosecution lawyers charging excessive rates? What would prevent the police from making excesive inquiry and attempting to recoup those costs? Then there is the principle; most defendants are not well off and come from an underprivileged background. Their rehabilitaition will not be assisted by the “double sentence” posed by an order for costs and it is to be doubted that the courts will make allowance for the same on sentence.
The bottom line is that the practice occurs in England but that questions exist as to its legality. The fact that a defendant has not yet taken the matter further, presumably for want of funds, does not endorse the legal standing of the process. let us hope that the Jersey authorities examine the matter more closely before jumping on this rather unsavoury bandwagon.
Report abuse
Jennifer Alcock # 34 I didn’t intend to mock disability and respect diversity. I apologise if I offended your sensibilities. My intention was to comment of a pseudonym of a contributor to this discussion and their myopic view of the subject matter and the fact they weren’t listening to what other contributors had said.
Blenkinsoap Quinn # 36. Interesting nom de plume.
I am not sure about the accuracy of your claim on whether or not in Jersey a defendent’s costs following a acquittal, covers their legal expenses. I know however that in the U.K., full costs are awarded whereas the full prosecution costs are rarely awarded.
People are able to sue the police for malicious prosecution, have a look at
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/how-to-enforce-your-rights/the-police/taking-legal-action-suing-the-police.html
Report abuse
Good post at 39 and interesting link. Still a little personal though. Other views are other views. They don’t have to correspond with any of mine or yours, do they? Or would you prefer a censorship to that effect?
In practical terms, the prospect of successfully suing the police service for “malicious prosecution” is so remote as to be non-existent.
The test would be a very high one and the courts would be slow to set a precedent with regard to the conduct of a prosecution agency. A prospective plaintiff would no doubt be hard pushed to get proper discovery (disclosure of documents) as well.
So far as an acquitted defendant might be concerned, it would probably be the case that the acquittal occurred simply because the case was not strong enough, not because the police have acted in bad faith. No prospect of suing there then. Then there is the matter of the prosecution service, headed by the Attorney General. As a matter of principle, the activities of the crown officers are not susceptible to judicial review. No possibility there either. And acquitted defendendants, as we have seen, only get a fraction of their real costs. No joy there. There is a clear pattern emerging. This course of events needs to be looked at before the rights of the defendant (whether found guilty of otherwise) are further whittled away at the whim of politicians and the “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” brigade.
Report abuse
Sensible Knight # 38. If the practice in the U.K., of awarding prosecution costs is questionable, how come the European Court of Human Rights hasn’t intervened?
Remember, costs and fines are to be considered by a Magistrate or Royal Court Judge, following means testing. Therefore the ‘less well off’ – as you have mentioned – may only end up paying a minimal amount, or nothing at all. I only hope that the Viscount’s Department, that administers the system of payment of fines etc., diligently examines all defendants’ claims concerning their means.
In the U.K., an accused just fills in a form giving details of income and outgoings, then swears on oath in court, that the information is true. Nothing is done to substantiate the claim – I know it’s just my horrible suspicious mind, but people often make false declarations.
As for an ‘immovable and entrenched opinion’; well you seem to have made up your mind and rightly or wrongly, I feel there is little anyone can say to change your view.
Remember costs are awarded by Magistrates and Judges and I have seen how compassionate and pragmatic they can be, when delaing with the less fortunate members of society.
I have worked for H.M.Court Service in the U.K. and rarley saw full prosecution costs being awarded. I have also seen some people’s fines being totally remitted after lay Magistrates have been hoodwinked by a less than honest defendant’s cock and bull story.
On one occasion a young man who had been charged with aggrivated taking and driving away of a vehicle, no driving licence and no insurance had all his fines cancelled. Then on the other hand a little old lady, who hadn’t paid for her TV licence, had a distress warrant taken out against her. This resulted in some of her personal possessions being seized, to pay for her fine.
I wouldn’t suggest that everyone pays full prosecution costs, however the better of should contribute, so that you and I don’t end up paying the bill through our income tax payments.
Report abuse
I don’t think they could give full prosecution costs because at lawyer rates they would run into thousands. They certainly wouldn’t get away with that. I don’t really know what “myopic” bears relation to but I understand that the non-technical meaning is “short sighted”. One commentator (you know who you are) bandies the word about in respect of anyone who dares to disagree with his view. That view appears to be somewhat dogmatic and perhaps more fitting of the term “myopic”. Other commenatators have sought to look at the wider issues; surely the very opposite of short sightedness??
It is servile, supine, and blind acceptance of dicatatorial and yet weak willed suggested policies which allows dictatorships to proper. We saw it all WW2 germany, where ordinary people nodded wisely at the peculiarly oppressive policies which were put forward at the time. History of course proved that those who nodded were as complicit as the grossly defective policies which they were so quick to endorse! Obviously here it is the defendant which, as a colective singular, constitutes the vilified underclass from whom the customary pound of flesh must be extracted to the greatest possible extent.
Report abuse
Perfectly sensible idea. The only problem is that 95% of the prison should not be there. There are NO drug dealers in La Moye only drugs users. They should not be there. They only learn how to commit more crime. Read WWW. transform drug policy. Every political party in the world has members signed up to this including ACPO. The war on drugs has not worked. Because probihition has never worked. look at alcohol, tobacco, Coffee etc.Did you know that smoking cigs carried the death penalty in Europe at one time. It cost £53 K a year to keep a inmate in prison, the tax payer should not pay this. In 1994 there were 29 people in prison now nearly 190. Stop putting drug users in prison. Divert the money from the criminal justice sysem to Health and the results will be clear in one year. Portugal decriminalised all drugs several years ago. No increase in drugs. Put the drug squad on traffic patrols and RTA dropped by 80%. As for the rapists, murders etc, put them in chain gangs and clean the parishes as very soon the there will be no manual workers to do this.
Report abuse
Blue Knight said: “Sensible Knight # 38. If the practice in the U.K., of awarding prosecution costs is questionable, how come the European Court of Human Rights hasn’t intervened?”.
How come indeed? Well, as someone who claims, among other things, to have worked for the court service in England and Wales, you of all people will be aware of the costs of litigation and access to legal advice. There are many laws which are, potentially or actually, in breach of international law. The problem persists because, generally speaking, a defendant lacks the means to take a matter further. So, just because something goes on does not mean that it is lawful. The ECHR (to say nothing of domestic courts) will not “get involved” in the absence of someone bringing an action. The matter of defendants paying costs is a case in hand. And what about safeguards against abuse or oppression by the state? This idea needs thinking through or, preferably, putting to one side altogether.
Anecdotal examples are interesting, but carry little or no weight.
Report abuse
It’s a bit simplistic to say that lay magistrates can be misled with ease. Lay magistrates are assisted by a court clerk who must be a barrister or solicitor. He would see through a ruse. That said, perjury is a perennial problem for the courts. I think we should be careful though if we are going to use that problem as justification for increasing the burden on defendants in the form of costs. PH
Report abuse
Bad idea. this won’t be justice. the courts have too much power as it is.
Report abuse
#46 Why on earth is it a bad idea? Despite some miscarriages of justice there are cases where the criminals are caught on CCTV and it is clear for all to see (including them) that they are 100% guilty. Surely you can see that in those cases they should most definitely pay for the court costs. Currently they don’t even have to reimburse the victims for the monetary cost of the damage caused!
The alternative is that we (the taxpayer) continue to pay for other people’s crimes, that is hardly the way it should be, I certainly don’t want to pay for some scumbag criminal.
Report abuse
“Scumbag criminal”. Ah yes, they do all have two heads then. There we are. Why not throw the key away as well? I like these simplistic comments. they do cut to the chase and we don’t see any of this awful intellectual debate concerning due process or anything silly like that. I don’t know, by the way, where the idea that compensation is not payable came from. Compensation has been payable to victims of crime for very many years. Apart from anything else, there is a board in place for that very purpose.
Report abuse
Leah Holmes is quite right as she always is with her excellent, informed and well rounded comments. Why indeed should we (the taxpayer) pay for criminal activity? Come to think of it, why do we (the taxpayer) pay for the prison? Criminals should be made to take out a mortgage so that they can buy the prison between them. And they should be forced to qualify as prison officers so that they can look after themselves and we (the taxpayer) don’t have to pay for prison staff. They shouldn’t be allowed lawyers either and we (the taxpayer) shouldn’t have to pay for court staff.
Report abuse
They should make criminals wear cycle helmets
Report abuse
No, they should make them pay costs and they should double the fines as well. And take their houses off them. And cars. And everything else, come to think of it.
Report abuse
I had intended not to comment further on this subject, as it is getting tiresome. However Student Cook’s remarks (#48), “Compensation has been payable to victims of crime for very many years. Apart from anything else, there is a board in place for that very purpose.” spurred me to respond just once more.
The board to which you refer is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which only gives compensation to a small number of victims and I think you’ll find comes out of the public purse. I think it would be far better if convicted criminals would pay their victims rather than than the money coming from our taxes.
You speak of ‘due process’, well that is exactly what occurs in the Magistrates’ Court and Royal Court. It is a Magistrate or Judge that makes the compensation order.
It seems that if people support the rule of law and the notion that ‘convicted’ criminals should be punished and pay for their crimes, all sorts of unfounded accusations are aimed at you.
For someone to suggest that supporting the plan for criminals pay for their crimes, is akin to what occurred in Nazi Germany is frankly amazing.
I am not speaking of sentencing by kangaroo courts, but by the Magistrates Court or Royal Court, following a trial in which the case has to be proved ‘ beyond all reasonable doubt.’
Where in many cases nowadays – as Leah Holmes mentioned – there is CCTV or DNA / forensic evidence, or overwhelming witness evidence, or the accused confesses to his/her crime.
To those who oppose the idea; well I guess we will agree to disagree.
Report abuse
Good evening, Blue Knight. Yes, you are quite right. Some people will agree and some disagree. I guess that it is what makes the world an interesting place. I have seen cases, by the way, where the court awards compensation. It has gone on for a while now. So far as the Nazi Germany thing goes, I heartily agree that this example is used far too often! Look again, though, at the post to which you refer. I read it a couple of times. What the person is saying is that blind acceptance of any old dictat is a dangerous path to go down. He or she was not comparing the imposition of costs to WW2 at all! There is quite a distinction between what the post says and what you think it says. Have another look and perhaps you will see.
Agreed as well about the CICBoard. A very subjective entity it seems too. If you find something tiresome, just don’t respond. You have made your view clear enough and it is clearly something which many will disagree with. That’s life!
Report abuse
Not a good road to go down. Put up the sentences if you want to do people more for some reason. And remember it could be you in the dock we all do things at some time or another, parking fine, brake light on the car, forgetting to pay rates etc. A good politicians ploy everyone thinks its a good idea on paper
Report abuse
Some interesting comments above regarding due process, lack of safeguards for the defendant and possible abuse. Possibly illegal too. The “hang em and flog em” brigade persist with their stance, which of course is as valid as anyone else’s. Pity though that the broken records don’t take into account some of the other comments prior to repetition. That is indeed quite tiresome. Perhaps they should pay costs but only after extensive thought has gone into it and proper (i.e unbiased, informed and non-hysterical) debate has occurred.
Report abuse
Make them pay costs and reduce the salaries of the police, judges and the court staff. You can’t have it both ways.
Report abuse
Leah Holmes 47.
I agree with Joan (46), it’s a bad idea…I’d even go as far as saying that this proposal is devoid of justice!
The purpose of criminal proceedings is to separate the guilty from the innocent, but the fear of court costs will very likely pressure innocent people into pleading guilty…with all the consequences.
Therefore, this is not about putting pressure on the guilty to admit their guilt (so that the resources, financial and other, of the justice system can be reserved for those who deserve it), but it’s about stacking the deck against those who have good grounds for claiming their innocence…Scaaarryy!
Report abuse
#47, Leah Holmes: ‘I certainly don’t want to pay for some scumbag criminal.’
It’s intereresting to note how Leah is quickly taking on a more conventional Jersey attitude!
Report abuse
Unbiased knight # 55. Where has anyone said
“hang ‘em and flog ‘em” ? All that most people want is that criminals get their ‘Just deserts’
( see http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html )
Report abuse
Blue Knight, I think you will find that “hang em and flog em” is short hand for a particular attitude. Your phrase “just desserts” says something as well. “Just desserts” come in the form of a sentence, not something which is put on through the back door to further hammer defendants.
“Criminals”, that awful, scary underclass which we can all down our noses at, might also happen to be taxpayers. Should they pay twice for the, ahem, fair trial or should they receive a tax rebate or offset to cover their expenditure on the prosecution costs?
Report abuse