Fines 'may rise 300%' under new plans

[davieG]

Maximum fines imposed by magistrates are set to rise dramatically under new proposals for England and Wales.

The highest maximum limits, for offences including motorway speeding, could increase from £2,500 to £10,000.

Other speeding, driving without insurance and selling alcohol to a child could also see increases.

Justice Minister Jeremy Wright said financial penalties "set at the right level" were an effective punishment for offenders.

"Magistrates are the cornerstone of our justice system and these changes will provide them with greater powers to deal with the day-to-day offences that impact their local communities," he added.

His proposals could also see magistrates having unlimited fining powers for offences where there is currently a maximum of £5,000 or more.

Any new legislation would first have to be debated in Parliament but there is no current timetable for any such discussion.

Jump media player

Media player help

 

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Custody 'option remains'

Most offences that could involve a fine in magistrates' courts are subject to specific maximums, known as levels, which currently range from £200 to £5,000.

Some cases, such as environmental offences, can involve even higher fines.

Magistrates take into account the seriousness of the offence when setting the fine level.

Rupert Lipton, director of the National Motorists Action Group, described the proposals as "disproportionate and draconian".

He said: "I think it will have a serious chilling effect. We will find motorists will be deterred from going to court where they don't believe they are guilty of an offence and there is a potential challenge."

AnalysisClive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent

The fact that the maximum fine at level 4 for speeding on a motorway is being increased to £10,000 does not mean that is the sum an offender will have to pay - even if their speeding is at the most serious end of the scale.

Whilst the amount of a fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the court must also take into account the financial circumstances of the offender - in other words, their ability to pay.

This applies whether it has the effect of increasing or reducing the fine. Normally a fine should be of an amount that is capable of being paid within 12 months.

The aim is for the fine to have an equal impact on offenders with different financial circumstances.

It should be a hardship but should not force the offender below a reasonable "subsistence" level.

So, someone on benefits caught hurtling down the motorway at excessive speed, is not going to be given a £10,000 fine that they have no realistic prospect of paying.

But James McLoughlin, from road safety charity Brake, backed tougher penalties for speeding drivers.

He said: "Speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads and, through the support we provide for victims of road crashes, we bear witness to the devastating effects of speeding.

"Limits are there for a reason, and more needs to be done to deter those who choose to put other road users at risk by breaking them."

The Ministry of Justice said custody would "continue to be used for serious offenders and fines will not become an alternative for those who would otherwise be sent to custody".

Record high

The proposed changes would see:

• The Level 1 fine maximum increase from £200 to £800. Offences which may be dealt with by a Level 1 fine include unauthorised cycle racing on public ways

• Level 2 increases from £500 to £2,000. Offences include driving a motor cycle without a protective helmet

• Level 3 increases from £1,000 to £4,000. Offences include the sale of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place

• Level 4 increases from £2,500 to £10,000. Offences include speeding on the motorway

Magistrate fines collected at the end of 2012/13 reached a record high of £284m and continued to rise during the last financial year, the Ministry of Justice added.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 allowed magistrates the power to impose unlimited fines for certain offences.

However, the government is only now tabling the appropriate legislation to put that ruling into effect.

[MPH]

Wow. Is the government really that broke?

[Trav Le Bleu]

I'm fine <sic> with these. These are only the maximum amounts. It can happen that rich people (usually spoilt kids) flout the laws because the maximum fine is peanuts to them. To my mind there shouldn't be a maximum at all and everything should be based on seriousness of offence and ability to pay. Those that can't pay in cash pay in time, either at leisure to her majesty's pleasure, or in public service.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I too am entirely relaxed about fines of this ilk because I don't do the things that they impose fines for.

 

Whenever I hear people whining about it being a 'money making scheme' or somesuch I'm OK with that too, as if the government are going to make money out of people then morally they might as well make it out of people that are acting like a twat - that's surely preferable to trying to squeeze more money out of the folk that are doing nothing wrong.  If it is indeed a 'revenue raiser', you can always undermine the dastardly scheme by not doing the stuff that you get fined for.

 

At the same time I do find it depressing that you cannot get people to do things/not do things without some sort of financial incentive/penalty, as if we've somehow become so devoid of values that people will only pay attention if their lifestyle is affected 

[MooseBreath]

I too am entirely relaxed about fines of this ilk because I don't do the things that they impose fines for.

Whenever I hear people whining about it being a 'money making scheme' or somesuch I'm OK with that too, as if the government are going to make money out of people then morally they might as well make it out of people that are acting like a twat - that's surely preferable to trying to squeeze more money out of the folk that are doing nothing wrong. If it is indeed a 'revenue raiser', you can always undermine the dastardly scheme by not doing the stuff that you get fined for.

At the same time I do find it depressing that you cannot get people to do things/not do things without some sort of financial incentive/penalty, as if we've somehow become so devoid of values that people will only pay attention if their lifestyle is affected

Agree generally, however when it comes to speeding fines from cameras and traps, you can be doing nothing morally wrong and still get caught. Bottom of a big steep downward dual carriageway, reduce speed limit from 70mph to 40mph for no identifiable reason, pop in a speed camera and whoops, fines aplenty. Oh look this person has a bit in savings, let's reach in and grab whatever we want.

[davieG]

Likewise.

 

The Leicester Ring Road is a classic example, there seems to be no logic in the speed limits with some areas close to house being 40 and other sections behind mounds of grass being 30. 

 

I just think it set up to catch people unaware especially strangers looking for somewhere who see a 40 which changes to 30 for no apparent reason.

 

I've noticed lots of villages now have 3 different limits on entering dropping from 60/70 to 50 then 40 then 30/20 it's easy to get caught out as MrsG did and she's the most law abiding carefull to a fault driver you could wish to find.

[Webbo]

£10,000 for speeding on a motorway is ridiculous, the punishment must fit the crime.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'm wracking my brains to think of anyone that I know who's ever had anything more than a fixed penalty for speeding wherever it's been, and I don't think the changes will make any difference to that.

 

To be fined a four figure (or more) amount you've presumably got to be one of those excitable sorts that are clocked doing 150mph or whatever that you sometimes hear about, not just someone creeping over the speed limit by 15 % or whatever.

 

Going back to the point about speed limits, I'm not sure these are decided on but I suspect that where they seem overly conservative is probably in response to something that's happened there, which is certainly the policy for the siting of fixed cameras.  There's some interesting info on the 'further information section' on the Leicestershire speed camera website, http://www.speedorsafety.com/ including before and after casualty figures and other data for all the fixed camera sites in the area.

 

The only one I looked at was the Tigers Way one, which sticks in my mind partly because it caught loads of people when it first went in (including a colleague on consecutive nights, ho ho) but because it's yards from where I saw a pretty bad accident that I was lucky not to get caught up in not long before it was installed

[Trav Le Bleu]

£10,000 for speeding on a motorway is ridiculous, the punishment must fit the crime.

 

Not if you're a premiership footballer on 100K a week. What's a £60 fine to them?

[Fox92]

It's complete rubbish. It's free money to them/profit fines. I'm not talking about the cost of fines, but where the money goes because to me it's just another increase of money for our government... I'd be satisfied if the money was pumped back into our roads but nothing seems to improve. On major motorways we have roadworks that never seem to progress, we have potholes everywhere and safety isn't always enhanced as it probably should be.

[Rincewind]

Wow. Is the government really that broke?

Wh else are they going to get money off? We, the Joe Average do not make the rules.

[BoneDog]

Mother f*&kers.

[Parafox]

Agree generally, however when it comes to speeding fines from cameras and traps, you can be doing nothing morally wrong and still get caught. Bottom of a big steep downward dual carriageway, reduce speed limit from 70mph to 40mph for no identifiable reason, pop in a speed camera and whoops, fines aplenty. Oh look this person has a bit in savings, let's reach in and grab whatever we want.

 

This happened to me on the A5 near MIRA. The speed limit used to be 50. It's now been reduced to 40 as you enter the roadworks there. I was doing 47 and was slowing down to 40 when I passed the camera, which was obscured by a bush. I had seen the temporary 40 mph signs but not the camera. Technically I am at fault as I was doing 47 in a (new) 40 zone and had passed the speed limit sign although I was slowing down. Last time I travelled that section, as I have many times, it was a 50 mph limit.

 

I was thinking about disputing it but if I don't agree to a "speed awareness course" and go to court, (where I will be found guilty and I can't give any mitigation as I entered the limit zone at 47 mph) I will have to pay the full £100 fine and get 3 points, so I'm stuffed.

 

My first ever driving "offence" in 38 years. BASTARDS