Niacro

NIACRO works to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities

 Fine default in Northern Ireland

In response to the NIO consultation on dealing with the 2000 people a year who default on paying their fines, NIACRO has stressed the need for constructive alternatives to fines.

 1.      INTRODUCTION:

1.1    NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for 35 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities.  NIACRO provides services under the headings of: promoting safer communities; working with children and young people who offend; providing services to families and children of offenders; supporting offenders and ex-prisoners in the community; working with prisoners. 

1.2    NIACRO works in partnership with all the main criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland. 

1.3    We welcome the opportunity to respond to the NIO consultation document “Fine default in Northern Ireland”.

 

 

2.   BACKGROUND:

 

2.1 The argument that the fine is the most effective disposal must be considered in the context of its usage for a wide range of less serious offences.  Only 5% of people fined eventually do go to prison in default of payment but that still means that 2000 people each year end up in custody and the average time spent in prison is four days. This represents a huge waste of public resources and reduces the capacity of the NI Prison Service to deliver productive regimes for other prisoner groups.

2.2 The arguments presented in the consultation paper continue to offer fines as an effective disposal for this large group of offenders.  Clearly this is not the case for those who experience real difficulties in finally making the payment to avoid custody as well as those who actually end up in custody.

2.3 Depriving someone of money is a deterrent as well as an obvious punishment. However, for some people, particularly those on low income, fines may not be the most appropriate way of dealing with offending behaviour. Alternatives - such as restorative practices - might well have a much greater impact on the person concerned.

3.     SETTING THE FINE:

3.1    It is proposed that information about the means of the defendant supplied in the legal aid statement could also be made available to the court. To do so it would be necessary for the defendant to give signed consent allowing the information to be shared with the court should a fine be considered.

3.2   There is a risk that having a “default register”, whilst alerting the court to difficulties in the past, could be used to push a case “up tariff” rather than seek a more appropriate alternative.

3.3    Making a voluntary request for a statement of means may raise concerns for individuals that such disclosure, say for those who are employed, may well allow the court to impose a fine for a sum greater than they can afford.  This process could be assisted if there were clearer boundaries (minimum and maximum penalties) set in relation to particular offences and their seriousness.  There continues to be a wide variation between courts and indeed between sentencers in dealing with similar offences and imposing fines on people of similar financial means.

3.4   Therefore a new information order whilst placing a statutory onus on the defendant to provide information should include an opportunity for people to explain their circumstances to the court, particularly those who are not legally represented.

3.5   Given that the purpose of an information order is to contribute to a “fairer” system of imposing fines, it would not therefore be appropriate to add an additional penalty for non compliance.  It would be preferable to consider an alternative sanction involving the offender’s time.

3.6    A further concern would be making compulsory a process which relies totally on written communication.  This ignores the fact that a considerable number of people convicted in court have essential skills deficits.  This is most obvious amongst the prison population where 80% have the writing skills, 65% the numeracy skills and 50% the reading skills at or below that of an 11 year old.  (Social Exclusion Unit Report 2002).

4.     COLLECTING THE FINE:

4.1    We welcome the recognition that the present arrangements do little to assist people in default to make timely payment. Obviously more effective means of collecting the fine will benefit the individual in that further sanctions will not be imposed and benefit the criminal justice system in terms of costs of dealing with default. Many people who commit criminal offences have chaotic lifestyles and are of limited financial means. Again the improved collection of fines can only be properly considered if the imposition of a fine is appropriate in the first place.

4.2   The “fines officer” pilot scheme will provide feedback on whether or not this approach has merit but there is little doubt that the person to person contact may well succeed in collecting the fine in some cases. It is suggested that this role could be extended to have a statutory remit in terms of “managing” the fine.  It would be important to know what powers this role would have in terms of sanctions.  We know that 50% of people who are fined wait until the police enforce the warrant before paying.  They pay the fine to avoid going into custody and may at that point have to borrow money from others to do so.

        It is NIACRO’s experience that some people have borrowed money from relatives and loan sharks / money lenders in the community in order to have the means necessary to avoid custody and that paying off these debts has led to further problems.

4.3    NIACRO believes that it should be possible for individuals to have some choice in how their fine is concluded and if they have been unable or unwilling to gather the required sum of money, they should have an opportunity to work off their debt through schemes available in the community.

4.4   There are advantages in transferring enforcement powers to a fines officer and away from police if the fines enforcement officer has a range of constructive options available.

5.     PREVENTING AND DEALING WITH DEFAULT:

5.1 We reiterate that this consultation primarily focuses on the options available should the person default in paying the fine rather than examining options to imposing the fines in the first place. Depending on the nature of the offence it may be more appropriate for someone to be given an Attendance Centre Order in the first instance rather than proposing this as a means of dealing with default. Why should Attendance Centre Order provision not be available to the adult courts and where the activity provided is directly related to reducing offending behaviour?

5.2  Removing a license to drive a vehicle may well have an impact on those convicted of road traffic offences – yet if it is appropriate for the court to take this action at all then it should be taken at the first hearing rather than later when in default of a fine.

5.3  If a curfew is an appropriate penalty in terms of the offence committed then again it should be possible for the court to consider this or offer this as an alternative to a fine – not to introduce it in default of payment. Furthermore, any curfew restrictions should have a direct bearing on the nature of the offending behaviour and affect the risk of offending rather than on a person’s willingness or ability to pay a fine.

5.4  The proposal to consider clamping a vehicle or disposing of a vehicle takes no account whatsoever of the situation that person may be in terms of livelihood, responsibilities for dependants, health etc.

5.5     NIACRO has particular concerns about the proposal to deduct fine payments directly from wages or benefits.  Many people receive low wages, and benefits are generally seen as being equivalent to subsistence levels. It would not therefore be reasonable to make direct deductions unless it can be demonstrated that the individual is in a position to make those payments.

5.6   The proposal for a generic “collection order” in principle allows for flexibility and a response suited to a person’s circumstances.  However such an arrangement would indeed require the establishment of another statutory layer of activity and associated costs.

5.7 In addition systems should be established to facilitate obtaining accurate financial information before imposing a fine and a system for reminding people when they are due and what will be required if the fine is not paid.

5.8   In NIACRO’s view there should be an immediate introduction of Supervised Activity Orders as outlined in the Criminal Justice Order. At the very least, this would offer an alternative to custody for default of payment. However this option is only available if the appropriate number of hours for the SAO is set by the sentencer as a default option. Therefore the availability of SAO as an alternative depends on the discretion of the sentencer.

5.9  If the offender does not then comply with the requirements of the SAO, the courts will have the power to commit the offender to prison for a longer period of custody than would have been served for default in the first place. In NIACRO’s view, this clearly sets the SAO further “up tariff” from the fine and places huge value on the payment of money above all other possible interventions.

5.10        The absence of low tariff alternatives to fines continues to be a problem.

6.     STRENGTHENING THE FINE:

6.1 The fine is a substantive penalty in Magistrates Court largely because there are very few low tariff alternatives which have the same degree of flexibility (amount / length of time to pay).

6.2    Obviously a supervisory type disposal such as an SAO – requires a degree of expenditure to operate.  However depriving someone of their personal time should be valued by the criminal justice system particularly if it is time spent usefully and likely to contribute to reducing the risk of re-offending. Therefore it is NIACRO’s view that only in particular and clearly defined circumstances should a further fine be imposed as punishment for non payment.

6.2   The use of custody for non payment has regularly been used as a disposal for more serious offenders where there are a number of offences.  In such cases courts frequently issue immediate warrants so that the custodial sentence is concurrent with that imposed for the more serious charge.  Given that the person is in prison serving a sentence and not in a position either to pay a fine or to complete an SAO should  this practice should be allowed to continue.

6.3   The argument that the practice of making default periods consecutive rather than concurrent should be introduced as a way of encouraging people to pay fines is not convincing. Most people who choose to go to prison rather than pay a fine do so either because they have been in prison before and are therefore less fearful and apprehensive about spending a short time there; or they have weighed up for themselves the implications for their own lifestyles of going to prison versus paying the fine. Changing the default periods to consecutive rather than concurrent is unlikely to influence those who have made the decision to serve time ie six days as opposed to three days.

7.    CONCLUSION

For NIACRO the proposals in the CJO meant that resources would have to be expended in relation to indeterminate sentencing and public protection concerns, and that meaningful processes had to be introduced to ensure that prison was being appropriately used as a last resort and not for those who defaulted, for whatever reasons, on sentences which in the first place did not attract a prison sentence.

 It is a real matter of concern that introducing the option of Supervised Activity Orders is not the headline concern while focus remains on how to make the “fine system“work. This needs to be reworked to focus on positive activity rather than processes that can still result in movement “up tariff” for individuals and all the negative implications associated with that.  

NIACRO is disappointed that an opportunity has not been taken to broaden the range of lower tariff sentences available to the Courts offering real alternatives to imposing fines, and in particular, introducing  approaches which have a direct bearing on the behaviour which led to the commission of the offence.

 October 2008