Lawyers are reportedly discontent with government plans to extend the system of on-the-spot fines and Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for criminal offences. However, is the criticism justified?
The measures were originally intended to increase the efficient administration of criminal justice. Fines were imposed in order to deal with small-scale offending, such as drunken behaviour experienced in most town centres on a Saturday night. FPNs were aimed at reducing the burden on the heavily stretched courts system and free up police time for investigation into more serious offences.
The main objection to the measures is that they circumvent ordinary criminal procedure. Offenders are judged to be guilty without being brought in front of a magistrate or jury. As such, arguments have been made that the measures amount to a violation of habeas corpus. Campaigners are particularly concerned at the proposed extension of the scheme to a wider range of offences, further eroding the role of the traditional justice system.
It may be argued, however, that this concern is misplaced. No right-thinking police officer would issue a fine or FPN for violent crime or sexual offences, as protestors suggest. The fact remains that the Ministry of Justice budget, encompassing prisons and the courts service, is simply not equipped to handle every minor complaint across the country. Common sense dictates that certain misdemeanours, such as being drunk in a public place, are best dealt with through the efficient imposition of a penalty. In the vast majority of cases, most people wake up in the morning and realise what a fool they have been when they notice an £80 hole in their wallet. There is no need for them to be brought before a magistrate and involved in the expenditure of public money.
Of course, proper safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the measures remain proportionate and that police officers do not abuse their power in the imposition of penalties. If this is guaranteed, the scheme remains a pragmatic response to the need to balance the administration of justice with the ever more pressing limits on the public purse.
You see similar things work quite well, such as being caught by a speed camera. However the difference is that when the accused finds out about their offence it is not in the heat of the moment, not while they’re intoxicated and when they have better access to appealing agains the decision.
Perhaps when people have to have ID cards it will be easier for the Police to send the necessary documents to them just like with speeding. Granted it may be more bureaucratic, but it allows for the accused to appeal and not be put under as much pressure to comply.
Currently, the accused has a right to legal representation, who may advise them to contest the charges. In addition, offenders have a reasonable time to pay FPNs, reducing the problem with intoxication affecting judgment in the heat of the moment. Video evidence is usually kept by the police and is frequently used in cases where FPNs are issued, such as the town centre scenario. As a result, people can use this in order to challenge the basis of their liability.
As I said, the system is not perfect but I think it does adequately balance expediency with the rights of the individual.