Homeless fined £150.

Isn't the legal profession threatening industrial action because of what the government is doing?

And if they don't pay it they go to gaol? - brilliant! - that'll save money.

dj whilst I applaud your support for humanitarian issues, are there perhaps any such issues that were brought about by a Labour Government, or was all sweetness and light under their rule?

Apart from the minor issue of a war, of course...........

At least they'll have a roof over their head and three square meals LG

There were a lot of problems caused by the last Labour government, phoenix. That's why I stopped being a member.
But what the hell has that got to do with what the government is doing to the homeless now? Absolutely nothing, so why make the comment?

Yes, you're right, whitewave. I missed that as I was away.

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/31/magistrates-resign-court-charges-encourage-innocent-plead-guilty

In fact some have already resigned.

Phoenix surely if you believe there were problems under the last but one government you should be bringing them to the debate not asking someone else to do so. This is what is happening now and seems rather more relevant and timely.

I have never heard of debating or even discussing where you expect someone else to put your point of view forward.

Anya, they'll also have a record. That will be no help when they come out of prison and try to get work or a home to live in.

Getting more like the Victorians every day

I think that is the intention Whitewave.

The workhouse in this village was turned into nice flats in the 70s. Could turn them back, I suppose.
The one in York is student accommodation, so that's easy to turn back into a workhouse. The mortuary is still there, too.

I cannot follow the logic of this policy! Can anyone who supports it explain why it is a good idea please?

durhamj the classroom in which my daughter teaches is the former town workhouse! Truly fit for a 21st C school!!

All governments of various persuasions have made cock ups when in office. It is well to remember the New Testament advice about casting the first stone!

Homeless, penniless people surely wouldn't plead guilty, when innocent, as they would be unable to pay whatever charge was levied.
It will be people who are very poorly off who might be tempted to do that.

Maybe it is intended to encourage guilty persons to fess up right away and not to waste court time & money by pleading innocent.

Graces I did not expect someone else to put my point of view forward!

Did you want to make a point connected with this topic, phoenix? If so, what is it?

"The criminal court charge ranges from £150 for anyone who pleads guilty to a summary offence at magistrates’ court up to £1,000 for those convicted after a trial of a more serious offence at magistrates’ court. In the crown court, the charge ranges from £900 for a guilty plea up to £1,200 for conviction after trial.

Because it costs far less to plead guilty rather than be convicted after a contested trial, some allege it creates a perverse incentive for the innocent to plead guilty rather than run the risk of failing to convince the court. "

From the article, FarNorth.

Doesn't look like anyone supports the policy, Penstemmon.

What exactly is the point of this thread?

Is it saying that these people are innocent of these petty crimes but pleading guilty for one reason or another?

Or is the point that because they are homeless they cannot afford £150 so will inevitably have to serve a prison term?

Have you read the link, Anya?

Yes

The 'point' ( as if threads need a point!) is to see what other GNs feel about this issue.

Do people think it is right to charge people additionally to any fine, do you think it might make people make a wrong plea? It is a current newsworthy item and why not see what the feelings of GNs are?

It is no different to many other threads asking 'What do you think about....'

Not sure why you are asking. Don't like it, don't post. Simples!

From durhamjen's link:

"In June, the Exeter Express & Echo reported on a case where a judge was required to impose a £900 charge on a homeless man who had admitted shoplifting.

"The newspaper reported that, as the defendant was led away, the judge asked the courtroom: "He cannot afford to feed himself, so what are the prospects of him paying £900?"

"The Ministry of Justice is an unprotected department and is expected to face cuts of up to 40% when parliament returns from summer recess."

As I understand it, these are not "fines" but "charges" for administration and hearing costs - no doubt introduced to try and plug the 40% gap resulting from the cuts.

"In each case the £150 relates to a mandatory criminal courts charge for anyone convicted of an offence on top of other levies such as fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges and costs."

That's an extra charge on top of whatever the fine will be. £150 for pleading guilty without the extra expense of a court case. A lot more if you plead not guilty and are found guilty, whether you are or not.

This is one of the laws that have been passed without actually going through parliamentary procedures, just on the nod, so to speak. I cannot remember how many have been passed like that but it's in the thousands.
It was done by the previous justice secretary. It will hopefully be one that Gove realises is unworkable, like the one about prison books which has been rescinded by him.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/18/former-manchester-united-star-occupiers-of-hotel-winter-ryan-giggs-gary-neville

This is excellent news. I imagine lots of homeless will be moving to Manchester over the winter.