driving motorists into the ground
The Government has announced controversial new
plans to increase the 'victims surcharge' that motorists, and
others, pay on top of fines imposed in the courts. At
present, every offender whose case is dealt with at court by way of
a fine has to pay an additional £15, which is referred to as the
'victims surcharge'. These sums are then distributed to
victims of crime.
However Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth
Clarke announced on Tuesday 1 February that this £15 surcharge
could be increased to £100. This could rise further to £120
where a motorist pleads not guilty to a motoring offence and is
then convicted after a trial.
Fixed penalties, frequently issued for
offences such as speeding or driving whilst using a hand held
mobile phone could rise from £60 to £80 or even £100.
Any offender sentenced to a community penalty
will pay a surcharge of £60. Community penalties do not
currently attract the victims surcharge. Any offender
sentenced to a term of imprisonment will pay a surcharge of £60 for
a six month sentence or less rising to £120 for an offender
imprisoned for more than two years.
The announcement comes in the wake of the
Government's announcement that it is to reduce the level of
payments made to victims of crime from the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board. Many will no longer be eligible for
compensation and many more will have the amount reduced. The
Government is planning to limit the amount that victims of crime
can receive for loss of earnings for example as part of a package
of measures designed to save £40 million of the total £200 million
that is thought to be paid out in compensation payments.
This seems to be another series of proposals
designed to raise extra money from the motorist purely because it
will be straightforward to collect. The Government has
clearly decided that it cannot afford to pay victims of crime the
compensation that they are entitled to; but rather than accept the
political fallout that would surely follow, it has turned to the
motorist and will require them to pay for what the Government says
it cannot afford.
But why should a motorist pay up to £100 or
£120 to compensate someone he or she has never met? Why
should they have to pay for injuries they did not cause? The
victim of crime should receive compensation from the
perpetrator.
A surcharge of £100 would also be
disproportionate to the fine imposed in many cases. Fines are
calculated to take into account an offender's means. The
starting point for an offender who has been convicted of speeding
is a fine of one week's take home pay after tax and national
insurance contributions have been deducted. This will be
capped at £1,000 (or £2,500 if the speeding offence took place on a
motorway). The offender will be entitled to a discount of up
to a third if they have pleaded guilty. It is quite possible
therefore that a motorist pleading guilty to speeding could be
required to pay a fine of in the region £100 but then have to pay a
100% uplift to take account of the surcharge. This surely
cannot be right.
Finally, the responsible motorist is
invariably insured against third party risks. Some motorists,
particularly the young, pay very high premiums. Even if the
motorist has caused injury and/or damage there should be a policy
of insurance in place. If there is not, the motorist can be
hit with a compensation order. Most defendants who commit
crime are not covered by insurance to cover their victims.
The motorist normally is insured. This proposal, in
effect, is a double hit on the motorist.
