Withdraw the Victim Surcharge

At present all offenders receiving a Fine in Court, irrespective of the nature of their offence or any specific award for compensation to their victim(s), are by law ordered to pay an additional £15 surcharge to the Victim Support fund.  Judges and Magistrates have no discretion in the matter. This Victim Surcharge as it is presently enacted, undermines the principles of Justice and should be withdrawn on the basis that it is unfair, inefficient, ineffective and illogical.

Why does this matter?

This Victim Surcharge as it is presently enacted, undermines the principles of Justice and should withdrawn on the basis that it is unfair, inefficient, ineffective and illogical.

1.  Unfair.

a.     The Fine guidance structure for sentencers is set and maintained by the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) and takes account of the offender’s ability to pay.  The Victim Surcharge is a flat rate that does not take account of the ability to pay and consequently penalises those on lower incomes.

b.     Offences of violence (domestic or otherwise) are normally ‘serious enough’ or ‘so serious’ to attract a sentence of either a community order or custody thus avoiding the Fine criteria which triggers the ordering of the Victim’s Surcharge.

c.     Many ‘Non-violent’ offences e.g. Vehicle and speeding offences attract no more than a Fine plus usually, some form of ancillary order.  The ‘Fine’ consequently automatically triggers the offender’s liability to pay the Victims Surcharge.

d.     ‘b’ and ‘c’ above are unfair on their own terms but put together they beg the question as to why ‘non-violent’ offenders should appear to subsidise ‘violent’ ones.

e.     If it is decided, e.g. by the Police, to dispose of an offence by the imposition of a Fixed Penalty (NB not defined as a Fine), then this Fixed Penalty does not presently attract the additional Victim Surcharge.  This is itself unfair but if the offender wishes to contest the Fixed Penalty on the grounds of his inability to pay and takes it to Court which finds in his favour, then any reduction is offset by the increase to accommodate the mandatory Victim Surcharge.
[NB before the last General Election there was discussion of extending the Victim Surcharge to Fixed Penalties]

2.  Inefficient

a.     The pronouncement and explanation of the Victim Surcharge to offenders and the recording and accounting of it, adds significant time to general court proceedings and administration.

b.     It is believed that the monies ultimately collected do not meet the effort by Public Services to recover, ring-fence, manage and distribute the monies ordered under the Victim Surcharge.

3.  Ineffective

a.     There is no evidence that the imposition of the Victim’s Surcharge has had any effect (i.e. additional to that of the Fine) on the rehabilitation, reconciliation or future behaviour of the offender.  Indeed in some quarters (e.g. motorists) it is resented and seen merely as another ‘stealth’ Tax.

b.     There is no evidence that the imposition of the Victim’s Surcharge has any measurable effect on the improvement of circumstances of the ‘Victims’ of crime, detected or otherwise.

4.  Illogical

Many of the grounds stated above are illogical in themselves primarily because the Victim Surcharge concept is not properly integrated with the principles of Sentencing.  However the most damning aspect is that in total the Victim Surcharge concept has the significant and potentially dangerous consequence of bringing the Law, the Courts and Sentencing generally into disrepute.

Highlighted posts