Committals to Prison for Non-Payment of Community Charge and Council Tax Unlawful
| Author | F.G. Davies |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300516 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
from central funds. Thirdly, the justices'
bona
fides
had
not
being called
into question
and
therefore it was unnecessary for
them
to
enter
an
appearance.
Committals to Prison for Non-Payment of Community
Charge
and
Council Tax Unlawful
Rv
Doncaster
Justices,
ex p
Jack;
Rv
Doncaster
Justices,
ex p
Christison
The
Times,
26 May 1999
Two applications for judicial review of decisions of
the
Doncasterjustices
to activate suspended committal orders have been determined by the
Divisional Court. The first applicant, Mrs Jack (1), was 71 years old. She
had
failed to 'pay
£350.98
and
£237.63 in community charge between
1991
and
1993. Two prison sentences of 90 days
and
87 days were
ordered in respect of
the
two amounts, to
run
concurrently. The second
applicant, Ms Christison (C), failed to pay
£97.95
in council tax. She
had
£180
outstanding in costs. She was committed to prison for 28 days. The
committal orders in respect of both applications were made
on
1
June
1998
following their failure to appear before the Doncaster justices
to show cause
why
suspended committal orders should
not
be
implemented.
HELD,
ALLOWING
THE
APPLICATIONS:
1. There was material before the justices in respect of J to justify a
finding of culpable neglect. Some payments
had
been
made after
the
making of the suspended committal order.
It
was
pot
adeliberate refusal
to pay, Jmanaged
her
financial affairs in a chaotic way
and
her
budget-
ing
meant
that
she
had
no monies to pay
her
liabilities. Furthermore,
the
maximum
period of 90 days
had
been imposed in relation to
one
account. That period was
not
proportionate to
the
sum
due. Further, a
suspended committal order if attached should only be made for a
realistic
amount
that could be reasonably paid within two years. For an
elderly lady
not
in
the
best of health the imposition of such asentence
was flawed.
2. In the case of C it was difficult to see
how
the justices could have
found culpable neglect where C was already subject to an
attachment
of
benefits order.
It
was doubted that there
had
been any justification for
asuspended committal order. The order would be quashed on the
grounds that there
had
not
been aproper means enquiry.
3. In Rv
Doncaster
Justices,
ex p
Hannan
(1999)
16J
JP 182, the
Divisional Court
had
found that awarrant of committal should
not
have
been issued where
the
applicant in that case had
not
been
present at
court
and
there
had
been no evidence before the justices
that
the
committal summons
had
been served. The principle to be applied to
committal orders was that they were only to be made as a last resort,
not
as a
punishment
but to extract payment. Justices should not, unless
there were very exceptional circumstances, commit aperson to prison in
420
To continue reading
Request your trial