Procedure for Enforcement of Fines
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300605 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Procedure
for
Enforcement
of
Fines
release monies in the circumstances of this case.
It
may be remarked
that,
when
money is thus seized and detained on suspicion, the magis-
trates' court remains for two years powerless to intervene, as long as the
suspicion remains areasonable suspicion, as in the circumstances of the
present case. But Brooke LJ remarked that,
when
the Human Rights Act
1998 is brought into effect in the UK, 'there will obviously be room for
fertile argument' as to
whether
the conduct of national institutions in
circumstances such as these will be permitted to behave as the Commis-
sioners were, with the consent of Parliament and the courts, able to act
on this occasion. As Brooke LJ remarked, European law will require
'equality of arms' in the determination of everyone's civil rights and
obligations.
It
seems doubtful
whether
an institution which is claiming
the right to the forfeiture of another's property, which it holds, will be
entitled to prevent his opposing that claim, by continuing to hold his
property.
Procedure for Enforcement
of
Fines
R v
Hereford
etc
MG,
ex p
MacRae
(1999) 163 JP 433
The system adopted by
the
magistrates' court for the enforcement of
fines was that where
the
offender was in default, either by failing to pay
the fine, or by having outstanding the
sum
of £25 or more, the court
would issue a Final Demand. On a failure to pay within three weeks, the
court's computerised system automatically produced adraft distress
warrant
for the outstanding amount. This was scrutinised by the court's
administrative staff, in order to discover
whether
there were any cir-
cumstances
known
to the office which could render
the
issue of the
warrant
inappropriate.
If
no such circumstance was found, the chief
finance officer could,
under
standing powers delegated to him, issue the
warrant
of distress. The applicant for judicial review in
the
present case
was a single parent
who
had been issued with a fixed penalty notice for
stopping
her
car on a bus lane clearway and, having failed to
payor
request acourt hearing, she was convicted and fined £30 in
her
absence.
She was fined a further £10
with
an order for £60 costs for failing to
send
her
child to school. A computerised warrant was served on
her
in
accordance with the magistrates' practice; but she neither paid the fines
nor
complet.ed the form for making arequest for time to pay. Four weeks
later, the chief finance officer issued his warrant of distress, to enforce
payment. Some time later, she wrote asking for time to pay,
but
she was
informed that that was legally impossible because the distress warrants
had already been issued. She was advised to contact the bailiff. She
then
applied to the justices to revoke the warrants,
but
this was refused on
the ground thai, once
the
warrants had been issued, each justice was
functus
officio.
The statutory provisions relating to the recovery of fines are con-
tained in ss 75 to 91 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Section 76( 1)
515
To continue reading
Request your trial