- Overall conclusions on value for money In 2004, over one
million fines and other financial penalties were imposed by the
courts. Responsibility for their collection and enforcement lies
with the Magistrates’ courts. In the financial year 2004-05
penalties totalling some £352 million were imposed, £75 million
were cancelled and some £222 million were collected. The [Footnote 1] monies collected and
cancelled include not only fines imposed in that year but also
others outstanding from earlier years.
- Since we last reported on this subject, [Footnote 2]
the Department for Constitutional Affairs (the Department) has
introduced a wide-ranging programme of legislative and procedural
changes which is improving the collection and enforcement of fines.
This includes a more pro-active approach by fines collection staff
and a wider range of options for magistrates to deal with
defaulters. But there is still room for improvement, particularly
in the initial stages of the process. At present, the balance of
effort is not right, with too much expenditure invested in the
later stages of enforcement, which are less effective. The
Department is now seeking to improve the process at the early
stages, for example, with measures introduced through the Courts
Act 2003, such as the requirement for defendants to provide the
court with information on their means prior to sentence, and
through its work to examine the effectiveness of different payment
methods. In our view, the key determining factors in bringing about
further improvements are:
- Setting an appropriate fine at the outset – too many court
hearings are wasted on cancelling fines because insufficient
information was available at the initial hearing to assess the
offender’s ability to pay.
- A more robust approach by the courts in requiring immediate
payment by the offender – either in full or as the first instalment
of an agreed payment plan – and in providing facilities to enable
offenders to pay their fine at the court building.
- Proactive involvement by Fines Officers to agree the terms, and
monitor the payment, of fines, when they are not paid in full
immediately. By 31 March 2006 80 Fines Officers were in place
supported by around 1,800 staff who can use the same powers.
A 25 per cent reduction in the number of legally cancelled fines
would result in potential savings of £6.9 million per annum, and
prompter payment of fines in line with our recommendations would
yield further annual savings of just under £1 million.
Main findings
Performance measurements
- The Department uses the annual payment rate as its high-level
performance measure of the collection of fines. This is calculated
by dividing the amount of fines collected in a year by the amount
of fines imposed. The monies collected may relate to fines and
other financial penalties imposed in that or earlier years. Since
we last reported the Department has improved the accuracy and
consistency of the data relating to the payment rate. It is not
possible, however, to make reliable comparisons with data relating
to before October 2004, as the Department has changed the method of
calculating the payment rate twice since 1999, for example,
excluding cancelled fines and confiscation orders.[Footnote 3] The net effect has been to
reduce the amount of fines owed.
- The payment rate has weaknesses as a measure of performance and
its shortcomings are understood by the Department which is
developing alternative performance measures. For example, the
payment rate does not measure the proportion of fines imposed in a
year that have been collected but includes fines from previous
years. Nor does it measure how many of those sentenced with fines
actually pay. As part of our examination, we developed and tested
alternative performance measures which should enable the Department
better to assess the effectiveness of their fines collection and
enforcement. (Paragraphs 2.5 to 2.9.)
Setting an appropriate fine
- Accurate means information is needed to set an appropriate fine
at the outset. Failure to do so may result in later hearings to
reduce or cancel the fine, which is an expensive waste of court
time. In 2004-05, legally cancelled fines amounted to £69 million,
just under 20 per cent of the total fines imposed. Her Majesty’s
Courts Service has improved the information available to
magistrates about the offender’s ability to pay by introducing a
standardised means information form. Failure to provide information
or submitting false information may now result in a fine of £500
and £2,500 respectively. In addition, legal advisers should inform
magistrates about the offender’s payment history, including any
outstanding accounts. We found, however, that magistrates still do
not always have enough information to impose an appropriate fine,
particularly if a defendant is not present at a hearing;
non-attendance is common in motoring offences, which account for 58
per cent of all fines imposed, as attendance is not required and
cases can be dealt with by way of a written guilty plea. Only 37
per cent of the fines cases we examined on file had means
information available, compared with 66 per cent where we observed
sentencing hearings. [Footnote
4]The courts sought verification of means information in only
29 per cent of the latter cases. (Paragraphs 3.3 to 3.4.)
- We estimate that the initial cost to enforce cases that are
later cancelled is just under £21 million each year and to hold
court hearings to cancel them is about £6.8 million. Reducing the
number of legally cancelled fines by 25 per cent would release
funds of about £6.9 million a year.[Footnote 5]
(Paragraphs 3.5 to 3.6.)
Prompter collection of fines
- The Department issued an “Effective Practice Guide – Bench
Engagement” in January 2004, which clarifies that fines are payable
immediately. There has been a slight increase in the number of
offenders who pay on the day, with five per cent of offenders in
our sample doing so, compared with between 1.3 per cent and 4.3 per
cent when we last reported.[Footnote 6]
Devon and Cornwall have pursued an active policy of asking
offenders for immediate payment, accepting other payment terms only
when they are satisfied that the offender has no means to pay
immediately. To test the impact of this policy, we carried out a
further review of all fines imposed in the last week in January in
Devon and Cornwall and found that ten per cent of offenders paid
their fines immediately. If all areas achieved this level of
performance, it could potentially double the amount paid
immediately from £7.4 million per annum to £14.8 million. This
would lead to savings of just under £1 million in enforcement costs
which would otherwise be incurred. (Paragraphs 3.7 to 3.8.)
- Through the Courts Act 2003, the Department has put in place
new sanctions to encourage offenders to pay their fine, such as
extended use of attachment of earnings orders and clamping. As
these measures are being phased in nationally by March 2006 it was
too soon at the time of our fieldwork to establish their impact. It
was noticeable, however, that a greater proportion of offenders
paid their fines in Devon and Cornwall (67 per cent) and Cumbria
(57 per cent), which both piloted many of the sanctions, than in
our review overall (52 per cent).
- Sixty nine per cent of the cases we examined required
enforcement action. Her Majesty’s Courts Service is more proactive
now in chasing defaulters:
- Her Majesty’s Courts Service staff have access to a greater
range of information sources to track defaulters including: the
Police National Computer; Equifax, a credit referencing agency, and
the Department for Work and Pensions’ Customer Information
System;
- All the areas we visited now send reminders;
- Some staff have been trained in, and use, assertive questioning
techniques to remind and encourage defaulters to pay; and
- Her Majesty’s Courts Service has organised “blitzes” with the
police to target serial defaulters and bring them back to
court.
- The Courts Act 2003 also introduced Fines Officers who liaise
with offenders and may vary the terms of payment in favour of the
defendant without the need for a court hearing. There are around 80
Fines Officers plus some 1,800 staff who can use the new powers.
Evidence suggests that they could reduce the number of hearings to
re-consider payment terms, by one third, leading to potential
savings of £6.5 million over five years. (Paragraphs 3.11 to
3.20.)
- There are still problems with enforcing fines, once an offender
has defaulted:
- many defaulters move frequently and prosecutors do not always
provide enough information with which to trace them;
- distress warrants issued to bailiffs to seize goods in lieu of
fines have limited success. Only 19 per cent of the warrants issued
in cases in our file review resulted in any kind of payment;
- if all other measures fail, Civilian Enforcement Officers
employed by the Courts execute warrants requiring defaulters to
attend court or to see a Fines Officer, but this is expensive. We
estimate that this costs some £11 million each year and exceeds the
amount collected by the Civilian Enforcement Officers, although
justice has to be seen to be done and all defaulters must be
pursued. Civilian Enforcement Officers also have a great deal of
flexibility in terms of their working hours and approach to their
duties which leads to variations in practice and effectiveness
between areas;
- magistrates still feel that they have limited options for
dealing with defaulters although, at the time of fieldwork, the new
provisions of the Courts Act had not been rolled out in all parts
of the country;[Footnote 7]
- Libra, the IT case management application for Her Majesty’s
Courts Service, has still not been implemented. This is causing
problems for enforcement, for example, making it more difficult to
check on the payment history of an offender or for outstanding
warrants in other areas and to introduce new performance
indicators. (Paragraphs 3.32 to 3.34.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Performance Indicators
- As part of its existing work to develop new performance
indicators, Her Majesty’s Courts Service should develop indicators
that show:
- the number of offenders annually who pay their fine either in
full or within the terms of their payment plan as a proportion of
the number of offenders who have had a fine imposed in that
year;
- the percentage of fines by value imposed annually that are
collected in that year;
- the rate of change of arrears compared with the previous year;
and
- the number of offenders in the year requiring enforcement
action.
Setting an appropriate fine
- Her Majesty’s Courts Service should reinforce guidance to the
courts’ legal advisers that before magistrates impose a fine, they
provide details of any fines that remain unpaid by the
defendant.
- Her Majesty’s Courts Service should remind legal advisers of
the requirement for offenders to provide and, where possible,
verify means information before they are sentenced, to enable
courts to set an appropriate level of fine. Specifically, they
should adopt the practice followed
in Devon and Cornwall whereby means forms are provided outside the
court and must be completed before the case is heard.
Prompter collection of fines
- Her Majesty’s Courts Service should draw on the example of
Devon and Cornwall, to publicise to legal advisers the benefits of
adopting a more robust approach to requiring offenders to pay fines
immediately.
- Majesty’s Courts Service should make payment facilities
(including cash) available at each court and encourage staff to
take steps to overcome problems with the physical layout of some
courts which allow offenders to leave without paying fines which
they have undertaken to pay immediately.
Allocation of resources
- In setting up the National Enforcement Service, Her Majesty’s
Courts Service should:
- Increase the effort devoted to the early stages of collection
and enforcement of fines so that more court staff liaise with
offenders as soon as a fine has been imposed; initiate reminders by
post, text and telephone; and monitor cases throughout the entire
enforcement process.
- Re-negotiate the terms and conditions of employment for all
fines officers and Civilian Enforcement Officers in exchange for
more flexible working hours, to enable them to make telephone calls
and home visits at times when defaulters are most likely to be at
home.
- Provide more training to, and closer management of, Civilian
Enforcement Officers so that they adopt a more consistent and
effective approach to their duties.
Availability of information from prosecuting
authorities
- The Department should review the effectiveness of the current
protocol requiring prosecuting authorities to provide specific
information on offenders to enable the collection of fines, and, if
appropriate, consider the need for legislation to make such
provision mandatory.
Adequacy of management information
- The Department needs to urgently address the problems caused by
the continued delay of the Libra IT system, namely:
- the difficulties in interrogating information by surname on a
national basis;
- the delays in compiling performance data;
- problems in checking the payment history of an offender on a
national basis; and
- the inability of courts at the time of sentencing to access
databases to check addresses and National Insurance numbers.
- [back from footnote 1] Source:
Magistrates’ Courts Business Returns, Annual Report, 2004-05.
- [back from footnote 2] Report by the
Comptroller and Auditor General, Collection of Fines and Other
Financial Penalties in the Criminal Justice System, HC672, Session
2001-2002.
- [back from footnote 3] Confiscation
orders are for the return of money and other goods acquired through
criminal activity, for example, money laundering. They are usually
for larger sums of money and historically have been difficult to
collect.
- [back from footnote 4]Means forms are
often taken off files and sent to a Central Fines Unit. This may
explain the lower rate obtained from our file review, although we
were unable to verify that this had happened in the cases we
examined.
- [back from footnote 5] Reducing the
number of legally cancelled fines would release £5.15 million in
enforcement costs (25% of £20.6 million) and £1.7 million in
hearings (25% of £6.8 million).
- [back from footnote 6] Data was
gathered during a one day sample of five courts chosen to cover a
wide range both in terms of the character and performance of the
area served.
- [back from footnote 7]The scheme will
be live in all areas by the end of March 2006.