What a shame. It could have used by MPs to pay fines for their election spending "oversights"
Ministry of Justice scraps 'conviction by computer' law
The controversial "conviction by computer" Parliamentary Bill has been scrapped ahead of June's general election, according to reports. The Prisons and Courts Bill has been dropped by the government as it starts winding down legislative activities, reported the Law Society Gazette. David Lidington, leader of the House of …
-
-
-
Saturday 22nd April 2017 09:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Victim surcharge
The victim surcharge pays into a fund that pays out to victims of crime under the appropriate class. It does NOT go to compensate the victim of YOUR crime.
The Victim Surcharge certainly doesn't pay out to victims. It goes into a series of funds, like the ones behind the National Lottery, that worthy victim support groups can apply for money from. It seems to be extremely difficult to find out where the money goes, since most of the figures on the MoJ website1 are several years old. Personally, I doubt it does much to benefit victims, since it looks as if it raises about £20million, for about 6.2 million incidents of crime experienced just by adults, although it probably keeps plenty of Social Justice Warriors in employment.
1https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/victims-and-witnesses-funding-awards
-
-
-
Sunday 23rd April 2017 15:09 GMT JeffyPoooh
Re: "Victim"?
Archtech mentioned, "TV Licensing collected £3.7B..."
I'm struggling to understand why BBC can't somehow pull in several (more?) billions per year by marketing their many productions more vigorously overseas.
If they pushed the export marketing side much harder, then they could downward adjust the Licensing Fee to more trivial levels. Perhaps zero. Perhaps negative (dividend), a national profit center.
The BBC is a treasure, and its output can be copied-and-pasted into the export column. They should do this much more than they're doing now. The trickle should become flood.
-
-
-
Friday 21st April 2017 12:16 GMT Steve Button
Still "be able to" attend court?
Surely most people would want to just let the computer system do it rather than going to court if they are going to plead guilty anyway. But why could it not be optional? Allow people to decide to plead guilty and let the computer sentence them, or they can go to court and let a judge sentence them and get the same outcome? I bet the vast majority of people would take the automatic system, and avoid the hassle and time off work, etc.
-
Friday 21st April 2017 13:22 GMT Peter2
Re: Still "be able to" attend court?
Depends on how much experience with the courts they have. Regular visitors would tend to put in a "plea of mitigation" to the human judges where you suggest the sentence that your given as well in exchange for acting out a convincing sob story.
Frankly, I think that as a general rule making a plea of mitigation in anything but exceptional circumstances ought to attract punitive sentencing, but I know I'm in a minority.
-
Friday 21st April 2017 14:09 GMT Jason Bloomberg
Re: Still "be able to" attend court?
As long as people are offered the option "pay this or take it to court" I do not see a great deal of problem with the scheme. If one is guilty, or expects to be found guilty, and has to "pay this" anyway, and probably more on top in lost wages etc, it's actually doing them a favour.
For the type of cases being considered most people would know whether they are guilty or not and it's just a waste of everyone's time to go to court, plead guilty, and get the fine an online service can just as easily hand out.
There is an issue of people believing they are guilty when they actually are not and have grounds to escape conviction but they would probably mistakenly admit guilt in court anyway. That rests on what legal advice they get (or don't), not the means of processing the case.
It might lead to innocent people paying-up simply to avoid inconvenience and costs but I don't think that is a great enough risk to reject the scheme.
-
Friday 21st April 2017 14:10 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: Still "be able to" attend court?
The concern was that the fees/difficulty in not using the automated system would gradually increase until only the sort of people that have their own team of lawyers ( ie rich crooks)can afford to go to court - everyone else would be forced to just plead guilty to everything online
So the pay a parking/speeding ticket within 24 hours for £50 or go to court and pay £250 + costs. Becomes a "CCTV says you were in a fight" pay £500 fine now online, or go to court and get 18months and £1000 in costs = pay up if you are black/poor/been in trouble with the police whether that was you in the CCTV or not
-
-
-
Friday 21st April 2017 19:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: the government's aim...
Integration. @Outsourcer fines you, collects the money, or if you don't pay collects you and takes you to their private prison, from which you emerge with STDs and possibly HIV and go to their private hospital from which you get a bill which you present to their medical insurance scheme which refuses to pay out because you didn't disclose to them that you were a criminal.
-
Saturday 22nd April 2017 12:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: the government's aim...
Cheap for the government, perhaps. But the main objection to the "justice" systems in all Western nations is still that justice (such as it is) is available to the rich only. You can't get justice without one or more clever and tricky lawyers, and they cost real money.
-
-
Friday 21st April 2017 22:27 GMT Doctor Syntax
el Reg has the habit of sometimes using more colourful verbs to deliver quotes so how about
"The automatic online conviction procedure will contribute to the government's aim of delivering a service that is just, proportionate, accessible to all and works better for everyone," the government
saidlied at the time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
