Draconian measures

[trebor79]

This news report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-54643652 prompted a Facebook discussion between me and some of my old uni mates.

A group of students who were fined £40,000 for a house party were "putting lives at risk", residents say.
Four Nottingham Trent University students were fined after police found more than 30 people hiding in their house in Lenton on Tuesday night.

It's just round the corner from when we used to live whilst at uni. I made a comment "welcome to the police state" when it was posted on Facebook. "But they broke the law". Well yes they did, but £10k summary fines are an egregious abuse of the Fixed Penalty system, which has not right of appeal. I also pointed out that presumably the four people fined are the four residents, and I would be very surprised if the police had collected evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that all four had been "organisers". I can see this going to court and at least three of them getting off, probably all of them.
Then someone said:
"But the police are duty bound to enforce the law made by a democratically elected parliament". Which prompted me to muse that the government is using an enabling act to create law without any checks and balances, and that much the same could have been said of the police in Nazi Germany, certainly up to 1933.

What's next? We've already seen fines increased dramatically. Where does it stop? Who's to say the next stop isn't 30 days in the clink with no right of appeal just because a police constable thinks you've broken a law made up on the hoof yesterday?

What if the government decides all this criticism of it's policies is reducing compliance, and therefore damaging public health. Might they outlaw public criticism of their COVID policies, using "emergency" legislation?

Am I the only person worried that we are slowly sliding further into an authoritarian state that could be difficult to extricate ourselves from?

 

[6862]

Am I the only person worried that we are slowly sliding further into an authoritarian state that could be difficult to extricate ourselves from?

I fully agree with you. As George Orwell said: 'We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.' I think Orwell is right, and we have lost some freedoms which will never be returned to us.

 

[yorksrob]

No you're not the only person worried.

That said, in the case of this student party, wasn't it more the size of the fine that could be said to be disproportionate, rather thanthe enforcement draconian ?

 

[MikeWM]

Then someone said:
"But the police are duty bound to enforce the law made by a democratically elected parliament". Which prompted me to muse that the government is using an enabling act to create law without any checks and balances, and that much the same could have been said of the police in Nazi Germany, certainly up to 1933.

Most unpleasant regimes act totally within their own legal framework. That's why *at some point* 'just following the law' is insufficient excuse - as we saw at Nuremberg.

One possible exception is the USSR. The Constitution of the USSR was a reasonable, quite enlightened document. Obviously it wasn't followed in practice.

Am I the only person worried that we are slowly sliding further into an authoritarian state that could be difficult to extricate ourselves from?

Very much not.

 

[trebor79]

No you're not the only person worried.

That said, in the case of this student party, wasn't it more the size of the fine that could be said to be disproportionate, rather thanthe enforcement draconian ?

Yes that's my view. They were right to be fined, but £100 or £200 would have been appropriate. Some of my friends also seemed to think it "serves them right" that they've been expelled from university in their third year and will not graduate.
I wonder how the university found out? Would the police have informed them? What legal basis would that have been done on?

 

[trainophile]

How do they expect students to lay their hands on £40K? They are in for a long wait, and if it goes to court, an agreed settlement of a fiver a week from each of them, so about 38 years repayment plan.

Absolutely stupid, you don't get that level of fine for any other offence that I can think of. Will they get the option of serving time instead I wonder.

 

[trebor79]

How do they expect students to lay their hands on £40K? They are in for a long wait, and if it goes to court, an agreed settlement of a fiver a week from each of them, so about 38 years repayment plan.

Absolutely stupid, you don't get that level of fine for any other offence that I can think of. Will they get the option of serving time instead I wonder.

"It wasn't me that organised it, it was my housemate. I told him not to but he did it anyway. How was I meant to stop 30 people coming inside the house?"
Times three leaves reasonable doubt - I doubt the cops will have very good evidence as to who actually organised it, they appear to have simply slapped fines on all those renting the house.
Leaves one fine to pay which they. An split between them and nobody has a criminal record.
Or a similar tactic to get all 4 thrown out.

There's no way £40k in fines will ever be collected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably like any other FPN you can decline it and instead request your day in Court?

 

[trainophile]

Presumably like any other FPN you can decline it and instead request your day in Court?

Where I hope it would be duly thrown out as being completely out of proportion to the offence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where I hope it would be duly thrown out as being completely out of proportion to the offence.

I suspect not. The law has clearly been broken and so you'd be fined a similar amount plus costs.

 

[trebor79]

Where I hope it would be duly thrown out as being completely out of proportion to the offence.

I suspect not. The law has clearly been broken and so you'd be fined a similar amount plus costs.

In this case, it is the only penalty allowed in law for the offence. But I think you could show reasonable doubt as to having committed it.

Really I was just using this as an example to start a discussion as to how we seem to be losing touch as a nation with our legal framework, due process and proportionality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this case, it is the only penalty allowed in law for the offence. But I think you could show reasonable doubt as to having committed it.

Really I was just using this as an example to start a discussion as to how we seem to be losing touch as a nation with our legal framework, due process and proportionality.

The fines started low and weren't a deterrent so had to go higher. The only other option is prison.

We really need people not to do stuff like this; it's genuinely a matter of life and death.

 

[trebor79]

The fines started low and weren't a deterrent so had to go higher. The only other option is prison.

We really need people not to do stuff like this; it's genuinely a matter of life and death.

I think you've just exemplified my concern about the direction we're heading in.
By all means have heavy penalties, but crimes attracting such penalties need to be dealt with using the court system, with its checks and balances.
It's not right to dish out £10k fines like this.
Would you be happy for people to be thrown in prison without due process too?

 

[trainophile]

I notice the mask announcements on some trains (I'm thinking Avanti) now warn of "up to £3,200" fines - without adding that that would be after numerous previous offences.

And we wonder why people are staying at home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you've just exemplified my concern about the direction we're heading in.
By all means have heavy penalties, but crimes attracting such penalties need to be dealt with using the court system, with its checks and balances.
It's not right to dish out £10k fines like this.
Would you be happy for people to be thrown in prison without due process too?

You can still have your day in Court if you prefer. FPNs are quite an efficient system if you know you did do it; it's essentially just a simpler way of pleading guilty. So no, I wouldn't oppose them being used in other contexts provided the absolute right to decline them and be processed in Court remains. Indeed, by reducing the load on Courts, it might produce a better system than the "production line" that is presently the magistrate system.

Accepting a FPN isn't really much different to pleading guilty by post, really.

Do you have a problem with their use for road traffic offences, out of interest?

 

[yorkie]

I find the posts by @Bletchleyite to be too irritating to reply to, but to answer everyone else: yes I find it extremely worrying.

 

[DB]

You can still have your day in Court if you prefer. FPNs are quite an efficient system if you know you did do it; it's essentially just a simpler way of pleading guilty. So no, I wouldn't oppose them being used in other contexts provided the absolute right to decline them and be processed in Court remains. Indeed, by reducing the load on Courts, it might produce a better system than the "production line" that is presently the magistrate system.

Accepting a FPN isn't really much different to pleading guilty by post, really.

Do you have a problem with their use for road traffic offences, out of interest?

FPNs are reasonable provided they are used as intended - namely for minor offences, with a relatively minor fine. It is completely inappropriate to use them for fines of ten grand.

In this case, it is the only penalty allowed in law for the offence. But I think you could show reasonable doubt as to having committed it.

Really I was just using this as an example to start a discussion as to how we seem to be losing touch as a nation with our legal framework, due process and proportionality.

I haven't read the latest iteration of the statutory instrument (which gets more of a mess with each change), but what options does the court have? Is it either 10k fine or acquittal? Can they impose any lesser penalty?

 

[Yew]

We really need people not to do stuff like this; it's genuinely a matter of life and death.

I'd appreciate if you refrained from unsubstantiated hyperbole.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes that's my view. They were right to be fined, but £100 or £200 would have been appropriate. Some of my friends also seemed to think it "serves them right" that they've been expelled from university in their third year and will not graduate.
I wonder how the university found out? Would the police have informed them? What legal basis would that have been done on?

Yes, I wasn't aware that they'd been expelled from university without graduating. That's particularly disgusting, over and above a draconian legal punishment.

The university needs to be brought before whatever regulatory body there is. I look forward to seeing a 'rough justice' type documentary in the near future.

 

[trebor79]

Accepting a FPN isn't really much different to pleading guilty by post, really.

Do you have a problem with their use for road traffic offences, out of interest?

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, everything should be dealt with by FPN, even murder.
No, I have no problem with their use for minor traffic and other offences, as they were intended.
I have a massive problem with them being used to slap enormous fines on pretty harmless activities simply because Hancock decided on scant evidence the other day that it might be a good idea outlaw normal activities.
And no, it's not life and death. They would infect only each other and they aren't at risk. The argument that they might then infect granny is whataboutery.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, everything should be dealt with by FPN, even murder.

If there was one financial penalty for murder then I wouldn't see an issue with it, but murder is too complex an offence for that, and prison sentences are too complex to issue in that way as well.

Effectively, if the offence is simple enough for the penalty to be one level and financial only, then it would probably work. The actual sum is less important.

And as I said, you can always decline it and go to Court. I wouldn't be as in favour if you couldn't. Accepting one is really little different from pleading guilty by post with a fair whack less cost, both to the guilty party and to the system. If you don't wish to plead guilty, request a Court hearing and plead not guilty.

 

[DB]

Out of interest, anyone know what the highest FPN level was before this situation? Clearly nothing approaching ten grand.

 

[yorksrob]

If there was one financial penalty for murder then I wouldn't see an issue with it, but murder is too complex an offence for that, and prison sentences are too complex to issue in that way as well.

Effectively, if the offence is simple enough for the penalty to be one level and financial only, then it would probably work. The actual sum is less important.

And as I said, you can always decline it and go to Court. I wouldn't be as in favour if you couldn't. Accepting one is really little different from pleading guilty by post with a fair whack less cost, both to the guilty party and to the system. If you don't wish to plead guilty, request a Court hearing and plead not guilty.

I think there's something quite dubious about imposing an unjustifiably harsh punishment on the basis that the recipient 'ought to contest it anyway'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think there's something quite dubious about imposing an unjustifiably harsh punishment on the basis that the recipient 'ought to contest it anyway'.

Well, not really. They should only contest it if they believe they are not guilty of the offence. If they are, clearly they should take their punishment, just the same as if it were doled out by a Court.

The question of what the penalty for that offence is is a totally separate one; I believe someone pointed out above that there is just one penalty for this offence so a Court can't reduce it, it would only decide on the question of guilt.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, not really. They should only contest it if they believe they are not guilty of the offence. If they are, clearly they should take their punishment, just the same as if it were doled out by a Court.

The question of what the penalty for that offence is is a totally separate one; I believe someone pointed out above that there is just one penalty for this offence so a Court can't reduce it, it would only decide on the question of guilt.

Obviously such a punishment is going to lay more heavily on someone without the means to contest it, so justice can only be served by a proportionate punishment being imposed in the first place.

 

[trebor79]

Plus a court can issue a suspended sentence, which would have been more appropriate in this case.

 

[DB]

Well, not really. They should only contest it if they believe they are not guilty of the offence. If they are, clearly they should take their punishment, just the same as if it were doled out by a Court.

The question of what the penalty for that offence is is a totally separate one; I believe someone pointed out above that there is just one penalty for this offence so a Court can't reduce it, it would only decide on the question of guilt.

It doesn't bother you at all then that the punishment is completely disproportionate to the "crime"?

Plus a court can issue a suspended sentence, which would have been more appropriate in this case.

Only if it's imprisonable, I believe - which this isn't.

 

[kez19]

The fines started low and weren't a deterrent so had to go higher. The only other option is prison.

We really need people not to do stuff like this; it's genuinely a matter of life and death.

So in other words for the sake of it, innocent people are thrown in prison over this over an offence but yes lets dole out the harshest of fines to them, like I have said on numerous threads its a bit ironic that you can fine people 4 grand over a party but yet a politician sleep walk onto a train and nothing happens? (as I have also mentioned before ... I see a pattern here!)

So lets say they pay the 4 grand where is this money going too? I wouldn't mind knowing this as clearly none of the MP's do from Boris to Sturgeon, quick to come up with fining people but don't say what will happen with the money!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So lets say they pay the 4 grand where is this money going too? I wouldn't mind knowing this as clearly none of the MP's do from Boris to Sturgeon, quick to come up with fining people but don't say what will happen with the money!

Court fines just go into the public purse, don't they? Which is no bad thing; it means at least some of the judicial system's huge cost is funded by, er, its "customers".

 

[bramling]

This news report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-54643652 prompted a Facebook discussion between me and some of my old uni mates.

It's just round the corner from when we used to live whilst at uni. I made a comment "welcome to the police state" when it was posted on Facebook. "But they broke the law". Well yes they did, but £10k summary fines are an egregious abuse of the Fixed Penalty system, which has not right of appeal. I also pointed out that presumably the four people fined are the four residents, and I would be very surprised if the police had collected evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that all four had been "organisers". I can see this going to court and at least three of them getting off, probably all of them.
Then someone said:
"But the police are duty bound to enforce the law made by a democratically elected parliament". Which prompted me to muse that the government is using an enabling act to create law without any checks and balances, and that much the same could have been said of the police in Nazi Germany, certainly up to 1933.

What's next? We've already seen fines increased dramatically. Where does it stop? Who's to say the next stop isn't 30 days in the clink with no right of appeal just because a police constable thinks you've broken a law made up on the hoof yesterday?

What if the government decides all this criticism of it's policies is reducing compliance, and therefore damaging public health. Might they outlaw public criticism of their COVID policies, using "emergency" legislation?

Am I the only person worried that we are slowly sliding further into an authoritarian state that could be difficult to extricate ourselves from?

No you’re not the only one by any means.