Victim surcharge 2022
Discussion
Another tax on motorists. I haven't seen any media nonsense about this, yet.
For offences from 16 June 2022, the so-called victim surcharge will increase from 10% to 40% of the fine. Upper limit raised to £2k! This will affect all motorists prosecuted and convicted of speeding, drink driving, etc.
Old scheme: Fine £750 for speeding. Surcharge £75. £110 Prosecution costs order. £935 total
New scheme: Fine £750 for speeding. Surcharge £300. £110 Prosecution costs order. £1160 total
It will affect thousands of people convicted without reference to their means. In which case, they are deemed to earn £440 net per week. E.g. If convicted in absence of failing to give driver information then:
Old scheme. Fined £660. Surcharge £66. Prosecution costs £110. Total £836
New scheme. Fined £660. Surcharge £264. Prosecution costs £110. Total £1034
The Sentencing Act 2020 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/584/conte...
For offences from 16 June 2022, the so-called victim surcharge will increase from 10% to 40% of the fine. Upper limit raised to £2k! This will affect all motorists prosecuted and convicted of speeding, drink driving, etc.
Old scheme: Fine £750 for speeding. Surcharge £75. £110 Prosecution costs order. £935 total
New scheme: Fine £750 for speeding. Surcharge £300. £110 Prosecution costs order. £1160 total
It will affect thousands of people convicted without reference to their means. In which case, they are deemed to earn £440 net per week. E.g. If convicted in absence of failing to give driver information then:
Old scheme. Fined £660. Surcharge £66. Prosecution costs £110. Total £836
New scheme. Fined £660. Surcharge £264. Prosecution costs £110. Total £1034
The Sentencing Act 2020 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/584/conte...
Bloomin' inflation again.
So what exactly is the victim surcharge used for? There is just this wooly wording about it but nothing concrete about how it is really used.
8) The Surcharge is a charge imposed on offenders by the court with the purpose of ensuring that offenders hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses
We got naff all support when carers robbed the house.
Is the fixed penalty of £100 going up as a result of this?
So what exactly is the victim surcharge used for? There is just this wooly wording about it but nothing concrete about how it is really used.
8) The Surcharge is a charge imposed on offenders by the court with the purpose of ensuring that offenders hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses
We got naff all support when carers robbed the house.
Is the fixed penalty of £100 going up as a result of this?
Durzel said:
Could just accept the fixed penalty or awareness course instead. Problem solved?
In the vast majority of cases I deal with, a choice of course or fixed penalty were not options open to the defendant. The problem could not therefore be 'solved' with your ingenious suggestion.I was checking out a local paper and perused the Courts page.
One entry: Matthew aged 31, drove whilst over the drink drive limit. Fined £400. To pay compensation of £800. Disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence for 40 months.
No mention of Victim Surcharge or Costs - but local paper so could be miss-reported - but compensation of £800?
Would that likely be actual compensation, say, damaged property?
I'm guessing not first tango with court from 40 month ban.
One entry: Matthew aged 31, drove whilst over the drink drive limit. Fined £400. To pay compensation of £800. Disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence for 40 months.
No mention of Victim Surcharge or Costs - but local paper so could be miss-reported - but compensation of £800?
Would that likely be actual compensation, say, damaged property?
I'm guessing not first tango with court from 40 month ban.
agtlaw said:
Another tax on motorists. I haven't seen any media nonsense about this, yet.
It's no more a tax on motorists than a fine for shoplifting is a tax on shoppers.It's a penalty on motorists who break the law sufficiently to warrant more than a fixed penalty. Barring the odd exception then it's a matter of choice and easily avoidable
The fines for motoring offences seem so unjust compared to crimes. The government can increase fines, taxes etc etc on motoring and nothing is ever done about it. We just sit back and moan a little. Driving is now more of a necessity now than fun which I suppose is the big plan.
Get less of a fine for shoplifting or something, than an innocent simple mistake in a car.
We all know if we didn’t speed, etc we’d be fine but those innocent mistakes of turning onto a road we shouldn’t, bus lane infringement etc the fines are ridiculous.
Get less of a fine for shoplifting or something, than an innocent simple mistake in a car.
We all know if we didn’t speed, etc we’d be fine but those innocent mistakes of turning onto a road we shouldn’t, bus lane infringement etc the fines are ridiculous.
The “innocent simple mistake” punishment is unchanged, you get a fixed penalty or an awareness course and that’s the end of the matter.
It’s only people who play silly buggers with S172 nominations or do something egregious enough to actually justify the costs of paying the OP and those in his line of work who are affected, really. Pepipoo pretty much always say that paying for a solicitor for a motoring offence is a waste unless you are certain you are innocent and/or are mounting a technical defence.
So, yeah, I’m not convinced the OP is representing your average driver caught doing 40 in a 30, or that your average driver would get caught up in this, unless - as said - they play silly buggers with conditional nominations, ignore forms thinking it’ll just go away, etc. The instance of someone’s uncle abandoning a SAC because they couldn’t source and test a cheap headset in the month or more time you have to prepare for a course is imo an outlier.
Courts also have discretion to offer the equivalent of a fixed penalty, with no costs, in situations where the recipient was disadvantaged by something outside their control - so that’s covered to.
But yeah, “tax on motorists” works too, I guess, if you’re not impartial.
It’s only people who play silly buggers with S172 nominations or do something egregious enough to actually justify the costs of paying the OP and those in his line of work who are affected, really. Pepipoo pretty much always say that paying for a solicitor for a motoring offence is a waste unless you are certain you are innocent and/or are mounting a technical defence.
So, yeah, I’m not convinced the OP is representing your average driver caught doing 40 in a 30, or that your average driver would get caught up in this, unless - as said - they play silly buggers with conditional nominations, ignore forms thinking it’ll just go away, etc. The instance of someone’s uncle abandoning a SAC because they couldn’t source and test a cheap headset in the month or more time you have to prepare for a course is imo an outlier.
Courts also have discretion to offer the equivalent of a fixed penalty, with no costs, in situations where the recipient was disadvantaged by something outside their control - so that’s covered to.
But yeah, “tax on motorists” works too, I guess, if you’re not impartial.
Durzel said:
The “innocent simple mistake” punishment is unchanged, you get a fixed penalty or an awareness course and that’s the end of the matter.
It’s only people who play silly buggers with S172 nominations or do something egregious enough to actually justify the costs of paying the OP and those in his line of work who are affected, really. Pepipoo pretty much always say that paying for a solicitor for a motoring offence is a waste unless you are certain you are innocent and/or are mounting a technical defence.
So, yeah, I’m not convinced the OP is representing your average driver caught doing 40 in a 30, or that your average driver would get caught up in this, unless - as said - they play silly buggers with conditional nominations, ignore forms thinking it’ll just go away, etc. The instance of someone’s uncle abandoning a SAC because they couldn’t source and test a cheap headset in the month or more time you have to prepare for a course is imo an outlier.
Courts also have discretion to offer the equivalent of a fixed penalty, with no costs, in situations where the recipient was disadvantaged by something outside their control - so that’s covered to.
But yeah, “tax on motorists” works too, I guess, if you’re not impartial.
Pepipoo = fools taking advice from other fools. I bet you’re a regular.It’s only people who play silly buggers with S172 nominations or do something egregious enough to actually justify the costs of paying the OP and those in his line of work who are affected, really. Pepipoo pretty much always say that paying for a solicitor for a motoring offence is a waste unless you are certain you are innocent and/or are mounting a technical defence.
So, yeah, I’m not convinced the OP is representing your average driver caught doing 40 in a 30, or that your average driver would get caught up in this, unless - as said - they play silly buggers with conditional nominations, ignore forms thinking it’ll just go away, etc. The instance of someone’s uncle abandoning a SAC because they couldn’t source and test a cheap headset in the month or more time you have to prepare for a course is imo an outlier.
Courts also have discretion to offer the equivalent of a fixed penalty, with no costs, in situations where the recipient was disadvantaged by something outside their control - so that’s covered to.
But yeah, “tax on motorists” works too, I guess, if you’re not impartial.
Actually I’m only a very casual viewer. Rarely if ever participate, but interesting to read the advice given, and as said a common response is that paying for legal representation for cases where you’re pretty much guilty is a waste of money.
Not sure why it’s your Instinct to attack people.. “i bet you’re XYZ” and sarcy comments about comments being “ingenious” seems beneath you. But I’ll understand if PH is where you let off steam.
Not sure why it’s your Instinct to attack people.. “i bet you’re XYZ” and sarcy comments about comments being “ingenious” seems beneath you. But I’ll understand if PH is where you let off steam.
Durzel said:
Actually I’m only a very casual viewer. Rarely if ever participate, but interesting to read the advice given, and as said a common response is that paying for legal representation for cases where you’re pretty much guilty is a waste of money.
.
Exactly the kind of stupid ‘advice’ I would expect to see on that forum. .
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff