STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL: 12:01AM TUESDAY 23rd JULY
LAW REFORM COMMISSION REPORT URGES INDEXATION OF FINES
- Inflation erodes value of fines -
- Equality of impact of fines considered -
Tuesday, 23 July 2002: A mechanism for updating criminal fines in accordance with the changing value of money should be introduced by legislation as a matter of urgency, according to the Law Reform Commission in a report pulblished today.
The Commission concluded that such legislation is essential to combat the past and future effects of inflation on the value of criminal fines. The maximum fines which can be imposed for particular offences are specified in legislation but their value is eroded over time by inflation. As a result, even where a court imposes a maximum fine, such a fine may not reflect the gravity of the offence in question or the true maximum fine which the legislature had intended. Accordingly, the Commission has commended the enactment of a standard fine system which would maintain the value of fines by reference to a price index.
The Commission made a similar recommendation in a report on the indexation of fines in 1991. In the absence of legislation giving effect to this recommendation, the Commission decided to review developments in this area since 1991. The Commission's review of developments in other jurisdictions provides a significant added impetus to its recommendation: most of the jurisdictions surveyed have enacted legislative measures aimed at combating the erosion by inflation of criminal fine maxima.
The Commission has also made recommendations in relation to the assessment of the amount of fine by a court. In particular, it recommends that reforming legislation should provide that when a court in determining the amount of a fine, it should, in so far as is practicable, have regard to the financial circumstances of the offender and the nature of the burden that payment of a particular fine will impose upon the offender and his or her dependents. The Commission also recommends that a court should have regard to such matters irrespective of whether the effect of so doing would be to increase or to reduce the amount of the fine. The recommendations of the Commission in this regard are based upon the principle of equality of impact. The Commission believes that the imposition of different fines in respect of similar offences in circumstances where the means of the offenders differ is not an aberration, productive of inequality, but, rather, a result that accords entirely with the underlying principle of equal impact upon offenders of different means. However, the Commission emphasises that any such legislative provisions should be without prejudice to the general discretion of the sentencing judge to impose a penalty that is appropriate and just having regard to all of the circumstances of the case.
In summary, the primary recommendations of the Commission in this report are as follows:
(i) A standard fine system based upon the category model proposed by the Commission in its 1991 Report should be introduced by legislation as a matter of urgency.
(ii) The scheme for the indexation of litter fines should be repealed so that the monetary amounts covered by that scheme can be updated within the general indexation of fines framework established in accordance with the foregoing recommendation.
(iii) The reforming legislation should also provide that when a court is determining the amount of a fine, it should, in so far as is practicable have regard to the financial circumstances of the offender and the nature of the burden that payment of a particular fine will impose upon the offender and his dependents; moreover, a court should have regard to such matters irrespective of whether the effect of so doing would be to increase or to reduce the amount of the fine. The relevant provisions of such legislation should be structured in such a way as to convey that they are based upon the principle of equality of impact upon offenders of different means. The said provisions should also be without prejudice to the general discretion of the sentencing judge to impose a penalty that is appropriate and just having regard to all of the circumstances of the case.