Is carrying drugs more acceptable than failing to pay TV licence?

7:49pm Thursday 2nd August 2007

Comments (1)   Have your say »

WHAT'S stopping me from going to the local supermarket and nicking some wine? Or from bashing up someone just for kicks?

Well, not the criminal justice system, as far as I can see.

Because it's a system which seems to be soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime - unless you happen to break the law in a car.

My own morality and my upbringing wouldn't, of course, allow me to steal booze or attack someone, so you need have no fear about me going on the rampage this weekend in High Wycombe High Street.

Where I might come unstuck is in my motor. Even though I drive like a snail on valium, it's difficult to avoid being clobbered by one of the many speed cameras that line our roads.

However, my criminal career almost went off in an entirely different direction this week when I nearly forgot to pay my TV licence bill. I only remembered a day before the absurd fee was due, and coughed up the £135.50 just in time.

My close shave with the law left me wondering what would have happened if I hadn't paid.

So I did a bit of research and turned to the court pages of the Bucks Free Press where I found a raft of High Wycombe citizens falling foul of magistrates in April for failing to have a TV licence.

The JPs were consistent with their punishment. A fine of £210 with £60 costs seemed fairly standard. A couple of people escaped with £130 penalties, but you could tell from the list the court took a dim view of the crime.

Fair enough, I suppose. People shouldn't break the law, even if it is only in regard to licensing a piece of electronic equipment.

Hey, but hang on a moment. Let's take a look at what happened to other defendants on that same list. If you're fined £210 for failing to have a TV licence, then surely you'll have the book thrown at you for other more serious crimes.

Er no. Here's a selection of penalties on that same court list: l Theft - fined £120, compensation £120, costs £43; l Assault - conditional discharge for 12 months, compensation £75, costs £200; l Receiving stolen goods - community order issued, costs £60; l Assault - fined £150, compensation £50, costs £87; l Assault - fined £150, compensation £100, costs £60; l Possession of class A drugs - community order issued, 60 hours unpaid work, costs £455; l Criminal damage - fined £50, compensation £10; l Theft - community order issued, costs £30; l Possession of cannabis - fined £100, costs £20.

Now, this is only a small selection and there were others on the list who were jailed for these type of crimes - although mostly the sentences were then suspended.

And I do appreciate it would be wrong to just blame our magistrates for this.

There are sentencing guidelines in place, and the courts also have to weigh up a complex variety of factors. In some cases, there is very good mitigation and it would be wrong to penalise defendants any further.

Very often, they just don't have the funds to pay any more and it would not be in the interests of justice to bankrupt or to jail them.

We know all this, and I'm not suggesting we revert to a system which hangs small children for stealing a loaf of bread.

But something has to be seriously wrong when failing to pay the BBC an inflated charge is viewed as a more serious crime in terms of fines than possessing a spliff or assaulting someone or stealing.

The reason is obvious. Home-owning TV watchers can afford it. Motorists can too. And they will pay up because they have no choice. On the other hand, the type of folk who steal from supermarkets or brawl in the streets very often don't have a penny to their name, and a fine or prison sentence would be meaningless.

It makes sense, but it augers very badly for the future of our society. The law-makers have criminalised a huge class of law-abiding people by dragging them into court and bleeding them dry over infringements of the rule-book.

As a result, the children of these new class of "criminals" will lose all respect for the law, because there's no longer a stigma when you're done in court.

So welcome to 21st century Britain. A land where it's more acceptable to be carrying drugs than it is to watch the news without having paid for the right paperwork.