§ Mr. BurnettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on custodial sentences for fine defaulters. [25986]
§ Mr. MichaelA court judgment (Cawley in 1995) has made it clear that the power to imprison fine defaulters should be used only as a last resort. Before imprisoning a fine defaulter, the court must be satisfied that the default is due to the offender's wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay and it must have tried or considered all other methods of enforcing payment before rejecting them as inappropriate or unsuccessful.
It must be remembered that, in some cases, the imminence of a short prison sentence leads to the payment of fines which have been outstanding for some time, during which the offender has made no effort to pay them. However, prison is an expensive option and we are keen to explore other options for dealing effectively with defaulters. That is why we are currently piloting provisions contained in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 which allow courts to impose community service orders, curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring, or a disqualification from driving on fine defaulters who might otherwise be committed to custody. These pilots began on 2 January in Norfolk and Manchester and will run for 18 months.
The Working Group on the Enforcement of Financial Penalties chaired by the Lord Chancellor's Department also continues to identify and promote good practice in the enforcement of financial penalties. This Group's objective is to find ways of enabling the courts to enforce payment of financial penalties more effectively without resorting to imprisonment unless this is absolutely unavoidable.
The measures which have been taken to encourage good practice have resulted in a decrease in the number of people being sent to prison for fine default from a high of 22,469 in 1994 to 8,555 in 1996.