Safe Speed Forums

Motorists fined by the courts will be forced to pay an extra £15 surcharge to compensate for "victims of crime"

The schem will later be expanded to include drivers who are not taken to court but who choose to accept the fixed penalty notices for "breaking a speed limit

Driving groups last night responded angrily to this scheme stating it was yet another attack on motorists

Edmund King of the RAC says:

"It does not seem fair that someone who has killed or murdered or robbed should pay the same surcharge as someone who - at 1 a.m. with nobody else around has gone 5 miles over a speed limit.

There is no such thing as a "victimless crime" We deal each year with hundreds who are bereaved as a result of road accidents

The surcharge scheme which comes into force next month across England and Wales covers not only driving offences, but any offence punishable by a court fine. It was originally intended that those guilty of violent offences would pay more

But court computers were unable to cope with the complexities of a sliding scale - so a flat rate of £15 will be levied

The cash raised is initially expected to raist at least £16 MILLION in its first year .. and will be used for victim support and counselling

A magistrate is facing the sack after refusing to impose the controversial £15 victim's surcharge on a minor offender's court fine because it is 'morally wrong'.

The Government has ordered the charge must be imposed on any person who receives a court fine, including motorists caught speeding.

But it has attracted huge criticism because it does not apply to more serious criminals - such as rapists and murderers - who are punished with a jail sentence.

In the first known case of its kind, Ely magistrates refused to impose the charge on a teenager caught with a small amount of cannabis.

The senior magistrate, Alan Williams, said: 'Magistrates were not informed directly of the introduction of the surcharge.

"The court on this occasion is not going to impose the £15 surcharge. We do so in the full knowledge of the advice given. We know that the bench will be reported to the Clerk of the Justices.

"We feel the surcharge is morally wrong and may be in contravention of aspects of law. This is the decision of this bench alone - it is not the policy of the East Cambridgeshire bench."

Mr Williams added the bench would not impose the surcharge in any other relevant cases coming before them that day.

He is now facing possible disciplinary action. The Judicial Communications Office (JCO), which reports to the Lord Chief Justice, said there was a duty to impose the charge and that the chairman of the East Cambridgeshire bench had already asked Mr Williams for an explanation.

A spokesman added that Mr Williams could be removed as a magistrate, depending on the result of investigations.

The JCO said: "To refuse to obey or enforce any relevant law would be incompatible with holding judicial office.

"It would be a matter for the local advisory committee to consider whether to refer the magistrates to the Office for Judicial Complaints."

The Government has been threatening to impose the surcharge on offenders for more than three years.

But, when it was finally introduced earlier this month, there was surprise it will apply only to people fined by the courts.

Criminals given any other punishment will escape. It means crimes which have an obvious victim - such as rape - will not be subject to the £15 surcharge.

But a contested speeding ticket, where nobody has been hurt, will carry the penalty.

To add to the controversy, the initial money raised will go directly to victims but instead will be spent on appointing domestic violence experts.

Motoring groups said it was 'perverse' to make drivers fund a service which should be paid for by people who physically abuse their partner.

The surcharge will eventually be added to all on-the-spot fines - including tickets for speeding and using a mobile phone while driving.

In the hope of averting a backlash, motorists will be spared the first time they are trapped by a speed camera as long as they do not challenge the offence in court.

But if they pick up a second ticket, they will be ranked as a 'serious and persistent offender' and hit in the pocket.

Before Mr Williams's statement to the Ely court, Raymond Cole had pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis.

A police officer had found Cole parked in a layby with friends on the old A10 in Littleport and discovered a small quantity of cannabis when he searched the car, the court heard.

Cole, of Littleport, was ordered to pay a fine of £150, plus costs of £43.

In the hope of averting a backlash, motorists will be spared the first time they are trapped by a speed camera as long as they do not challenge the offence in court.

But if they pick up a second ticket, they will be ranked as a 'serious and persistent offender' and hit in the pocket.

Oh yes, we got charged for storage too, though admittedly only because we couldn't arrange for the car to be removed the very same day that the police had finished with it.

I have a very powerful urge to scream very loudly at somebody, right now.

Where did it all go so wrong? When I was a child, I never believed that the police could ever be my enemy.

The £15 surcharge doesn't only apply to motoring offences. It applies to ALL offenders punished by way of a fine.

It applies to ALL offenders punished by way of a fine.

so a murderer , rapist and motorist or a multi million pound armed robber are all equal