Abstract

The fine is the most common penalty imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction in Australia, and fines imposed by way of penalty notice or infringement notice are a multiple of those imposed by the courts. The latter are being used for an increasing range of offences. This progressive ‘monetization of justice’ (O’Malley) and its effects have passed largely unnoticed. The enforcement of fines has, in most parts of Australia, been passed from the justice system to government revenue agencies with barely any public scrutiny or academic analysis. Sentencing councils, law reform commissions and audit and ombudsman offices have completed inquiries on fines, some of them wide-ranging and highly critical of existing arrangements. Yet, these inquiries arouse little public or media interest and, partly in consequence, there has been little political will to tackle fundamental problems as distinct from tinkering at the margins. After surveying the theoretical literature on the role of the fine, this paper considers the neglected question of fines enforcement. We present three case studies from different Australian jurisdictions to highlight issues associated with different models of enforcement. We show that fines enforcement produces very real, but often hidden, hardships for the most vulnerable. Despite its familiarity and apparent simplicity and transparency, the fine is a mode of punishment that hides complex penal and social realities and effects.
 

Highlights

  • The fine is the most common penalty imposed by criminal courts in Australia and most other high‐income countries, with the notable exception of the United States of America (USA) (Faraldo‐ Cabana 2017; O’Malley 2009a)

  • Where mandatory sentencing regimes are highly controversial, it is overlooked that fines imposed under administrative fixed penalty regimes, are mandated punishments that take no account of the circumstances of the offence or the financial means of the offender, in addition to denying the Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com individual traditional procedural safeguards like the presumption of innocence and a court hearing

  • Since 9 March 2009, there has been a separate offence of drive while licence is suspended/cancelled due to non‐payment of fines under the Road Transport Act (NSW) s 54,18 which enables us to track the number of such offences and convictions, and the penalties imposed for this particular offence

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The fine is the most common penalty imposed by criminal courts in Australia and most other high‐income countries, with the notable exception of the United States of America (USA) (Faraldo‐ Cabana 2017; O’Malley 2009a). Sentencing councils, law reform commissions, and audit and ombudsman offices have completed inquiries on fines, some of them wide‐ranging and highly critical of existing arrangements (see, for example, Audit Office of NSW 2002; NSW Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) 2012; NSW Ombudsman 2009; NSW Sentencing Council 2006; Sentencing Advisory Council, Victoria 2014) These inquiries arouse little public or media interest and, partly in consequence, there has been no political will to tackle fundamental problems as distinct from tinkering at the margins. Innovative measures, procedures and sanctions have been introduced in response to long‐standing problems of default and low recovery rates These processes can be highly consequential for some people. The second part considers enforcement issues in detail by way of three case studies looking at different Australian jurisdictions

PART 1: Attractions of the fine
PART 2
Conclusion
Findings
11 For example
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call