Close

The Impact of Court Fines on People on Low Incomes

This report examines the impact of court fines on people with low incomes in England and Wales. The research, conducted by the Centre for Justice Innovation, includes interviews with people on low incomes who received court fines, analysis of Citizens Advice client data, and focus groups with magistrates. Fines account for over 75 percent of criminal convictions, and the research demonstrates that for people on low incomes, fines create disproportionate hardship that can push them into debt, worsen mental health, and potentially increase reoffending. 

The interviews revealed that many participants often chose between paying their fine and meeting basic needs like food and utilities. Those who couldn’t afford lump sum payments often faced unaffordable monthly installments, sometimes set through rushed, superficial assessments of their finances. Some participants deliberately overstated their ability to pay, believing it would help them avoid prison, only to find themselves with payment plans they knew they could not meet.

Magistrate focus groups revealed both the limitations of the system and their own concerns about its effectiveness. As one magistrate explained, they would fine someone on low income due to a lack of practical alternatives. 

You can read the full text here.

Key Findings

  • Many offenses leading to fines are strongly linked to poverty (rail fare evasion, failure to pay vehicle insurance).
  • People with fine debts are twice as likely to live in social housing and nearly twice as likely to be unemployed compared to other Citizens Advice clients.
  • People with offences described living in constant fear of bailiffs, with many borrowing from family or going into debt to avoid having possessions seized. Some participants described feeling “unfairly treated” and believed they were “being penalised more than a wealthier person would be for the same offence.”
  • There was majority consensus amongst magistrates that fines do not act as a deterrent against further offending. Magistrates felt those with means to pay would not be deterred, while those on low incomes often could not pay at all. One magistrate worried people charged with or convicted of an offence might reoffend in order to afford living expenses and payment plans.

Recommendations

  • Create a flexible, income-responsive ability-to-pay framework that places affordability at the center. 
  • Replace the current approach to collecting financial information with a more robust approach that is consistent with established practice in the financial advice sector. 
  • Improve the fines office system to be more accessible, helpful, and flexible. This might involve creating a proper customer support system to help people overcome payment barriers.
  • Currently, court summons or bailiff action are often triggered after missing just one or two payments. Rather than respond to non-payment with immediate enforcement action, courts should first respond with a problem-solving approach. 
  • Explore alternative arrangements to payment for people who cannot afford to pay any amount. 
  • Systematically collect and analyze socioeconomic data on fine recipients.
Lucy Slade and Stephen Whitehead
Centre for Justice Innovation
Close