Purnell, R (on the application of) v South Western Magistrates' Court

In fine-enforcement proceedings, the court must have reliable information about all outstanding fines, costs and penalties and must conduct a proportionate means inquiry. A payment period must not impose an undue burden or operate as excessive punishment. Where administrative systems are deficient, the court should ask closely about other outstanding liabilities and ensure that the means form clearly seeks that information. If the proposed instalments would take an disproportionate period, the court must consider alternative enforcement, remission where available, or the discharge or reduction of costs. The decision must be quashed where these requirements are not met.

The claimant sought judicial review of a South Western Magistrates’ Court decision made on 19 October 2011 concerning enforcement of fines and related costs. The court ordered payment at £5 per week after accepting that £950 was due, although the claimant’s outstanding liabilities were recorded across several London databases and the true total was materially uncertain.

The issues were whether the enforcement hearing had been conducted unfairly, whether the court had properly ascertained the claimant’s liabilities and means, and whether the payment period was proportionate.

1. Conduct of the hearing. The statutory means inquiry under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, section 82(3)–(4), is not adversarial. The Legal Adviser may ask questions to obtain information needed by the justices, but must remain impartial and must not act as prosecutor. The procedure followed did not breach those requirements, and no criticism was made of the Legal Adviser or magistrates.
2. Outstanding liabilities. The court office should provide an account enquiry report covering outstanding fines, costs and penalties. In the prevailing London system, however, the court could not reliably identify liabilities held on different databases. A defaulter who fails to disclose other outstanding fines cannot generally complain that the court proceeded without that information, although the system’s deficiencies were serious.
3. Proportionality of payment. The period for paying a fine must be proportionate. A large fine payable over a long period by small instalments may be impermissibly burdensome. Applying R v Olliver and Olliver, a payment period exceeding three and a half years for the amount identified by the magistrates was too long on the assumed means; the wider liability would have taken over ten years to discharge.
4. Disposition. The magistrates’ decision was quashed. The matter was remitted for reconsideration on the claimant’s means and the true amount outstanding. The magistrates were directed to consider alternative enforcement, remission under sections 85 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and 165 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and discharge or reduction of costs where payment was unlikely or impractical. Where distress warrants had been issued, the court might be functus officio in respect of the amounts covered by them.

The judgment itself states that leave had been granted by Singh J. The Administrative Court quashed the South Western Magistrates’ Court decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.