Executive summary

A large number of the offences for which court fines are imposed are strongly linked to people’s pre-existing poverty, such as TV licence evasion; 

Many of the 56 people we interviewed, on low incomes and who have been sentenced to fines, reported that the financial burdens placed on them by the court had pushed them further into debt, with some pushed into destitution and into further offending to pay off the court fine; 

For some, the financial burdens took a severe toll on their mental and physical health, particularly where they faced prolonged payment periods in a never-ending cycle of payments;

While fine amounts are meant to be determined by an individual’s financial circumstances, we heard a range of experiences in relation to how that is currently being assessed, with some people not recalling being asked about their circumstances at all and others finding the process confusing and intimidating, prompting some to over-estimate the amount they could reasonably pay; 

The imposition of other non means-tested financial charges alongside the fine, such as prosecution costs, often pushed the total amount owed to the court up from something affordable to an amount that felt impossible to pay in the time allowed; 

Court fine enforcement action (which is subject to less regulation than commercial credit recovery), particularly the threat of bailiffs, added further financial and wellbeing strains, especially for those already struggling to make insufficient household budgets last; 

Our workshops with magistrates suggested that they often felt their hands were tied, leaving them to sentence people on low incomes to fines, the magistrates knew they could not pay. Many of the issues raised in our interviews, especially around how the court assesses people’s financial circumstances, were frustrating to magistrates too; 

Many of the people we spoke to felt that a fine was, in theory, an appropriate punishment for the offence they committed, but the confusing processes of the current system often meant that the total amount they eventually needed to pay was seen as excessive The Sentencing Council suggests that fines should have an “equal impact on offenders with different financial circumstances". Our research strongly suggests that this is clearly not the case. The disproportionate impacts felt by the most vulnerable can leave them feeling unfairly treated. This runs the risk of undermining the legitimacy of the justice system. 

Our research also found that, at a national level, there are major gaps in the data collected, especially on the socio-economic status of those who are fined, meaning there is no clear picture of who gets fined, who pays and who doesn’t (and why). Our unique quantitative analysis of Citizens Advice client data, however, suggests that people with criminal court fine debts are twice as likely to report living in social housing and nearly twice as likely to be unemployed than other client groups, strongly indicating that people who receive fines are often in our most economically vulnerable communities.

Key findings

A large number of the offences for which court fines are imposed are strongly linked to people’s pre-existing poverty, such as TV licence evasion;

Many reported that the financial burdens placed on them by the court had pushed them further into debt, with some pushed into destitution and into further offending to pay off the court fine;

For some, the financial burdens took a severe toll on their mental and physical health, particularly where they faced prolonged payment periods in a never-ending cycle of payments;

Magistrates suggested that they often felt their hands were tied, leaving them to sentence people on low incomes to fines, the magistrates knew they could not pay. Many of the issues raised in our interviews, especially around how the court assesses people’s financial circumstances, were frustrating to magistrates too