Letter: Insulation against the justice system

Sir: The Government's attempt to distribute fairly the impact of court fines on defendants with diverse

incomes has produced some odd sentences, as your reports (4 May)

illustrate.

Some opponents of the 'unit fine' system, including magistrates, have taken the opportunity, while the arithmetical structure of the current system is under debate, to dissent from the principle of differential fining. It has been said that the policy is inimical to the hallowed British doctrine of equality before the law, that justice is blind to the personal characteristics of all citizens, and that there should be a standard punishment for each offence irrespective of the offender's status.

That view is highly questionable in two respects. First, the doctrine of 'equality before the law' is itself scarcely manifest in practice. In the criminal jurisdiction the system of policing and prosecution is largely focused on working-class offenders, and even when directed elsewhere, is often faced with defendants who can afford a quality of researched defence argument beyond the means of most of the accused in magistrates' courts.

In civil law, the recent exclusion of more than 10 million people from the legal aid system adds poignancy to the old observation of Mr Justice Darling that 'the law courts of England are open to all men, like the doors of the Ritz Hotel'.

Second, the law frequently does take account of the defendant's status in regard to his or her age, state of mind, medical condition and several possible extrinsic factors, such as whether he or she was under duress.

It would seem perverse to allow wealthier citizens to cushion themselves against the impact of the law: but then, if wealthier people are able to insulate themselves better than poor people against insurable loss, cold weather, being harmed in a car crash, and so on, then why not against the criminal justice system?

Yours faithfully,

GARY SLAPPER

The Law School

Staffordshire University

Stoke-on-Trent

4 May