LETTER: Imprisoned for poverty

THE magistrate who wrote to you last week gave a somewhat idealised version of the process by which fine defaulters end up in prison (Letters, 11 February). In fact courts differ significantly in the levels of fine they impose and the efficiency of fine enforcement.

He was on much stronger ground in arguing for community service. Its use as a sanction for fine default was a central element in the thinking of the advisory council that proposed community service orders in 1970. Indeed, the substitution of a community service order for a fine is provided for under a never-implemented section of the Criminal Justice Act 1972.

Since 1992, when unit fines were abandoned - a system under which the value of the fine was directly related to the offender's ability to pay - the numbers of fine defaulters ending up in prison has increased markedly. Although doubtless some of these people have wilfully refused to pay, most have in effect been imprisoned for poverty.

Stephen Shaw

Prison Reform Trust

London EC1