Caught, convicted — and billed by court for surcharge

‘Criminal charges’ takes on new meaning as controversial fines set to become mandatory

Criminal defence attorney Joanne Prince was surprised when her client received a letter from a collection agency, demanding payment of an outstanding $300 court fine for robbery.

One problem: her client doesn’t have a job to pay the fine because he is in jail for that offence.

“He has been sentenced to17 months, so they can chase him down then,” Prince said. “I mean, it’s stupid.”

The money owed is a victim-surcharge fine imposed by the court at sentencing — a rare occurrence, but it soon won’t be.

In the past, the surcharge fee has been waived most of the time, according to anecdotal evidence from lawyers the Star spoke with. But the federal government wants that to stop.

On June 19, Ottawa closed a loophole allowing judges to waive the surcharge for “hardship” reasons and doubled the fines as part of Bill C-37. Now the fines are mandatory: a surcharge of 30 per cent of the fine imposed by the court or $100 for a summary conviction or $200 for an indictable offence.

It is part of Stephen Harper’s tough-oncrime motif and “about holding offenders accountable and increasing the funding available for provinces and territories to deliver services that benefit victims of crime,” according to Paloma Aguilar, press secretary for Peter MacKay, the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.

While the federal government made the law, it’s up to the provinces and territories to collect the fines.

“The Ministry of the Attorney General uses private collection agencies to collect Criminal Code fines and associated victim surcharges once these fines and surcharges have gone into default,” attorney general spokesperson Brendan Crawley said in an email.

In 2008, the province collected $800,000 from the surcharge, which rose to $1.2 million in 2012, according to the attorney general’s office.

Crawley said his office wasn’t able to

“Being harsh on criminals may attract votes but does little to assist the offender with reintegrating into society.” DANIEL BROWN DEFENCE LAWYER

crunch the numbers to figure out how much of the money was outstanding.

The surcharge slush fund is a small portion of the province’s victims’ justice fund, much of it coming from provincial offences such as speeding tickets, which bring in about $44 million annually, Crawley said.

Legal experts said closing this loophole is a misguided attempt by the federal government.

“Let’s be realistic. The majority of criminals are from a lower socio-economic class where waivers was a responsible way of addressing an impoverished situation,” said law professor Alan Young of York University.

The money collected from the surcharge goes to pay for a variety of victim services programs, from courthouse help to victims’ rights groups. (None of the money goes directly to victims of crime. Those are restitution orders and compensation that a court may grant.)

This is just another tax on the poor, said several lawyers the Star contacted.

“The government is spending a lot more money now that they’re going the collection route,” Prince said. “And this comes on top of money taxpayers are spending on incarcerating people.”

Added Young: “I understand everybody wants their money, but you can’t squeeze water out of a stone. There’s only so much you can do on the backs of criminals to fund good programs.”

And this is nothing more than politicking, said defence lawyer Daniel Brown.

“Being harsh on criminals may attract votes but does little to assist the offender with reintegrating into society,” he said.

If the goal is to make criminals contribute to society in a financial way, why not work on rehabilitation and helping them find jobs when they’re out, Prince said.

“How does this help the bottom line for the fiscally conservative?” Prince asked. “Who’s going to pay for it in the end? Taxpayers who’ve never had any criminal involvement. It’s very short-sighted.”

And now offenders face an additional problem: poor credit ratings.

“I am concerned that ruining an offender’s credit score, when they clearly lack an ability to pay harsh sentencing surcharges, will do nothing to ensure they remain out of (the) criminal justice system in the future,” Brown said.