Is imprisonment for council tax default unlawful?

[mikeymack2002]

Indeed I have already asked this question a number of posts ago and no one picked it up. As a civil prisoner you can be "bought out early" by paying the sums due, the same as fines, yes the LA can chase you for the remaining debt but cannot ask for you to be jailed a second time for the same debt, the debt would therefore still be outstanding, which then opens up a new can of worms regarding enforcement for the second time?

 

 

Again this question will need to be looked in to due to some being jailed for real and some being jailed with a suspended sentence, please bear in mind that if the debtor is on a suspended sentence then commits the same offence the next year and if the suspended sentence is still active then a breach may occur? As you can clearly see this is most definitely a serious complicated issue of law.... Thoughts please!

[Peterbard]

As said a debtor cannot be jailed for being in debt, prison for debt was abolixhed in the 1869 debtors act.

 

What they can be jailed for is willful refusal to pay, this has to be a criminal offence, which is why the criminal burden of proof has to be applied.

 

If jailed, and it cannot be shown that the debtor was not able to pay, the conviction can, and is usually overturned on criminal appeal, because the imprisonment is a penalty and this is illegal for a civil action, as stated earlier and as happened in the above case.

There is no such thing as a civil prisoner in this country.

[mikeymack2002]

A new question. food for thought here. If next year a defaulter falls foul and is then taken to court for a LO hearing will the new courts charge apply to these new cases?

[Peterbard]

Jail time can be reduced (remission} in criminal action for a number of reasons, and can be a condition of the commitment

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/32-33/62/enacted

An Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, for the punishment of fraudulent debtors, and for other purposes.

 

(2)That such jurisdiction shall only be exercised where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person making default either has or has had since the date of the order or judgment the means to pay the sum in respect of which he has made default, and has refused or neglected, or refuses or neglects, to pay the same.

[brassnecked]

A new question. food for thought here. If next year a defaulter falls foul and is then taken to court for a LO hearing will the new courts charge apply to these new cases?

Technically they might be, but i can see a whole can of worms opening if magistrates add this to each LO.

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/32-33/62/enacted

An Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, for the punishment of fraudulent debtors, and for other purposes.

 

(2)That such jurisdiction shall only be exercised where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person making default either has or has had since the date of the order or judgment the means to pay the sum in respect of which he has made default, and has refused or neglected, or refuses or neglects, to pay the same.

 

Just thought I wold copy this for those who missed it very important piece of legislation,

[Peterbard]

Imprisonment for incomome tax evaision and other criminal debts remain of course.

 

Sorry to burden everyone with common knowledge

[Peterbard]

This is a very important subject,otherwise I would not bother correcting ravings from eswhere

 

Commitment for debt in this country is illegal. Yet people are being imprisoned via the back door

 

Magistrates needed t be held accountable! In that ALL legally required actions are taken before such draconian measures.

[mikeymack2002]

For clarity DB what would the defaulter say to your statement above see here http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/11188/Anti-war-council-tax-dodgers-brush-with-jail

 

 

So the answer to my earlier question was yes you can get out early and no they cannot put you in jail for the same period twice, but to make their point as they have done in this case and will continue to do so is to start on the next defaulted year. Again this could happen for each and every year that has arrears due.

 

 

So yet another precise question is

(A) is the committal warrant civil

(B) criminal

 

 

IF (A) the following may apply considering that it has been stated that the committal is for "contempt of Court" CPR 81.31 or others

 

 

Or if criminal

 

 

Following on from this another question follows and it is this.

 

 

For CTAX only ok are the cases held under CPR/CRIM/ADM (Admiralty) if by any other surely the court should inform the person in the dock under which arm of the law they are being prosecuted?

 

 

Also my other question has been answered YES you can buy yourself out which means you ARE a civil prisoner for debt... in 2015

 

 

Which adds to the fact the penal penalty is coercive and designed to encourage payment for the debt...

 

 

If sent to prison for refusing to pay an order of the court then how does the following help?

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx yet again more chances are given to pay what is due and a suspended sentence given .

 

 

It is only then after this final chance to pay that the committal to prison is activated, even then if in prison you can be bought out.....

 

 

This post is not argumentative but for discussion purposes only...

[mikeymack2002]

Adding a different argument to the pan here which is as follows.

 

 

Debtor receives a LO and still refuses to pay. The LA use the EA who cannot get payment from the defaulter. The LA then make a request for committal to prison (suspended). This is granted. Then the defaulter still does not pay, the courts then activate the suspended sentence for being in breach of it so a win-win for the LA and bench!

 

 

So with this in mind yes the defaulter is a debtor but still in jail in the 21st century... So my argument is thus are you in jail for being in debt that answer is NO you are in jail for breaching a suspended sentence. Please read up on the sentencing guidelines or here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/

[mikeymack2002]

Finally the points regarding culpable neglect and/or refusal are covered here https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx see bullets on page 10

 

 

Or see the attachment.

 

 

What is also worrying about this fact sheet is bullet 6 on page 3

 

 

All in all the attachment is rather informative

[Peterbard]

For clarity DB what would the defaulter say to your statement above see here http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/11188/Anti-war-council-tax-dodgers-brush-with-jail

 

 

So the answer to my earlier question was yes you can get out early and no they cannot put you in jail for the same period twice, but to make their point as they have done in this case and will continue to do so is to start on the next defaulted year. Again this could happen for each and every year that has arrears due.

 

 

So yet another precise question is

(A) is the committal warrant civil

(B) criminal

 

 

IF (A) the following may apply considering that it has been stated that the committal is for "contempt of Court" CPR 81.31 or others

 

 

Or if criminal

 

 

Following on from this another question follows and it is this.

 

 

For CTAX only ok are the cases held under CPR/CRIM/ADM (Admiralty) if by any other surely the court should inform the person in the dock under which arm of the law they are being prosecuted?

 

 

Also my other question has been answered YES you can buy yourself out which means you ARE a civil prisoner for debt... in 2015

 

 

Which adds to the fact the penal penalty is coercive and designed to encourage payment for the debt...

 

 

If sent to prison for refusing to pay an order of the court then how does the following help?

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx yet again more chances are given to pay what is due and a suspended sentence given .

 

 

It is only then after this final chance to pay that the committal to prison is activated, even then if in prison you can be bought out.....

 

 

This post is not argumentative but for discussion purposes only...

 

it has to be a criminal sentence because civil imprisonment for debt is illegal see( earlier legislation), as you rightly point out even someone going to a civil hearing can be jailed for breaching a judgment order the details are in the cpr you mention, i think under contempt as i may have mentioned earlier(I think the 1869 act is mentioned there also). Contempt can of course be repealed sometimes by a simple apology or by obeying the order, the action is said to be coercive in this case

 

 

As for what the debtor would say in your link, I am not sure what you mean. He would have been imprisoned wrongly in my view as he clearly did not have the ability to pay, but that is what this thread is about, it is an injustice which is alive and well within our legal system.

 

It is all about proving that the debtor has or had the ability to pay, it is wrongfully refusing payment which causes the commitment not debt, or at least this should be the case.

 

The means test is not to see if the does not have the money rather. if to enable commitment to find that he has or had.

[Peterbard]

Finally the points regarding culpable neglect and/or refusal are covered here https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx see bullets on page 10

 

 

Or see the attachment.

 

 

What is also worrying about this fact sheet is bullet 6 on page 3

 

 

All in all the attachment is rather informative

 

Yes interesting and supportive of the legislation as it exists, if only the magistrates would follow this. In the case of fines of course , these are criminal matters and can impose criminal sanctions like imprisonment.

[Peterbard]

Sorry just to be clear, when a committal order is applied for it is done so under criminal procedures.

 

See any definition, committal order: )

[Peterbard]

With all due respect with the thanks to elsewhere we are getting held up by discussing single words or terms which are irrelevant to the point of the thread and are mainly to try and catch me in an error, I do not know why this should be and it is very annoying to those of us who want to discuss the important point raised by Rona in post one. (it is also a waste of time, i do not make mistakes regarding fundamental law)

 

Things like wht is criminal or what is not what is coercive or not, is a subject for some thread elsewhere which covers elementary legal concepts.

 

THe point here is that people are being imprisoned without the court following the correct legal procedures, I get the feeling that this subject is being derailed by some who failing to understand the point are picking irrelevancies like this (and spelling ), because they fail to understand the meaning of the post 1.

[mikeymack2002]

Perhaps if someone wants to take the time to find out just how many have been sent down for CT and what rules for this was used. I have no axe to grind or points to make. I can and do make observations to a thread of interest.

 

 

I care not for spelling or use of wrong words, this is due because we all have bad days and/or type a little to fast. I make spelling errors all the time especially when working with a different keyboard. Or if my mind is working a bit to fast or faster than I can type correctly.

 

 

As far as the means hearing the need for a correctly filled out MC100 form is critical and should always be presented to the Court. Whether or not people think this is so wrong could someone please post up any cases that have been appealed and successfully put right? As far as what the Court says about this then are you saying that the Clerk of the Court is giving the bench incorrect information regarding sentencing? If so then there will be several cases in the search bar that can be linked to this of course would be interesting reading to say the least.

 

 

As you are aware anyone can appeal a sentence to the next Court level ultimately ending up in the Supreme Court. Any cases that can be linked to would be appreciated Thanks in advance..

 

 

DB really glad to see you back to the forums and it appears you are doing well.

 

 

Also I thought the level of law required for a Clerk was extremely high?

[mikeymack2002]

Is this a worthwhile read? see below albeit a little old? 2003

[Peterbard]

Anything writen by Mr Murdle is well worth a read IMO, I hadn't seen this.

As you say it would be good to get some upto date info and statistics, most of the ones I have seen are from the poll tax era, and there was a lot of none payment due to people saying the tax was unfair.

 

I think that the threat of committal was at that time being used as a deterrent, even though strictly speaking it should not have been. There must have been a lot of pressure on the system to "encourage" payment by whatever means.

[mikeymack2002]

I am glad to have given you the chance to read it then

[brassnecked]

Don't forget you can also be jailed in a Civil jurisprudence for contempt.

[Peterbard]

Yes i got to know Alan slightly in 2006, which will no doubt further vex ( I thought Dick was going to have a stroke some, he was very vocal in the fight over forced entry provisions which were to be contained in the new act, in fact the quote at the end of the piece about the Englishman's home and his castle was well used at the time.

 

He won't mind me miss spelling his name we had many email exchanges in the past so he knows my keyboard accuracy.

 

Incidentally the liability order procedure is a civil action(it is a civil debt), however the committal action is undertaken via a warrant applied for by the authority/ or representative(it is for willful refusal to repay)

.

[mikeymack2002]

To assist everyone on this thread it is claimed that it is unlawful please post up that legislation, If you think it is unlawful and that all Magistrates are wrong, if you think the fully qualified legal advisors are wrong please again post this up, finally please tell us all where the MOJ have got this wrong and post up the link to that law until then I think this thread is going nowhere,

 

 

Not a lot to ask for proof and exactly where everyone can read up on it. This way we can continue to discuss this if not this argument is pointless and going nowhere just my thoughts that's all...

 

 

Finally any appeals that have ended up in the Supreme Court stating that it is unlawful to jail someone would also be helpful, except the one that has been quoted already...

[Peterbard]

The law is perfectly clear MM and has been quoted several times, the conditions that must be met are all perfectly clear. The only issue is that some magistrates were not applying it correctly This is why so many of these are overturned on appeal.

[mikeymack2002]

You state that you have many cases you know of that have had this overturned on appeal can you please direct us that are wanting to view this information to the links you can provide?

 

 

Even this links at the bottom of page 4 states you can be jailed see here from the LGO see below

> If the magistrates make a liability order and the debt is not paid, councils can:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4yAOBgMgwzQJ:www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx%3Fid%3DfAAxADQANgA5AHwAfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

Again a request to you to provide the links to your cases is requested please do so.

 

o make an attachment of earnings order, or

o apply for deductions from the debtor’s income support, or

o levy distress on the debtor’s goods to sell and clear the debt with the proceeds, or

o apply to the county court (or the High Court in London) for a charge to be put on a property on which a council tax debt of more than £1,000 is owed, if it is owned by the debtor, or

o apply to the county court (or High Court in London) for the debtor to be made bankrupt if it has a liability order for a debt of more than £750.

> If distress on goods has been attempted and failed, councils can apply to the magistrates’ court to

have the debtor committed to prison