Powers of the courts - compensation and other powers

Compensation and other powers
Compensation Order	A magistrates' court may order a defendant to pay up to a total of £5,000 compensation. A Compensation Order can be imposed instead of, or in addition to dealing with him in any other way. This can be for personal injury or loss or damage to property. The court can order him to make payments for funeral expenses or bereavement in respect of a death resulting from his actions. If the court does not make a compensation order in a case where it is empowered to do so, it shall give reasons for not doing so on passing sentence. These provisions do not apply to a death injury or damage due to a road accident except in very limited cases. If the court considers that it would be appropriate both to impose a fine and to make a compensation order, but the offender has insufficient means to pay both an appropriate fine and appropriate compensation, preference shall be given to compensation. In cases where the powers to order both compensation and confiscation arise, compensation to the victim is the first priority. There are some cases where compensation will not be ordered such as to a small child who has been sexually abused (such an order is capable of being misunderstood).
Confiscation Orders	The Crown Court and a magistrates’ court each has power, in addition to dealing with an offender in any other way, to make a confiscation order requiring him to pay such sum as the court thinks fit. So, what is confiscated is the value of any property obtained by crime, as the property itself may not be in the defendant’s possession. The sum which a confiscation order requires an offender to pay must be at least the minimum amount (currently fixed at £10,000), but must not exceed the value of the property obtained. These orders are used in major crime, drug dealers and the like and include seizure of homes, cars and yachts. There is a specialist Assets Recovery Agency whose job it is to unravel complex webs of money laundering. There are highly complex rules on the making of these orders and appeals against them.
Binding over to be of good behaviour
Breach of the Peace	The Justices of the Peace Act 1361 and the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 allows magistrates to bind over anyone who is before the court and has committed a “breach of the peace”. A person agrees to be bound over by agreeing (essentially) to be of good behaviour for a year (usually) in the sum of typically £200. A person who refuses to be bound over can be imprisoned.
Disqualification from driving
Disqualification from holding a driving licence	A defendant who has committed an offence, usually a driving offence but also other non motoring matters may be disqualified for driving. For some offences the disqualification is compulsory and the court has no discretion. Drink-driving usually incurs a 12 month disqualification. A subsequent conviction for the same offence would see a 36 month disqualification. Section 146 PCCS 2000 extends disqualification for non motoring offences for any offence, this was introduced to deal primarily with young men who prize their licence to drive for such offences as failing to pay fines for other offences.
Anti-social behaviour orders "ASBOs"
An ASBO is a civil order which protects the community from behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress.	ASBOs were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and have been available since April 1999. They impose restrictions on the behaviour of individuals who have behaved in an anti-social way and protect communities from often longstanding and intimidating activity. As they are civil orders, a person who receives an ASBO does not have a criminal record. Although ASBOs are civil orders, the court must be satisfied to a criminal burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt - before making an order. The use of hearsay and third party evidence is permitted in order to protect witnesses and victims.
Available for those over 10	An ASBO may be made against a person aged ten or over who has acted in an anti-social manner, that is, a manner which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to someone not in the same household as the person described in the order and who is likely to do so again. E.g. serious vandalism or persistent intimidation of the elderly. The court has the power to prohibit the person from doing anything described in the order for a period of not less than two years. ASBO statistics can be found here.
R v Stevens [2006] CA	The court's power for breach of an ASBO is very wide: In R v Sevens it was held that a sentence for breaching an ASBO had to be proportionate, or ‘commensurate’. It followed that, where conduct constituting breach of the ASBO was also a distinct criminal offence, it could not be right for the court’s power to be limited to the maximum sentence for that distinct offence.
R v Thomas (2003) CA	D was made the subject of an ASBO, by which time he had amassed a staggering total of 451 offences, including 263 for theft. The order prohibited the defendant from entering four stores but he breached it within weeks and received a prison sentence of five months. Only eight days after his release from that sentence he committed a further breach. This time the court imposed a term of 18 months. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence.
Conditional Cautions and Deferred Sentences
Conditional Cautions	The CJA provides for conditional cautions. The conditions available with a caution are aimed at reparation for the offence and rehabilitation of the offender. The legislation extends the scope of the National Probation Service so that it can play a role, if appropriate. The statutory framework of “conditional cautions”, which may be given by the police or Crown Prosecution Service when the five conditions in section 23 are fulfilled replace the present unregulated approach. (Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act, sections 22–27).
Jones v Whalley (2006) HL Whole case here	^[The effect of a caution] The assailant accepted a formal caution for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against the claimant, on the understanding that, if he accepted it, he would not face prosecution in respect of the offence. The claimant attempted to bring his own private prosecution against the assailant. Held: The House of Lords held that to do so was an abuse of process.
Deferred Sentences	The CJA creates new provisions to strengthen deferment of sentence the rules for which are to be found in section 1 PCCS 2000. A deferred sentence allows the court to appoint an officer of the Probation Board or any other person it considers suitable to monitor the offender during the period of deferment. A court may defer passing sentence to have regard to the defendant’s conduct after conviction or any change in his circumstances. The court can defer passing sentence for of up to six months after conviction. A deferred sentence can only be exercised with consent of offender. Deferred sentences are typically used when the offender’s circumstances are expected to change, with the possibility that no punishment or a lesser one will be necessary.
Miscellaneous sentences	The courts can add a myriad of orders and sentences to a sentence, sometimes apparently unrelated to the crime, for example football banning orders, which prevent those sentenced from attending football matches in the UK or abroad, Sexual Offences Prevention orders prohibiting sex offenders from being with children.
Football exclusion orders	Controversial legislation, such as the Public Order Act 1986 allow courts to make exclusion orders excluding fans from grounds when certain criteria are met. The Football Spectators Act of 1989 allows courts to impose "restriction orders" on convicted fans to prevent them attending matches abroad involving England or Wales. The Football Offences Act 1991 created three new offences of disorderly behaviour, Throwing missiles towards the pitch or spectators, Taking part in indecent or racialist chanting, Going on the pitch or its surrounds without lawful authority When certain criteria were met, the Football (Disorder) Act 1999 courts were were required to explain in open court why no banning order was applied. Fans who were banned were also required to hand over their passports at a police station and report there at a specific time and date. Attendance Centres could be used and were usually available on home match days. The Football Disorder Act 2000 abolished the distinction between domestic and international banning orders. The court is now required to ensure that an offender's passport is surrendered for international fixtures. More importantly, a banning order might now be secured by the police on their complaint to the court that the fan concerned has been involved in violence in the UK or elsewhere and that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that a banning order would help prevent hooliganism. Fans and Liberty have complained that these changes offer police too much power in limiting the activities of supporters, especially in relation to foreign travel.
Banning orders	Banning orders were introduced by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 following the disorder in Belgium during Euro 2000. Banning orders prevent known troublemakers from attending domestic matches and travelling to overseas matches There are currently 3,290 known troublemakers subject to banning orders.
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006	The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 contain two banning order which had been available under previous legislation: The police power to require known troublemakers to surrender their passports five days prior to an overseas match or tournament; and The ability of the police to make the case for a banning order based on complaint (for example, using overseas police footage of misbehaviour as evidence), rather than just based on conviction of a football-related offence. The Violent Crime Reduction Act increased from three years to five the maximum period of a banning order made following a complaint from the police. Powers to apply for banning orders are extended to the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Transport Police.. Ticket touting laws cover the sale of unauthorised football match tickets on the internet, leading to a maximum fine of £5,000. It will also become illegal to advertise the unauthorised sale of match tickets.
Loss of credit card for paedophiles	The below Order allows banks and building societies to remove the credit cards of customers cautioned for, or convicted of, buying indecent images of children online. The Data Protection (Processing of sensitive personal data) Order 2006 amends a small provision of the Data Protection Act, and thereby allows credit card companies to use sensitive information, convictions or cautions for administering the offender's credit / debit card account. This is not a "sentence" available to the courts but an administrative action following conviction.
Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme	The Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) is a specialist programme aimed at men who beat their partners. It aims to curb their violent behaviour. It was intended to be linked to a high-profile plan to place men who beat their partners under restraint orders. After three years the scheme has yet to start. IDAP programmes run for up to 27 weeks and cost between £8,000 and £10,000 each. Extremely popular with the courts, police and the Crown Prosecution Service, they were introduced in 2001 and widely promoted by the government in 2005 as part of its National Domestic Violence Plan. According to the Ministry of Justice only 1,800 out of more than 4,000 handed down by the courts in 2007 were completed.
Seizure of property
Not a sentence	The courts have the power to seize property that is or which represents the proceeds of crime.
Powers to seize cash	The threshold for seizing suspect sums of money under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) is £1,000. Cash search and seizure powers in the POCA allow police and customs officers to seize money suspected to be the profit of crime or intended for use in crime. It is part of a package of measures to disrupt organised criminals at every level, from those who run massive networks to petty criminals involved in smaller scale activities in local communities.