A short update today on the manner in which TV Licensing takes cases to court.
Since the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure all TV Licensing cases are channelled down that route initially. If TV Licensing considers that it has sufficient evidence to prosecute, then the defendant will be sent a copy of the Single Justice Procedure Notice and written charge. The defendant will be asked to indicate a plea of guilty or not guilty. If they fail to respond then the prosecution will go ahead regardless.
A defendant who pleads guilty can still choose to have their case dealt with by the full Magistrates' Court, otherwise it will proceed under the single Justice arrangements. A defendant who pleads not guilty will automatically have their case dealt with by the full Magistrates' Court. If the Magistrate considering the papers spots any complications - suppose the defendant has made an equivocal guilty plea (e.g. "I suppose I must have done it if they say so, but I don't remember being visited by TV Licensing" etc) - then the case should also be listed for a full hearing.
As a result of a recent Freedom of Information request to the BBC, we now know that only the following Magistrates' Courts routinely deal with TV Licensing matters:
- Brighton
- Carlisle
- Leamington Spa
- Merthyr Tydfil
- Preston
- Stratford (London)
- Teesside
- Warrington
- Wigan
- Weymouth
Those are the places to go to if you want first hand experience of TV Licensing's unique brand of justice and creative approach to prosecution.
We pity the impoverished single mother in Berwick upon Tweed who has been lied to by TV Licensing, but considers it cheaper and easier to plead guilty rather than take the 100 mile journey to Teesside Magistrates' Court in Middlesbrough.
Similarly the little old lady with the glass eye and wonky leg in Truro - she has a very different recollection of events to the TV Licensing goon who visited her property 5 months ago, but is too frail to make the 140 mile journey to Weymouth Magistrates' Court to set the record straight.
We have also just learnt that it is HMCTS's plan to publish online the personal details of every alleged TV licence evader prosecuted via the Single Justice Procedure.
If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.
3 comments:
A Person who pleads "Not Guilty" should expect a minimum recompense of the fine they would have received plus the charges that would have been added if they were to be found guilty.
This would mean, or should mean, Goons where less likely to make up evidence or fake signatures on TVL forms.
Are the magistrates that prosecute not guilty claims, one's who won't believe the defendant. If the defendant was to update the channels on their Smart TV and as a default it reverts to BBC1 when the update is done be found guilty if a goon watched through their window while they updated the TV in case more radio stations had being added and the default was to revert to BBC 1 after the update and the defendant quickly put in the channel before the update?
Having the aerial connected to receive radio through a TV set is not a crime and it reverting to BBC 1 after an update and not the last channel received is not a crime if the defendant puts in the last channel received or searches through the channel 567 to channel 789. Sometimes new channels mean the others change but usually not the radio, but it could happen.
That single list of SJP procedures contains 396 "Use / install a television set without
a licence" cases. Compare with the most recently released annual figures for Scotland:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-201900001374/
In 2017/18, there were 6 prosecutions in Scotland for that "offence": one found not guilty, three given verbal admonishment, two fined an average of £120. Looks like common sense on this matter is found north of the border.
The only way you could be found guilty is by admitting to it (so keep your mouth shut) or if they catch you actually watching TV by recording you through a window or smashing your door down while you're sat there watching TV (presumably with headphones on...). Having a TV capable of watching live TV with an aerial connected is not guilty. I have a car that is capable 155mph but the police would have to catch me breaking the speed limit and beyond all doubt(I have zero points).
Post a Comment