A Day in Court With TV Licensing

An interesting article about TV Licensing court hearings was published on the This Is Money website today.

TV licence evasion cases are dealt with via the Single Justice Procedure, which we have previously written about. Briefly, a defendant accused of TV licence evasion is sent a Single Justice Procedure Notice, which they are asked to respond to within 21 days. One of four things can then happen:

• They could respond and admit the offence (e.g. plead guilty), asking for it to be dealt with in their absence. In this case the documentary evidence, which will include any mitigation offered by the defendant, will be considered by a single Justice of the Peace and they will pass sentence;
• They could respond and admit the offence, asking to appear in person at court. In this case the defendant will appear in the Magistrates' Court and their case will be considered and sentenced by a bench of Magistrates;
• The could deny the offence (e.g. plead not guilty). In this case a trial will be needed to determine the matter. The defendant will appear in the Magistrates' Court and their trial will be heard by a bench of Magistrates;
• They fail to respond. In this case the documentary evidence, which will clearly only be the prosecution's version of events, will be considered by a single Justice of the Peace and they will pass sentence.

The overwhelming majority of cases are dealt with by a single Justice. Very few appear before a bench of Magistrates. Only a few Magistrates' Courts around the country, as mentioned in this previous article, actually deal with in-person TV licence cases. Stratford Magistrates' Court in east London is one such venue.

Journalist Fiona Parker writes about a visit to the TV licence court. Capita TV Licensing's Phil Carvill, who we have had previous dealings with, was the Court Presenter. It is worth remembering that Capita's Court Presenters are not legally qualified and nor do they need to be. Even so, they can prosecute TV licence cases as long as authorised to do so by the BBC and granted rights of audience by the court.

Carvill is a regular Capita TV Licensing poster boy, who features in the image below.

Janet Ellison was first up, having admitted receiving TV programmes without a TV licence, which is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act 2003.

The 53-year-old, who stands with the aid of a crutch and looks terrified, was caught out when the Direct Debit payments on her TV licence failed.

"There were some missed payments but the bank didn't inform me of this. TV Licensing says they sent me letters, but I missed both of them," explains Janet, her voice breaking under the strain. 

"It's not that I don't want to pay, I have been paying it all along," she says as she wipes her cheeks under her face mask.

The Magistrates accept Janet has made a genuine mistake and give her a 6-month conditional discharge, meaning there is no further punishment as long as she keeps on the straight and narrow for the next 6 months.

They also order her to pay £22 victim surcharge, which the court is obliged to impose, and £120 prosecution costs, which there is some flexibility on.

TV licence evasion is an absolute (or strict liability) offence. This means that the offence is committed by the mere act of not having a TV licence when one is required, even if there is no dishonest intention. 

There is no public interest in prosecuting people like Janet, but Capita TV Licensing realises that her conviction is almost a "dead cert" given the circumstances. Every conviction, however meritless, can be added to TV Licensing's tally that they regularly trot out for deterrent purposes.

A glint in his eye, Carvill outlines the allegations against the next TV Licensing victim...

Read more here.

We would encourage all defendants to attend court. By appearing in person the defendant will at least have the opportunity to make their voice heard. Even if they're only attending to plead guilty, then at least they can still explain their personal circumstances and highlight any mitigating factors.

The presence of the defendant means the court will give the case more consideration than it would in their absence.

Experience shows that the courts look favourably on defendants pleading guilty from the outset (e.g. when responding the Single Justice Procedure Notice), who then appear in person to face their responsibilities.

Whenever possible we encourage a defendant to plead not guilty, thereby forcing TV Licensing to prove its case. An uncontested case will invariably go in TV Licensing's favour. It is only by challenging TV Licensing's evidence or procedures that the defendant has any chance of winning their case.

In some circumstances TV Licensing will be so concerned at the prospect of its evidence being tested, that it will actually withdraw the charges before the trial date. Make no bones about it, TV Licensing is a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous organisation. In some cases it will attempt to prosecute when it has no proper evidence of wrongdoing. We refer to these as speculative prosecution cases.

It's time to take the fight to TV Licensing. Stand up, make your voice heard and let the court listen.

If you've found this article useful please support us by liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.