The Gazette 1992

GAZETTE

MARCH 1992

K

V I E W

B

year prior to conviction less income tax, living costs and the costs involved in earning the income. The amount left over is used to calculate a day fine which is fixed at one thousandth part of it. This system appears to work well in Sweden and in Germany. It has also been introduced in Denmark, Austria, Hungary, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia and France. A similar system has been introduced in the United Kingdom by the Criminal Justice Act, 1991. The Commission however, referring to "peculiar circumstances of this jurisdiction", conclude that two difficulties present themselves: one, the practical one of ascertaining offenders' means, the other whether such a scheme may not be unconstitutional. It is the first of these that would seem to this reviewer to be the crucial objection. 1. That a standard fine system be introduced by legislation. They suggest that offences be divided into three (or more) categories say ( A ) up to £100 (B) Up to £500 and (C) up to £1,500. There should then be a table that equates category A (£100) with fines of £2 in pre-1914 statutes, £5 or less from 1915-1944, £10 or less 1945-1964, £25 or less 1965-1974, £50 or less 1975-1979 and £100 or less 1980 onwards. 2. That in the interests of clarity all existing fine levels be allocated to their proper categories in a statute with long schedules. 3. That category levels be periodically updated by statutory instrument with specific reference to the Consumer Price Index. 4. To deal with large scale and profitable offences that provision be made for the confiscation of criminal proceeds and the imposition on legal persons of a The Commission recommends:-

certain size of fines of the category immediately above that ordinarily applicable to the offence in question. This last recommendation will doubtless be the subject of much detailed discussion. The principle is a sound one. Regard might also be had to the comparative privilege any limited company has of immunity to imprisonment, community service or disqualification from driving. The other recommendations are a vast improvement on the present jungle of incongruous fines. This reviewer would suggest, however, that updating should be in round figures not precise fractions, and that the updating be done by quinquennial statute not by Ministerial Order. This Report has been produced with admirable clarity and deserves swift implementation. Copinger And Skone James on Copyright 13th Edition. Sweet and Maxwell, 1598pp, £160 Stg, hardback. The latest edition of Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, the textbook which is regarded by many as the leading text on copyright law in these islands, comes over ten years after the previous edition which was published in 1980. The main prompting for the 13th edition was the passage in the UK of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 which came into force on 1 August, 1989 and brought about major amendments and a substantial codification of the law on copyright in the UK. This is reflected in a completely changed chapter Peter Smithwick President of the District Court.

Report on the Indexation of Fines (Law Reform Commission, 1991), LRC 37-1991, 92pp, £6.50 Everyone who practises in the District Court will be aware of serious anomalies in the monetary penalties that can be imposed on summary conviction. To take some random samples: dropping litter £800, pollution £250, common assault £50, assault on a Garda (summary) £20, violent behaviour in a Garda station £2, dangerous driving £1,000, forcible entry £50, unlicensed firearm £50, breach of food hygiene £100, breach of food labelling regulations £800, failure to show a pedlar's certificate on demand 25p, casual trading £800, contempt of court £2, indecent behaviour £5, trespass on an airport £1,000. The Law Reform Commission has addressed this problem in its Report on the Indexation of Fines and recommends that the law should: (a) ensure equal fines for offences of equal gravity, (b) take account of the past and future effect of inflation on the real value of fines, and (c) have the flexibility to adjust for the differing means of those on whom fines are imposed. The Commission considered the choice between a standard fine system which maintains values by reference to an index, and variable fine systems which are means- related. The Report comes down in favour of the former; rightly, in the opinion of this reviewer. The variable fine system imposes fines in units of gravity whose monetary value is in each case dictated by the means of the offender. Most fines in Sweden are of this nature. The calculation is based on the gross income for the

75