Letter: On-the-spot fines about convenience, not justice

The use of these fines is based on most people's fear of the legal system, courts and not wanting to make a fuss.

It means a choice between an instant fine of less than £100 or having your life disrupted by the efforts of clearing your name.

Paying the fine is probably the best option if you've actually committed a crime but what about the many cases where a person has done nothing wrong?

Normally, if the police proceed with a prosecution, they have to be sure they have a reasonable case against an individual. However, they can impose on-the-spot fines with little or no evidence.

They do this knowing most people will simply want to forget the episode, whether guilty or innocent, and the police will save themselves a lot of time and trouble having to pursue a case through the courts.

The fact magistrates' courts usually give the benefit of doubt to the police increases the likelihood of this strategy succeeding.

Cases publicised by The Argus, such as the woman evicted from Hove Town Hall on election night last year, and, more recently, the woman arrested for complaining about rowdy behaviour on a bus (February 16), demonstrate the injustice of these summary fines.

Thankfully, in the latter case, the woman is considering appealing her case on principle.

As a peace activist, some people have suggested to me that the police might start frequently using this instant revenue source against demonstrators at protests.

I can only suggest this is extremely unlikely, as they know most protesters would refuse to pay on principle and many are experienced in successfully clearing their names in court.

Along with ASBOs, misused injunctions and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, on-the-spot fines weaken, rather than strengthen, the rule of law.

If anyone finds themselves facing an instant fine when they are innocent, they shouldn't pay - they should fight.

-Glenn Williams, Brighton