Report comment

There is a right to a presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt (assuming we remain in the ECHR).

Of course the right to insist that the state prove guilt can be waived by a properly made guilty plea, and reasonable sentence discounts seem justifiable, but there must come a point where oppression by the state makes such a waiver invalid. For example, a threat of life impisonment for pleading not guilty to an offence otherwise carrying only a fine would amount to a breach of Article 6.

An eight-fold increase in the penalty crosses the line in my opinion. It seems designed to invoke a defendant's inbuilt loss aversion bias and effectively seeks to criminalise a not guilty plea.

It is also unfair to describe such schemes as 'costs, fees' etc. Unlike almost any other kind of debt they will be collected using the powers of the court to enforce sentence, which means impisonment or criminal distress powers available on default and the debt can never be written of by any form of insolvency. If the charges are 'fees' rather than a punishment this is wholly inappropriate.