Guest Post: Magistrates struggle (again) with the use of imprisonment for non-payment of council tax – by Sam Genen and Sophie Walker

23 January 2017 by


R (Woolcock & Bridgend Magistrates Court) v Cardiff Magistrates Court and Bridgend County Council [2017] EWHC 34 (Admin) (judgment awaiting publication)

There is an exceedingly long line of case law, stretching back beyond the days of the community charge (which was of course better known as the Poll Tax). In those cases, the courts have traditionally quashed custodial orders improperly imposed by magistrates for non-payment of council taxes.

Most recently, the legal charity Centre for Criminal Appeals have picked up the reins as part of their work challenging unduly harsh sentencing practices.  The case of R(Woolcock & Bridgend Magistrates Court) v Cardiff Magistrates Court and Bridgend County Council, a judicial review claim, is the first of the cases supported by the Centre to reach the High Court, and concerned imprisonment of a woman who had failed to make council tax payments required of her.

The claimant, Melanie Woolcock, is a single mother living with her teenage son in Wales.  She had failed to make council tax payments in the two houses she lived in over a handful of years, which left her owing around £4,700 to the Local Authority.  Despite it being submitted to the magistrates’ court that she was suffering from depression, was unable to work and was in the process of applying for benefits, the magistrates found that her failure to pay was due to “culpable neglect” in breach of Regulation 47(2) of the Council Tax  (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.  The court imposed a custodial order on the claimant, suspended for as long as she made payments of £5 a week (out of her income of £200 a week) in relation to each property.

For a few months, Ms Woolcock was able to make payments, before she again defaulted.  She was committed to prison for 81 days unless the money was paid.

Extension of time

The court’s rationale for extending time to bring this judicial review claim, which is set out at paragraph 25 of the court’s judgment, is of note. Although brought out of time, because the liberty of the applicant was at stake, court agreed to extend time and therefore to allow the claim to be brought.

Relevant principles

Helpfully, at paragraph 27, Lewis J runs through the legal principles surrounding Regulation 47.  They are uncontroversial, but bear repeating:

  • The power to commit can only be used to extract payment and not as punishment.
  • The magistrates must enquire about means, and consider whether the failure to pay was the result of wilful default or culpable neglect – only if that is the case may an order for imprisonment be mad.
  • In order to determine whether the defaulting party has been guilty of culpable neglect, the means enquiry must consider the period of time in respect of when the debt was owed.
  • The means enquiry should also consider the present position of the debtor to determine whether he or she is in a position to pay the debt, and then consider which enforcement options are available.

The court’s determination

Lewis J found the Magistrates’ order commit the Claimant to prison in the event that she defaulted in her payments to be unlawful and quashed the same.

He found that there had not been a proper or adequate means enquiry, as the Magistrates had not properly considered Ms Woolcock’s income and expenditure over the relevant period and did not come to a view regarding her disposable income.  There should have been such an enquiry before proceeding to consider whether Ms Woolcock was guilty of culpable neglect.

Further, Lewis J found that the period of repayment was excessive.  By having Ms Woolcock pay £5 a week per house, it would have taken her 11 and a half years in relation to one property and 6 and half years for another.  These periods of suspension were considered “excessive and disproportionate and render the orders of 20 October 2015 unlawful”.


There is no doubt the magistrates should have heeded the warning given by the Court of Appeal in 1946 in the case of Gordon v Gordon ([1946] 1 All ER 247 at 250F): “However disobedient the party against whom the order is directed may be, unless the process of committal and attachment has been carried out strictly in accordance with the rules, he is entitled to his freedom…”

It is suggested that the law in this area is settled and the senior judiciary has now for decades cautioned magistrates to handle these cases with precision.  In those circumstances, the issue of why cases such as this occur is a serious one.

The answer may in part lie in practical considerations. Given the relative scarcity of these types of cases (it is suspected that only around 150 people a year are sent to prison for non-payment of council tax), magistrates and their clerks may be unfamiliar with these cases. Further, those who face committal orders are often unrepresented and many lead chaotic lives.

Or perhaps the culture surrounding committal proceedings is generally inappropriate.  The purpose of these regulations is to secure payment of the debt and imprisonment should be the last resort.  And yet, in Ms Woolcock’s case, like in many others, it might be thought that imprisonment was in reality used as a form of punishment with insufficient attention being paid to the alternatives to custody.

Further still, it might be thought that the system is rather too rigid.  If a decision is made to fix a period of imprisonment, but to suspend it while payments are made, a person may find themselves unable to comply years later and risk being taken straight to prison without consideration of why they defaulted.

At a time when prisons are over-populated, and there is pressure on the Women’s Estate in particular to decrease the numbers doing time for non-violent offences, reforming this area of law is surely wise so that others do not experience the ordeal faced by Ms Woolcock.

As a final point, it is worth noting that Ms Woolcock was funded by legal aid, demonstrating the vital importance of that source of funding to those who otherwise would find it difficult to secure representation in matters of central importance to their lives.

Sam Genen is a solicitor at Ahmed Rahan Carr, and acted for Ms Woolcock in this case.

Sophie Walker is a Pupil Barrister at 1 Pump Court chambers.


  1. John says:

    Why did they not collect the £5 per week out of her £200 per week income?

  2. JM says:

    how can somebody suggest a topic to be written about on this blog? the case of MElanie Shaw is crying out for more attention, as that of Peter Hoffroeschoer and so many others….

  3. Andrew says:

    It’s high time to abolish imprisonment for civil debt lock, stock and barrel. I know that that would weaken the hand of parents with care in maintenance matters; bu locking people up for not paying a debt is the mark of a servile society.

  4. JM says:

    I am in a similar position…but not that i can’t or refuse to pay….I refuse to give government employees by bank details. Simple as. If you pay cash they refuse to give a receipt and sometimes the money is not credited to the account. So I stopped paying cash….it’s not that I’m refusing to pay, they’re refusing to accept payment whilst continuing to refuse to confirm or deny if they know who they are….

    So you wait for the Court summons. You go to Court. You’re not allowed to speak to the magistrate or agrue your case in any way….and this is after being made to wait several hours after the supposed appointed time. So what was the point of a court procedure….?

    They also invented 1500 pound worth of debt….no explanation!

    On returning home you find your home has been broken into and things stolen, possibly cameras and other devices installed…

    Then also, recently reading on the case when it was an other guy who went to Court to successfully fight his eviction order…the opposition didn’t turn up…but when he returned home triumphant he found that the reason they weren’t there was that they had broken into his home, stolen all his possessions and changed the locks. So illegally evicted him anyway with immunity as usual.

    You’re not even ‘allowed’ to say the only option to criminal violence when there is no rule of law is anymore in this bloody cuntry…..:-(

  5. Peter Hargreaves says:

    You may find this link of interest

    On the one hand, there must be a strong argument for abolition of committal to prison in these cases altogether. Could Council Tax arrears not be treated in the same way as other civil debts? Thankfully, imprisonment for outstanding debt is largely a thing of the distant past. On the other hand, it is probably true to say that many more would not pay unless the possibility committal is there however distant it may be.

    In common with many areas of the administration of justice, the Magistrates’ Courts have seen funding cut and training for magistrates is, I think, quite minimal these days. Certainly much reduced on what it was (say) 10 years ago. This is not the place to examine that further but I understand that the House of Commons Justice Committee looked at it recently.

  6. faolan says:

    Surely Ms Woolcock would have been entitled to the benefits of rent and council tax?, even if she had owned the houses, she could have claimed council tax benefit.

    1. JM says:

      even if it is true….doesn’t mean she actually getting them! they haven’t paid me for over a decade for example….and once you’re homeless you can’t have access to courts, solicitors etc….once the state has ‘cut you off’ there is no way to get back on to the ladder…..and as a point of principle i refuse to give them things like my bank details. I don’t know what the ladies situation is here….but they can and take Direct Deductions…so if she was in receipt of they can autoamtically deduct the money, people dnt get the money direct anymore….and the b******* mis place a decimal place….or just make up completely new numbers….they do it with immunity, been there to. sounds more likely to me that she was targeted for other reasons…..

  7. Dan Smith says:

    Sounds like the magistrates in Wales like to be seen to be seen.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: