A JUDGE has suggested that criminals are likely to get away without paying a court cost he slapped on them.

Judge David Ticehurst advised two defendants in Taunton Crown Court they will probably avoid a criminal courts charge (CCC) he was legally obliged to impose if they held out until Christmas.

His comments came after Justice Secretary Michael Gove announced the Government is scrapping the charge from Christmas Eve.

Under the scheme, introduced before May's General Election, anyone found guilty or who admits an offence in Magistrates' or Crown Courts is liable to pay between £150 and £1,200 on top of any other penalties.

After handing a man who admitted growing cannabis plants a £180 CCC on Friday, Judge Ticehurst told him: "I suggest if no-one comes round before Christmas Eve, you probably won't have to pay that. But I didn't say that!"

And he told a burglar facing a £150 CCC bill: "Let's hope the Government don't catch up with you by Christmas Eve."

The CCC has proved unpopular with the legal profession - Taunton-based solicitor advocate Ed Boyce recently told the County Gazette it hammers people who cannot afford to pay.

He also claimed it encouraged people to admit offences they would normally deny as the fee rises if you plead not guilty and are later found guilty.

Mr Boyce this week said: "I am delighted Michael Gove has listened to the many voices asking for him to scrap the CCC, which was widely regarded as a tax on justice.

"The charge will now not apply to cases dealt with on or after Christmas Eve.

"I suspect very many defendants due to appear for sentence in the meantime will be trying to get their cases adjourned."

Mr Gove backs the principle behind the policy that lawbreakers should bear some of the costs of running the courts.

But he added: "However, as the justice select committee set out in its recent report, there have been concerns raised about how this has worked in practice.”

“It was introduced for the best of reasons - to ensure that those who impose costs on the criminal justice system make a contribution to those costs wherever possible.

“If you’ve deliberately broken the law, if the taxpayer has to shell out to ensure justice is done, and if you have the means, then there can clearly be a case for the court imposing a financial penalty.

“But it has become clear that while the intention behind the policy was honourable, in reality that intent has fallen short."