The House of Lords voted 100 to 132 in favour of a ‘motion of regret’ over the charge last month. Peers condemned the charges, which are not means-tested, as ‘Ryanair justice’. Under the rules, which were introduced six months ago, those pleading guilty in the magistrates’ court face a flat charge of £150; those convicted after a trial in the Crown Court are charged over £1,200. Campaigners argue that innocent people are forced into pleading guilty to avoid the risk of facing a higher penalty, and those convicted are being charged sums out of all proportion to the offence, money they have no prospect of paying.

In the lords debate, Labour peer Lord Beecham gave the example of Louise Sewell, who was convicted of stealing a pack of four Mars worth 75p from a shop in Kidderminster. Sewell ‘was undergoing a benefit sanction and had not eaten for two days’, said Beecham. After pleading guilty, she was ordered to pay the charge of £150.

According to Beecham, ‘among the many dubious legacies bequeathed to Michael Gove by his predecessor as justice secretary, Chris Grayling, [the charge] ranks as one of the most misconceived’. The Ministry of Justice estimated when the fees were launched that they would raise between £65m and £85m in income, but LAG understands that only a couple of hundred thousand pounds have been collected so far.

Despite the vote, the government insists that the courts should continue to levy the fees. Gove has ordered a review and he will also have to respond to the ‘regret’ motion.

Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told LAG: ‘The damaging consequences of this unfair and unjust charge are becoming clearer by the day. Ordering indigent people to pay money they simply don’t have is never going to work.’ Crook is calling for the charge to be suspended pending the outcome of a review.