As I understand it, in the Magistrates Court, if a fine or costs order cannot be paid within 12 months, an individual can return to the court, make a statutory declaration of means, and apply for the costs/fine to be remitted — for example, on the basis that they are unemployed or in receipt of DWP benefits and genuinely cannot afford to pay. This is a well-established process.
**My question – Crown Court equivalent**
I am trying to establish whether there is an equivalent mechanism available in the Crown Court. Specifically:
1. **Is there a similar principle in the Crown Court** whereby, if a fine or costs order cannot be paid within 12 months due to genuine financial hardship, a person can return to the Crown Court and apply for the order to be varied, reduced, or remitted?
2. **Does the 21-day rule present a barrier?** In the Crown Court, applications to vary a sentence or order are typically made within 21 days of the original hearing (under the Crown Court's slip rule or the Court of Appeal route). However, if the basis for the application is *ongoing financial hardship* rather than an error at the time of sentencing, is there a mechanism that allows a person to return to the Crown Court *after* that 21-day window has passed?
3. t I'm unclear whether there is a specific statutory provision or procedural route equivalent to the Magistrates' remission process that applies where circumstances have changed *after* the order was made.
Any guidance on the correct statutory footing, case law, or procedural route would be greatly appreciated. I'm particularly interested in whether a change in financial circumstances (e.g. loss of employment, reliance on benefits) after the original order gives rise to a right to return to the Crown Court outside the usual 21-day window.
Thank you in advance.
