The Gender Disparity in TV Licence Prosecutions: A Spotlight on Teesside Court
- teessidetoday
- Apr 1
- 4 min read
Four people are today set to face prosecution at Teesside Court for alleged Non Payment of their TV Licence, with research once again showing the vast number of the people being hauled before the court are women....
1st April 2025
Teesside Magistrates' Court , aptly dubbed Teesside 'Kangaroo' Court by many locals is set to hear cases against four individuals accused of failing to pay their TV licence fees.
Of these four cases set to be held on what is ironically April Fools Day, only one of those set to face prosecution is male, whilst the remaining three are women. This small snapshot of a single day in a single court reflects a much broader and troubling trend: the vast majority of people hauled into court for TV licence-related offences across the UK are women. This gender imbalance mirrors a similar pattern seen in council tax liability orders, raising serious questions about judicial fairness, enforcement practices, and the disproportionate burden placed on women in these legal proceedings.
The Numbers Tell the Story
The statistics are stark. In 2023, a staggering 73% of all prosecutions for TV licence fee evasion were against women, despite women making up only around 50% of licence holders.
This makes non-payment of the TV licence the most common criminal offence for which women are convicted in the UK. Historically, this gender disproportionality has worsened over time—up by 10% in the past decade—yet little has been done to address the root causes or challenge the enforcement mechanisms that perpetuate it.
Today’s cases due to be heard at Teesside Court are a microcosm of this national issue. Three women and one man facing prosecution may seem like a small sample, but it aligns with the overwhelming trend. Why are women so disproportionately targeted? The answer lies in a mix of socio-economic factors, outdated legal frameworks, and enforcement practices that fail to account for vulnerability.
Why Women Bear the Brunt of TVL's Enforcement
Several factors contribute to this imbalance. Women are more likely to be the named bill-payer in single-adult households, a situation often driven by patterns of habitation—census data shows 9% more female-only households than male-only ones. Yet this alone doesn’t fully explain the scale of the disparity. Many of the women prosecuted are in precarious financial situations: single mothers, carers, or those receiving benefits like Universal Credit. These are individuals who may struggle to prioritise a £169.50 annual TV licence fee amid rising living costs, yet they find themselves criminalised for it.
The process itself exacerbates the problem. Over 90% of TV licence cases are handled through the Controversial Single Justice Procedure (SJP), where defendants receive a notice by post and have just 21 days to plead guilty or not guilty. For women juggling multiple responsibilities—caring for children, managing debts, or coping with health issues—this system can be a trap. Many don’t respond in time, either because they don’t understand the notice or can’t access legal support, leading to automatic convictions and fines they can ill afford. Failure to pay those fines can even result in prison time, a punishment that feels increasingly archaic and disproportionate in the digital age.
The Parallels with Council Tax Liability Orders
The gender disparity in TV licence prosecutions echoes a similar trend in council tax enforcement. Local councils, including those on Teesside, routinely apply for liability orders from the Kangaroo Court when residents fall behind on council tax payments—a legal step that allows them to escalate debt recovery through wage deductions, benefit reductions, or even bailiffs.
Whilst comprehensive gender data on council tax prosecutions is less readily available, anecdotal evidence and studies suggest women are disproportionately affected here too. Single mothers and low-income women, often the primary bill-payers in their households, are more likely to face these orders, compounding their financial and legal woes.
In both cases—TV licences and council tax—the enforcement mechanisms seem to penalise poverty rather than address it. Vulnerable women, already stretched thin, are dragged into court for debts they can’t pay, whilst the systems in place offer little flexibility or compassion. At Teesside Court today, the three women facing TV licence charges are unlikely to be wealthy evaders gaming the system; they’re more likely to be ordinary people caught in a punitive trap.
The disproportionate persecution of women for TV licence non-payment has sparked calls for reform. Organisations like APPEAL, a legal charity, argue that criminalising licence fee evasion is a regressive response to poverty, wasting taxpayer money on court cases that could be better handled as civil matters. The government itself has acknowledged this, with a 2021 consultation response noting that a criminal sanction feels “increasingly disproportionate and unfair” in a modern media landscape. Yet progress toward decriminalisation has now since stalled, leaving women like those appearing at Teesside Court today left to face the consequences.
Similarly, council tax enforcement could benefit from a rethink. Councils should prioritise affordable repayment plans and support for vulnerable residents over swift escalation to liability orders. The current approach risks deepening inequality, particularly for women who are already overrepresented among the poorest and most overburdened.
As Teesside 'kangaroo' Court prepares to hear from three women and one man today, the cases serve as a reminder of a persistent injustice. The vast majority of TV licence prosecutions target women, a trend that continues unabated and mirrors the gender skew in council tax liability orders. It’s time to ask: why so many women are bearing the brunt of these archaic systems, and what can be done to stop criminalising poverty?
Decriminalising TV licence non-payment and reforming debt enforcement practices could be a start—because no one should face a courtroom for struggling to make ends meet.
Or Worse, Funding a bias 'corrupt' BBC