The Lemon Fool

Mike4 wrote:Given your friend denies liability and also has a string of mitigating reasons anyway (is a retired nurse, was gonna pick it up later, etc), but also an arguable reason to plead not guilty (i.e. the council jobsworth's evidence is fabricated), she should choose the "legal action" route in order to state her case before the magistrates. If found guilty, options to appeal will become available.

Just my view of it as an experienced barrack room lawyer

I see it very differently. "retired nurse" - irrelevant. "gonna pick it up later" - far-fetched, to say the least, and irrelevant anyway, it was litter in the meantime.

"council jobsworth" - authorised representative doing their job (which, if not done, would lead to more litter on the streets and surely nobody here would want that).

Scott.

mc2fool wrote:

Lootman wrote:I guess what I don't understand is the basis of any jurisdiction that the enforcement officer claims to have over a private individual in a public place if he is just a council employee and not a policeman.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/40, or, more readably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_safety_accreditation_scheme

Or more specifically s88(8A, B and C) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which says:

"(8A)If an authorised officer of a litter authority proposes to give a person a notice under this section, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.
(8B)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (8A) above, or
(b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.
(8C)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (8B) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

So - that's the basis of the power that the authorised officer has. S/he has the power because the Act (and the litter authority) gave it to him/her.

chas49 wrote:

mc2fool wrote:

Lootman wrote:I guess what I don't understand is the basis of any jurisdiction that the enforcement officer claims to have over a private individual in a public place if he is just a council employee and not a policeman.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/40, or, more readably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_safety_accreditation_scheme

Or more specifically s88(8A, B and C) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which says:

"(8A)If an authorised officer of a litter authority proposes to give a person a notice under this section, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.
(8B)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (8A) above, or
(b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.
(8C)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (8B) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

So - that's the basis of the power that the authorised officer has. S/he has the power because the Act (and the litter authority) gave it to him/her.

I understand that, but it is rather toothless. If I walk away to avoid revealing my identity then the officer will not be able to issue a citation for that or do anything else because he/she will not know who I am nor where to send it.

As far as I know the officer is not allowed to do what a cop could do, which is chase you down and detain you. These "enforcement officers" are really relying on people to voluntarily allow themselves to be ticketed.

The EO could call the police but how interested would they be in this? They would probably just see this as more like a civil matter between the council and the individual.

The mitigating reasons are very weak, and the only real defence is the erroneous statement by the warden. Like most litigation, contesting it is likely to cost far more in time, money and emotion than paying up. Better to spend the effort in trying to change council policy using social media or political routes.

chas49 wrote:"(8A)If an authorised officer of a litter authority proposes to give a person a notice under this section, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.
(8B)A person commits an offence if—
...
(b)he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.

secondary query ...

If a false name and address was given ... by the time the authourities find out... how will they find the real perpetrator ? (leaving aside commuters that always arrive/leave at the same time so a eye balling the next day woud catch them etc etc and other obvious caveats)

?

The whole scenario seems somewhat bizarre - without meaning to be seen as unfair to the person beign discussed...

* the story seems somewhat flimsy CF dog ate my homework
* the metro is a free newspaper ... a replacement one for the crossword could be taken later anyway
* this EO scenario regarding name and address etc is open to clear abuse


Path of least resistance IMO ? Pay the fine and start a crowd funder to cover the fees.

didds

didds wrote:* this EO scenario regarding name and address etc is open to clear abuse

No different to being stopped by the police for some minor infringement and asked for your name and address. They (presumably like an EO) may ask you for ID but if you don't have (or won't show) any they just have to take what you say.

Of course, if you're an Olympic class runner you could just leg it ...

BTW, the Wandsworth EOs (and likely others too) wear body cams.

mc2fool wrote:

didds wrote:* this EO scenario regarding name and address etc is open to clear abuse

No different to being stopped by the police for some minor infringement and asked for your name and address. They (presumably like an EO) may ask you for ID but if you don't have (or won't show) any they just have to take what you say.

Of course, if you're an Olympic class runner you could just leg it ...

BTW, the Wandsworth EOs (and likely others too) wear body cams.

To my mind it is completely different because a policeman has the power to chase, detain and even use force to ensure that you comply. The council employee can do none of those things.

When I have seen ticket inspectors on trains deal with someone without a ticket, they ask for ID. Presumably if the fare evader claims to have none then the inspector can ring the police to meet the train at the next stop. But a council "enforcer" on the street does not have such a convenient tactic available to him or her.

I doubt that you would need to be an Olympic athlete to outrun the average council employee weighed down with all his "enforcing" equipment. And it isn't clear that they are authorised to give chase. What would they do if they caught up with you?

Bodycams? Maybe, but unless your mug shot is on file that won't matter anyway.

Lootman wrote:

mc2fool wrote:

didds wrote:* this EO scenario regarding name and address etc is open to clear abuse

No different to being stopped by the police for some minor infringement and asked for your name and address. They (presumably like an EO) may ask you for ID but if you don't have (or won't show) any they just have to take what you say.

Of course, if you're an Olympic class runner you could just leg it ...

BTW, the Wandsworth EOs (and likely others too) wear body cams.

To my mind it is completely different because a policeman has the power to chase, detain and even use force to ensure that you comply.

But he doesn't have the power of telepathy to know that the name & address you just cooperatively gave him is total BS.

Lootman wrote:Bodycams? Maybe, but unless your mug shot is on file that won't matter anyway.

A council has published pictures of three littering suspects. Are you confident nobody would dob you in ... ?

mc2fool wrote:

Lootman wrote:Bodycams? Maybe, but unless your mug shot is on file that won't matter anyway.

A council has published pictures of three littering suspects. Are you confident nobody would dob you in ... ?

If I found myself in Merthyr Tydfil I would deserve prison.

mc2fool wrote:No different to being stopped by the police for some minor infringement and asked for your name and address. They (presumably like an EO) may ask you for ID but if you don't have (or won't show) any they just have to take what you say....
BTW, the Wandsworth EOs (and likely others too) wear body cams.

Except that the policeman has the power of detention/arrest etc etc if (s)he believes you are telling porkies. The EO doesnt.
And if they accept the false name and address and later find out its wrong - aside from theoretically being an offense tyhere still isnt much they can do about it, outside of nationwide man hunts. Given some police forces allegedly arent even responding to shoplifting for "low amounts" I cant see that featuring highly on their priorities...
(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 02746.html)

Body cam - only surely of much use if the perpetrator is likely to return often to the scene of the littering and can be eyeballed? If they "never" return the footage is a bit useless - unless it is to be sent to every police station (are the police even bothered?) in the country and via Interpol to bring the heinous criminal to task... or it run through whatever facial recognition systems exiswt globally to identify the person... assuming they are already on whatever database.

I somehow dont see either occurring. Others mileage may vary.

mc2fool wrote:

Lootman wrote:Bodycams? Maybe, but unless your mug shot is on file that won't matter anyway.

A council has published pictures of three littering suspects. Are you confident nobody would dob you in ... ?

whilst appreciatiing the above is a light heatred post... not much use if the person whose picture is pubvished loives in Norfolk and not Merthyr Tydfil.

Lootman wrote:When I have seen ticket inspectors on trains deal with someone without a ticket, they ask for ID. Presumably if the fare evader claims to have none then the inspector can ring the police to meet the train at the next stop.

That might happen in London, but out in the country - no chance, and both the fare evaders and the ticket inspectors know it.

There is zero chance of anyone from the local police turning up, as my town of 30,000 people doesn't have a police station and has four police offices assigned to cover it and the surrounding countryside area for twenty miles in every direction. That isn't four per shift, but four in total to cover 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

As for the British Transport Police, well there are some at a station an hour's drive north, or 45 minutes to the south, or an hour to the east, or 45 minutes to the west. Holding a train for an hour so BTP can turn up; no.

In practice the ticket inspector asks to see the tickets, the fare evaders ignore them, the ticket inspector asks for ID, the fare evaders ignore them, and the ticket inspector then moves on down the train to check the tickets of all the commuters who do have and show their tickets. Utterly pointless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRgCA84br8

This gives a bit more detail on the matter.

John

redsturgeon wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRgCA84br8

This gives a bit more detail on the matter.

John

Hmmm ... the cops turned up fairly quickly!

redsturgeon wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRgCA84br8

This gives a bit more detail on the matter.

John

The videographer claims that the alleged litterer has the right to remain silent.

My post above (https://lemonfool.co.uk/posting.php?mod ... 2#pr443895) quotes the relevant law - it doesn't appear to give the litterer the right to withhold his name and address. I have no doubt that there are all sorts of things done by EOs which may not be strictly legal, but the videographer does not necessarily have the law on his side either.

Anyhow - this is all getting a bit far from the OP's question now, so perhaps it's time to draw this to a close?

Lootman wrote:
The EO could call the police but how interested would they be in this? They would probably just see this as more like a civil matter between the council and the individual.

The police would certainly be interested and their in-built authority would put alter the mood immediately - I've seen it happen. However, the problem for the EO would be in finding a policemen at all - like the rest of us. They are as rare as hen's teeth when you need one.

Arb.

redsturgeon wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRgCA84br8

This gives a bit more detail on the matter.

John

That chap making the film is just a fully paid up member of the awkward squad and a pain in the fundament.
What does he really think he is achieving apart from peeing everyone off and by the looks of it embarassing everyone concerned as well as making himself look an idiot?
Littering is anti-social: defying the authorities who are trying their best to tackle it is also anti social, and this cameraman is just an unhelpful antisocial crackpot working against the best interests of thexcommunity.

One admires his enthusiasm for a cause, but I would rather he chose a worthier cause to cut his teeth on.

Arb.

Apart from littering being anti social (was she littering?) I cannot really see that it should attract a fine of £100. The other day, I left my car in a station car park which has been more or less empty for months and the 'authority' has place each of the two parking meters in 'Not in Use' mode. I deliberately checked last week and they were still in that mode so I left my car without a parking ticket. Several hours later I returned to find a £60 fine notice on my windscreen. The local council decided not to accept my plea of innocence but in effect challenged me. Frankly I could not be bothered so have sent my contribution of £30 to their running expenses this evening. If I pay within 14 days I get a 50% discount they tell me.

That would be my only defence in the case being discussed. £100 seems 'way over the top.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:Apart from littering being anti social (was she littering?)

£100 seems 'way over the top.

As the guy in the video cited above notes, these enforcement officers are often private contractors who collect a percentage of the fine, with the council getting the rest without having to do any work or spend any money.

So this is really a gravy-go-round scheme designed for all the participants of administering "justice" to make some money whilst claiming to hold the moral high ground. The officers are basically bounty hunters who have a financial incentive to ticket people.

Now if my local authority wants to pay me 50% for slapping parking tickets on every car which I see parked illegally, then I could make a very good living since I see illegally parked cars everywhere and the only thing that would limit how many tickets I could issue is how fast I can write. But for some reason it is considered bad form to privatise the citation of parking tickets, but not litter tickets. Why?