Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[teaboy2]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

This is

FPN are only issued on mere suspicion, and acceptance and payment of a FPN is not an admission of guilt, and merely discharges you of any future liability i.e liable to future civil prosecution by the land owner.

In order for a person to have committed a crime, they must be found to have done so beyond reasonable doubt in court.

The difference between civil prosecution and criminal is:

Decision:

Civil - Defendant can be found liable or not liable, the judge decides this - Just like in small claims court.
Criminal - Defendant is convicted if guilty and acquitted if not guilty, the jury decide this.

[teaboy2]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

Yes I have heard this said, and it is a valid point however. If it were me that was caught committing an offence I would rather pay a reduced fine and and get it over with than have to go through court case and end up with a criminal record.

But the point is that the offence has to be committed before any of this can happen (no only suspicion of an offence being committed is required, no offence has actually been committed till proven so in court - same applies equally to both alleged civil and criminal offences). If the suspect disputes the offence then they do not pay the ticket and they get to state their case in court. This is not civil procedure, and will not occur in your local county court.

see above.

[teaboy2]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[QUOTE=andy58;407422]

No wrong. Dog fouling is not a criminal offence /QUOTE]

This is a quote from the CPS

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/o...e_animals/#a04

Where a dog defecates on land designated under the Act by a local authority the person (other than a registered blind person) in charge of the dog commits a summary offence if he fails to remove the faeces forthwith, see section 3 Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 (Stones 8-26731

Do you really need me to go into the intricacies of parking enforcement, and go even more off topic?

Simply this is an offence, not a civil offence a criminal offence, the same as most parking/ motoring offences(unless they have been decriminalized), these can be settled by the payment of a fixed penalty prior to enforcement, but the offence has to be committed, there has to be a reasonable chance of successful criminal prosecution before a FPN is issued.

When a shop takes an action against a shop-lifter it is on the basis of losses uncured due to a tort, there is no fine, it is an action for damages.(Unless the police decide to get involved and take action for criminal theft.)

As usual you made an error, and instead of just holding your hands up and saying, look I made a mistake , you seek to confuse the issue with other nonsense. Really... Funny you say that when a former Police officer happens to also disagree with you!! Are now reverting to making this personal andy?! I am also offended by your falsely stating as, a matter of fact, that i am usually wrong. Sure i have had arguments with others and have been mistaken in the past, just like you and anybody else here on planet earth, but more times then not i am not mistaken. So your statement i am usually wrong is false and inciting.

See red above - Act was repealed in 2005 so no longer enforce.

As said, the argument as to whether it is criminal or not is not relevant to the OP. So before you start accusing me of deflecting the argument. Ask yourself, who is the one that deflected from the subject of this thread by bringing up this argument, that it was criminal, in the first place!!

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

FPN are only issued on mere suspicion, and acceptance and payment of a FPN is not an admission of guilt, and merely discharges you of any future liability i.e liable to future civil prosecution by the land owner.

In order for a person to have committed a crime, they must be found to have done so beyond reasonable doubt in court.

The difference between civil prosecution and criminal is:

Decision:

Civil - Defendant can be found liable or not liable, the judge decides this - Just like in small claims court.
Criminal - Defendant is convicted if guilty and acquitted if not guilty, the jury decide this.

The Crown prosecution service prosecute criminal offences and they say that this is a criminal offence.

I am not going to start trying to explain your misconceptions regarding the difference between criminal and civil procedure, because to be honest I cant be bothered and it is to big an issue for this thread, you need to go away and read up.



0

[teaboy2]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

The Crown prosecution service prosecute criminal offences and they say that this is a criminal offence.

I am not going to start trying to explain your misconceptions regarding the difference between criminal and civil procedure, because to be honest I cant be bothered and it is to big an issue for this thread, you need to go away and read up.



0

Your opinion and argument is based on old legislation that is no longer enforced, and where dog fouling is now enforced and prosecuted by the council or land owner, and not the CPS.

I know perfectly well what the difference between criminal and civil procedure is, it is you that is confused in regards to the the issue of dog fouling and enforcement against a person for dog fouling.

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[QUOTE=teaboy2;407428]

See red above - Act was repealed in 2005 so no longer enforce.

As said, the argument as to whether it is criminal or not is not relevant to the OP. So before you start accusing me of deflecting the argument. Ask yourself, who is the one that deflected from the subject of this thread by bringing up this argument, that it was criminal, in the first place!!

I made a simple statement of fact, I correcting a poster, when I stated that dog fouling is a criminal offence, this was a statement of fact. You decided to argue , that is not my fault.

As for enforcement, as explained before the current position is that the 2005 act is in place until the particular council adopts the statutory option of adopting a by law using a regulation under the act.

This does not mean that it is no longer a criminal act, it just means that the enforcement is done via a bylaw. This is all irrelevant to the point of if this is a criminal or civil act.

If punishment is involved (ie a fine) it has to be a criminal sanction, punishment is not allowed under civil law. law 101

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

some relevant legislation here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/62

62Community support officers etc

(1)

The Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30) is amended as follows.

(2)

In Schedule 4 (community support officers), in paragraph 1(2), after paragraph (d) insert “and

(e)

the power of an authorised officer of a primary or secondary authority, within the meaning of section 59 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, to give a notice under that section (fixed penalty notices in respect of offences under dog control orders).”

(3)

In Schedule 5 (accredited persons), in paragraph 1(2), after paragraph (c) insert “and

(d)

the power of an authorised officer of a primary or secondary authority, within the meaning of section 59 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, to give a notice under that section (fixed penalty notices in respect of offences under dog control orders).”

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

This also

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/61

61Power to require name and address

(1)

If an authorised officer of a primary or secondary authority proposes to give a person a notice under section 59, the officer may require the person to give him his name and address.

(2)

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or

(b)

he gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection.

(3)

A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4)

In this section “authorised officer” has the same meaning as in section 59.

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

Incidentally the standard fine scale is issued under the CRIMINAL justice act 1982

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9820048_en.pdf

[CleverClogs]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

61Power to require name and address

She did give her name and address at least once, but Citizen Khan seems to have been such a dullard that he could not write it down.

Then he made the rather inaccurate report that she was "not complying".

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

She did give her name and address at least once, but Citizen Khan seems to have been such a dullard that he could not write it down.

Then he made the rather inaccurate report that she was "not complying".

Indeed, I was unsure f the "officers" legal right to ask, it seems they can. Doesn't alter the fact that he behaved like an ass.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

I believe that it is long overdue for those third-rate pseudo-cops and jumped-up park keepers to be put back in their boxes.

[bluebottle]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

Summary offences can only be heard before a magistrates court and cannot be committed to a higher court for trial or sentence. Such offences carry a fine only. Simply because an offence is heard at a magistrates court does not, in itself, mean the offence is a criminal offence. Road Traffic offences are heard before a magistrates court and carry a fine only, except those involving death or endangerment to the lives of others, which includes certain drink-drive and drug-drive offences. This is because they carry custodial offences of five years or more.

The easiest rule of thumb as to whether an offence is classed as criminal is whether it is an Indictable Offences, that is, the maximum penalty on conviction is five years imprisonment or more.

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

Interesting so road traffic offences are not a crime, tv licence evasion also or parking on a red route, also not a crime avoiding train or bus fare not a crime.

I was always taught that law was divided into civil and criminal where civil law was concerned with actions either in contract or tort and criminal was acts against the state, with the different burdens of proof and remedies that each encompass.
But it now appears that there is a new category, none criminal criminality, depending on the degree, an interesting concept.

I don't suppose you have any authority for this belief that criminal law only cuts in on a certain threshold, I would really like to see it.

[Guest]

Re: Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

This is the definition which I have been accustomed to for the past 50 years, perhaps they have changed it without me noticing

According to William Geldart, Introduction to English Law 146 (D.C.M. Yardley ed., 9th ed. 1984),

"The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue - redress or punishment. The object of civil law is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss. On the other hand, in the case of crimes, the main object of the law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.”

The issuance of a fine is indicative of a criminal act, it is not allowed in a civil case, if it is not a civil action in law it can only be a criminal one.