Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

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".

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

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.

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).”

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

[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.

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

[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!!

[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

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.

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

I wouldn't read too much into legislation that allows FPNs to be issued. There is a very strong argument that such measures breach a person's right -

• to be considered innocent until proven guilty;
• to know the nature of the allegations being made against them;
• to challenge those allegations;
• to have the allegations tried by a court or legally-convened tribunal
• to not be accused of an offence when no offence exists

These rights are contained within Article 6 of ECHR and enshrined within the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority, which includes any central or local government agency, council, department or ministry, commercial entity or person whose function is that of a public nature, including acting on behalf of a public authority, to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Politicians often come up with legislation which sounds as if it was cobbled together during a House of Commons tea-break and written down on the back of a cigarette packet. I can see a lot of Dog Poo and Litter Stazi joining the JSA Club sometime soon. People have had enough of the bullying, corruption, fraud and lies by politicians at both local and national level and I can see the likes of Citizen Khan being an early casualty of the inevitable clampdown on out-of-control officials, private security and the civil enforcement industry.

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. 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.

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

[QUOTE=teaboy2;407415]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.

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

No wrong. Dog fouling is not a criminal offence it's a civil offence

duplicate post

[teaboy2]

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

Not sure what you are trying to say here teaboy, the act of allowing your dog to foul is a crime punishable by a fine of upto £1000. According to the CPS anyway.

A fine is a criminal punishment. If you pay a fixed penalty you waive your right to a trial, that is all.



I

No wrong. Dog fouling is not a criminal offence it's a civil offence between you and the owner of the land who has introduced a dog control order. The offence is non payment of the FPN, or are you trying to tell us all the parking on a land owners land without a permit/ticket is also a criminal offence, as you get FPNS for that too from the councils. Same in some areas where you leave your car engine ticking over, is that a crime too.

The offence regarding dog fouling does not occur until the person issued with a FPN either does not pay and fails to opt to have it heard in court within the time-frame allowed. Once the FPN is paid, the recipient discharges all liability and therefore no offence has occurred! If they fail to pay or opt to court, then the FPN is enforced the same way as any other FPN (Paying of a FPN is not an admission of guilt, nor does issuing one or paying one count as a criminal conviction for a criminal offence)

As for your other post regarding issuing of FPN on first offence. Sorry but do we see people parking without permit/ticket getting just 1 FPN and then getting taken straight to court? Nope. Yes a council may prosecute you instead of giving you an FPN for dog fouling, but they would need evidence the feaces came from your dog, as hearsay from a CEO is not enough.

If a shoplifter is prosecuted by a store, is it a civil prosecution, yes it is.

Same for councils, land owners, company's that issued dog control orders. In order for it to be a criminal prosecution then the dog owner would have to be prosecuted by the government/crown, by trial - But its not the government/crown that is prosecuting you, its the local council, land owner or company. It is the subsequent court trial that determines if you have committed an civil offence of dog fouling, should you opt to have a court hearing (in which case the FPN is usually increased by 50%), and/or if you have committed a criminal offence for not paying the FPN whilst not opting for court hearing within the time-frame permitted (its only when you fail to pay and fail to opt for court hearing when it becomes a criminal matter). Said court may then fine you, and order you to pay compensation to the party prosecuting you as remittance.

Why do you think it is only those that failed to pay and failed to opt to go to court within the allowed time frame, are the ones that we hear are prosecuted in the news. Where those that opt for court we hear nothing about in the news regardless of the outcome?!! Its because the latter is not a criminal offence, but a civil one.

Now for the third time. Whether its criminal or not is not relevant to the thread since no FPN was issued!!

[bluebottle]

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

I wouldn't read too much into legislation that allows FPNs to be issued. There is a very strong argument that such measures breach a person's right -

• to be considered innocent until proven guilty;
• to know the nature of the allegations being made against them;
• to challenge those allegations;
• to have the allegations tried by a court or legally-convened tribunal
• to not be accused of an offence when no offence exists

These rights are contained within Article 6 of ECHR and enshrined within the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority, which includes any central or local government agency, council, department or ministry, commercial entity or person whose function is that of a public nature, including acting on behalf of a public authority, to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Politicians often come up with legislation which sounds as if it was cobbled together during a House of Commons tea-break and written down on the back of a cigarette packet. I can see a lot of Dog Poo and Litter Stazi joining the JSA Club sometime soon. People have had enough of the bullying, corruption, fraud and lies by politicians at both local and national level and I can see the likes of Citizen Khan being an early casualty of the inevitable clampdown on out-of-control officials, private security and the civil enforcement industry.