Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

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

[QUOTE=teaboy2;407624]

Its the council that prosecutes for dog fouling, not the CPS.

as said the 2005 is in place until the law can be enforced under bylaws, but the enforcement will still be of a criminal fine and actually the prosecution is carried out in the magistrates court, along with other criminal prosecution. A fixed penalty notice is a means where an suspected offender can avoid court action being taken against them for an offence, not a breach of contract or a tort,

If civil what is the tort or is it contractual, how come that there is a fine, fines are not allowed in civil law, they would be a penalty.

You see there is no real argument.

[teaboy2]

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

[QUOTE=andy58;407431]

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. - And the chances are it was an FPN issues under the councils own By-law given that majority of councils now have their own such by-law. Therefore the dog(fouling on land) act 1996 is not in force and is repealed.

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 - But no punishment is made until a person either fails to pay the FPN or failed to opt for court hearing. I have said this all along, its not a criminal matter til non payment of the FPN were the recipient fails to opt for court hearing.

Its the council that prosecutes for dog fouling, not the CPS.

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

/

http://kb.keepbritaintidy.org/dogs/p...s/guidedog.pdf

What is the legislation regarding dog fouling?

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act
2005 has repealed the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act
1996 and dog fouling is now one of five dog control
matters that can be regulated by way of Dog Control
Orders. The authority can designate areas of land
and make a Dog Control Order to apply to that land.
This could be any land which is open to the air on at
least one side and to which the public have access
(with or without payment). There are exceptions
which apply (or could be applied) to certain types of
land, for example, roads (and highways) in respect
of a Dog Control Order excluding dogs from land.
This system of Dog Control Orders replaces that of
making bylaws, or designations under the now
repealed Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. However,
existing bylaws will continue to apply until a control
order is made in concern of the same offence and
relating to the same land. Existing dog fouling
designations will continue to apply until a control
order is made for any of the dog offences in respect
of that land. In considering how appropriate a
measure a Dog Control Order is for an area, an
authority is urged to have a regard to balancing the
needs of dog owners with the interests of the wider
public, as well as practical considerations for the
enforcement of the land.

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

Forgive me if this has been posted before (it probably has) but to the untrained eye it does seem fairly clear cut :

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

I can see, and agree, that no offence was committed by the OP if she is telling the truth and also that the para-policeperson appears to have behaved ridiculously; nevertheless it does seem important (specially for dog owners) to establish the correct ground rules, since it's come up:juge:

Yes it is clear cut, and to be honest I did not expect it to cause of any argument, the fine is upto £1000 but the person guilty of the OFFENCE can opt to pay a fixed penalty notice and avoid enforcement if they choose. Similar to other minor OFFENCES.

Enforcement takes place through he magistrates court as this is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

[MissFM]

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

Forgive me if this has been posted before (it probably has) but to the untrained eye it does seem fairly clear cut :

"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)."

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

I can see, and agree, that no offence was committed by the OP if she is telling the truth and also that the para-policeperson appears to have behaved ridiculously; nevertheless it does seem important (specially for dog owners) to establish the correct ground rules, since it's come up:juge:

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

Andy58,

Unless you have worked within the Criminal Justice system, it is not as cut and dried as you appear to believe it is. It now appears that you are searching other websites for material to support your arguments. Just because a case is heard in a magistrates court does not, in itself, mean that the case is concerned with a criminal offence.

It is just a matter of the difference between criminal and civil law Bluebottle. I am not "searching other websites" the the authority shown is form government websites, and really it just illustrates what should be common knowledge.

If you know of anything other than your opinion which shows that somehow a minor "criminal " actions are not really criminal in some way, please show the authority(because i was an ex policeman and I say so will not do I am afraid), or would you like me to continue posting all the many reams of authority that show your misconception.

The subject of this thread(dog fouling) is a criminal offence, albeit a minor one but still subject to criminal sanctions, in this case a maximum of level 3 on the criminal fines scale.

I do not have to have worked in the criminal justice system to understand how it works, it really is not that complicated, and in any case this is elementary law,
.

[bluebottle]

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

Andy58,

Unless you have worked within the Criminal Justice system, it is not as cut and dried as you appear to believe it is. It now appears that you are searching other websites for material to support your arguments. Just because a case is heard in a magistrates court does not, in itself, mean that the case is concerned with a criminal offence.

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

also

Magistrates

Magistrates are trained, unpaid members of their local community, who work part-time and deal with less serious criminal cases, such as minor theft, criminal damage, public disorder and motoring offences.

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.

I think this is important so I have copied it in full for you(my emphasis) see the first line
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-...headingAnchor3

Magistrates in the criminal court

Over 95 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates' court.
Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases including motoring offences, commit to higher courts serious cases such as rape and murder, consider bail applications, deal with fine enforcement and grant search warrant and right of entry applications. They may also consider cases where people have not paid their council tax, their vehicle excise licence or TV licences.
All magistrates sit in adult criminal courts as panels of three, mixed in gender, age, ethnicity etc whenever possible to bring a broad experience of life to the bench. All three have equal decision-making powers but only one, the chairman will speak in court and preside over the proceedings. The two magistrates sitting either side are referred to as wingers.
Most of the cases are brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but there are other prosecution agencies such as RSPCA, Environment Agency, Department of Work and Pensions, English Nature etc.
Where a defendant pleads not guilty a trial will be held where the magistrates listen to, and sometimes see, evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence, decide on agreed facts and facts in dispute and consider whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Having found someone guilty or when someone has pleaded, the magistrates proceed to sentence using a structured decision making process and sentencing guidelines which set out the expected penalty for typical offences. They will also take note of case law and any practice directions from the higher courts and are advised in court by a legally qualified adviser.
For a single criminal offence committed by an adult, a magistrate's sentencing powers include the imposition of fines, Community Payback orders, probation orders or a period of not more than six months in custody (a total of 12 months for multiple offences). Magistrates may also sit in the Crown Court with a judge to hear appeals from magistrates' courts against conviction or sentence and proceedings on committal to the Crown Court for sentence.

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

Hm

The government seem to think that Magistrates courts deal with criminal offences too

https://www.gov.uk/courts/magistrates-courts

1. Magistrates' courts

All criminal cases start in a magistrates’ court.
Cases are heard by either:

• 3 magistrates
• a district judge

There isn’t a jury in a magistrates’ court.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.