Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[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.

[Guest]

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,
.

[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:

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/59

This is the authority for the FPN, Notice the section where it says," CONVICTED OF AN OFFENCE" I wonder what it means

59


Fixed penalty notices

(1)

This section applies where on any occasion—

(a)

an authorised officer of a primary or secondary authority has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under a dog control order made by that authority; or

(b)

an authorised officer of a secondary authority has reason to believe that a person has in its area committed an offence under a dog control order made by a primary authority.

(2)

The authorised officer may give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty.

(3)

A fixed penalty payable under this section is payable to the primary or secondary authority whose officer gave the notice.

(4)

Where a person is given a notice under this section in respect of an offence—

(a)

no proceedings may be instituted for that offence before the expiration of the period of fourteen days following the date of the notice; and

(b)

he may not be convicted of that offence if he pays the fixed penalty before the expiration of that period.

[teaboy2]

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

As i have said before. No criminal offence has occurred until and only until the recipient fails to both pay the fine or opt to appeal via a court hearing! (Payment of FPN is not an admission of guilt according to the Crown Court). So there is no liability to any criminal offence, as the criminal offence is not deemed to have occurred until a court says otherwise (Innocent to proven guilty) and a fine is registered against them.

An criminal offence does not occur just because a CEO with a pad full of FPN suspects you to have committed one. There needs to be evidence to support the CEO suspicion or allegation against a person.

What your trying to tell us, is basically akin to someone being suspected/accused of abusive language by a CEO and being given an FPN. When, in fact, the recipient had never said a word at all and its was the CEO simply hearing things in his head. Which is stupid, but that is exactly what you are saying. Your saying because the CEO suspected it, then the person the CEO suspected or accused is guilty of committing a criminal offence! Do you see just how dangerous and open to miscarriage of justice that is.

Its also strange, don't you think that only those that do not turn up to court end up with court fines for it. I bet 90% of times where an FPN is issued is based on CEO word against the alleged offender, with no physical evidence - It be like this in court CEO "yes did" Defendant "No i didn't CEO "Yes you did" defendant "Noooo Iiii DDDDidn't!". And body cam footage is not reliable, as the body cam faces one way, whilst the CEO's head could be looking to his right or left when they claim to see you. Also, isn't falsely accusing someone of an offence known as perverting the course of justice, punishable as a criminal offence under common law.

Even the Police Officers that spoke to MIA confirmed it was not a criminal matter, therefore it was a civil one between MIA, the CEO(s) and the council.

Also i said its the council that prosecutes, i didn't say the prosecution was carried out at the councils offices!!

[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. - Thats funny, just who were you correcting exactly, becuase i don't see anyone (Myself or Bluebottle) prior to your posting saying it was not a criminal offence! So just who were you correcting, as to me you were not correcting anyone. As such you brought a subject of criminality into this thread, where it was not even relevant to the thread since MIA was never given a FPN. Probably because the CEO realised his job was more important that the extra pennies in bonus he get for that 1 ticket.

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 - Guess you have never heard of Civil Penalties/fines, which are punishment under civil law, just like council enforced parking tickets (FPN).

No one here is saying that one can not be convicted of a criminal offence for dog fouling, what i and saying (and i believe bluebottle is also saying) is that an criminal offense can not have occurred until one is convicted of it. If your not convicted of it, then as far as the law is concerned, a criminal offence has not occurred.

SO until the FPN is either not paid or the recipient has not opted to have a court hearing within the required time-frame, it is treated as civil matter!! Its only after the non payment and failure to opt for court hearing with the time frame, that it is then treated as a criminal matter. And even then, it has to go to court, where no crimminal offence is deemed to have occurred until proven otherwise in court (innocent till proven guilty).

You can't go up to someone on the street and say you dropped that mars bar wrapper, thats blowing around the accused feet, and then shout at top of your voice, "Hey this guys a criminal"!! - That would be slander, as the accused has not been covicted of an offence and in the eyes of the law, that means no offence was committed. CEO's can issue FPN(s) simply on suspicion, but being issued one doesn't mean you have committed a crime, and that your actions were criminal.

End of the day, MIAs dog did not foul, Mia was not given an FPN, so what was the point in bringing up the subject of criminal act relating to dog fouling and desecrating this post after post contain links and qoutes on legislation not even relevant to MIA's actual circumstances. So for the, what fifth, or is now sixth time, whether its a criminal or a civil matter it is not relevant to MIA's thread!!

[Guest]

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

What the fxxk does this mean
We are talking about what actions constitute a criminal offence, not guilt or innocence.

Your innocent if you shoot someone in the head until the court proves otherwise

#I give up on this thread


Not picking up poo after your dog is a criminal offence, punishable by a maximum fine of £1000.

I Don;t have a clue what the hell else you are on about. Issuance of a FPN allows the offender to escape prosecution by paying a smaller amount if they choose not to pay they can opt to defend in court if they fail they will get a criminal fine.

[bluebottle]

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

Being Drunk and Disorderly In A Public Place, whilst dealt with by a magistrates court, is a strictly non-crime offence. Don't forget that the CPS act as an advisory body as well as a prosecuting body. They only get involved in their prosecuting role in criminal cases, which are offences where the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of five years or more.

If Dog Fouling was deemed a criminal offence, it would bring the justice system into disrepute and make it a laughing stock. No one would take it seriously or have any confidence in it.

[Guest]

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

Interesting has this been repealed then ? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/91

The Criminal justice act ? As for the CPS being advisory well they advise that dog fouling is a criminal matter and really they should know

91Drunkenness in a public place.

(1)

Any person who in any public place is guilty, while drunk, of disorderly behaviour may be arrested without warrant by any person and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

(2)

The foregoing subsection shall have effect instead of any corresponding provision contained in section 12 of the M1Licensing Act 1872, section 58 of the M2Metropolitan Police Act 1839, section 37 of the M3City of London Police Act 1839, and section 29 of the M4Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (being enactments which authorise the imposition of a short term of imprisonment or of a fine not exceeding £10 or both for the corresponding offence) and instead of any corresponding provision contained in any local Act.

(3)

The Secretary of State may by order repeal any provision of a local Act which appears to him to be a provision corresponding to subsection (1) of this section or to impose a liability to imprisonment for an offence of drunkenness or of being incapable while drunk.

(4)

In this section “public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.

(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2