Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

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

I never said you coud have a civil fine. But then a fixed Penalty Notice is not a fine, is it! .

Sorry din't answer this

A FPN may only be issued where an officer has reason to believe a person has committed a penalty offence and there is sufficient evidence with to support a successful prosecution.
A FPN will be appropriate for first-time offenders as it is a low-level disposal and the recipient can avoid obtaining a conviction. It will also be appropriate because of the extreme improbability that a person once seen committing an offence would be seen on a subsequent occasion, and such an event, that there would be any record, or any accessible record, of a previous warning (which may have been given by another agency). A FPN may be an appropriate response where a warning or a caution might be used.

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

[teaboy2]

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

Just replaced by other measures but still in place until they take over, but still a criminal act punishable via a fine.
http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/NR/rdonl...egislation.pdf


Section 55 – Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (CNEA) 2005
The above legislation has repealed the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. Dog fouling can now be
regulated by way of Dog Control Orders. Local authorities can designate areas of land and make a
Dog Control Order to apply to that land
This system of Dog Control Orders replaces that of making by‐laws or designations under the now
repealed Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. By‐Laws and Local Acts of Parliament can continue to have
effect until such a time as a Dog Control Order is made.
Breach of an order may be prosecuted in court to a maximum of a Level 3 fine (£1000) or dealt with
by means of a Fixed Penalty.

There has to be a criminal statutory basis for a fine to be imposed teaboy. You cannot have a civil fine.

I never said you coud have a civil fine. But then a fixed Penalty Notice is not a fine, is it! Nor is it registered (where as a fine is) against the person the FPN is issued too!!

Also 2005 act is in force. And no not punishable as a crime. Whats punishable is non payment of FPN where you have not opted for a court hearing (This is your statutory basis andy), which can lead to a 50% increase and/or fine. At this point it becomes criminal, and non payment of Fine can lead to further conviction.

Its also not a crime unless you are found guilty of it, not guilty means no crime committed by the accused! Most councils prefer the FPN route than instant prosecution (its the council that prosecutes), as obviously FPN is near instant profit with no need to answer to a judge.

As said before, the argument as to whether its civil or criminal is not relevant to the OP. No FPN was issued to her, so nothing for her to answer too. Its the actions and false allegations of the CEO, along with the council refusing to release the body cam footage despite the OP being the data subject, that is being questioned here.

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

Breach of an order may be prosecuted in court to a maximum of a Level 3 fine (£1000) or dealt with by means of a Fixed Penalty.

Is it an arrestable offence, as it would have been under section 46(3) (link) of the Police Reform Act 2002 if Genghis Khan had overstated his powers?

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

I would also suggest that, as well as the bodycam footage, you request the CCTV footage from the park, this would prove/disprove whether or not your dog ( or someone elses) was responsible.

That assumes it has not (conveniently) disappeared.

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

Does the Border Agency know about Citizen "Genghis" Khan? :grin:

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

Repealed in 2005.



Totally agree with you. To me there was no evidence just a false accusation by the CEO against Mia

Just replaced by other measures but still in place until they take over, but still a criminal act punishable via a fine.
http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/NR/rdonl...egislation.pdf


Section 55 – Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (CNEA) 2005
The above legislation has repealed the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. Dog fouling can now be
regulated by way of Dog Control Orders. Local authorities can designate areas of land and make a
Dog Control Order to apply to that land
This system of Dog Control Orders replaces that of making by‐laws or designations under the now
repealed Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996. By‐Laws and Local Acts of Parliament can continue to have
effect until such a time as a Dog Control Order is made.
Breach of an order may be prosecuted in court to a maximum of a Level 3 fine (£1000) or dealt with
by means of a Fixed Penalty.

There has to be a criminal statutory basis for a fine to be imposed teaboy. You cannot have a civil fine.

[Tools]

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

I would also suggest that, as well as the bodycam footage, you request the CCTV footage from the park, this would prove/disprove whether or not your dog ( or someone elses) was responsible.

[teaboy2]

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

What law(s) do you believe would have been broken if mio rather than her dog had (allegedly) shat on the pavement?

Thats a good point. I know you can get an FPN for urinating, but not seen or heard anything about pooing in public lol.

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

I take my grandchildren to school some mornings and the pavements around the school are disgusting.

Then blame the parents, for letting their kiddies crap all over the pavement.

Why can they not be taught to do it in the gutter, as they do in India?

[teaboy2]

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

Here#

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/20/section/3

Offence.

(1)

If a dog defecates at any time on designated land and a person who is in charge of the dog at that time fails to remove the faeces from the land forthwith, that person shall be guilty of an offence unless—

(a)

he has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so; or

(b)

the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has consented (generally or specifically) to his failing to do so.

(2)

A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Now do you want me to put up the definition of the word"conviction "(do you think this is a civil term) or would you like me to tell you what a standard scale fee for an offence is.

Repealed in 2005.

I would concur about a lawfully-issued FPN becoming a criminal matter when the penalty is not paid. However, you cannot be accused of any offence and be penalised without being allowed to see the evidence and challenge the evidence alleged to prove the offence you are being accused of committing. Quite simply, a local authority has no power, in law, to sidestep or ignore due legal process. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights prevents punishment without there being an offence in law and certainly not without being first tried by a court or legally-convened tribunal. Articles 17 and 18 prevent a person's Convention rights from being destroyed or restricted. All rights under ECHR are inviolate and inalienable. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for any authority, person or commercial entity whose function is public, that is, on behalf of the State, whether local or national, to breach a person's Convention rights.

Totally agree with you. To me there was no evidence just a false accusation by the CEO against Mia

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

It does make me wonder, however, if it would be worth Mio emailing the elected members of London Borough of Tower Hamlets with a link to the video

Find them at https://www.writetothem.com

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

It is a criminal matter though isn't it(in general)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/section/64

What law(s) do you believe would have been broken if mio rather than her dog had (allegedly) shat on the pavement?

[bluebottle]

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

This had occurred to me. And it's scary.

Feel free to let as many people as possible have copies of the document I have posted, Mio. The more people that know and tell others, the better. Standing up to the creeps who try to push their luck - like Citizen Khan - is the way to defeat them. Just stay calm and polite and point out when and where they are wrong. They'll shout and holler at you like a demented idiot, but if they see their bullying and intimidation is having no effect, just strengthening your resolve, it scares them because they've been programmed to believe everyone will cower in fear and do their bidding. As Citizen Khan found, you're a feisty lady who takes no nonsense from anyone.

[bluebottle]

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

There are many acts of parliament that enable councils to create by-laws . A breach of by-law in self is not necessary a criminal act. In 2006 things changed, from breaches of by-laws being punishable criminally to being punishable by FPN instead.

You keep posting links to Council sites, and wiki (a user contribution site and therefore not necessary correct), but fail to porvide legislation that shows dog fouling is a criminal offence. Also how can one be guilty of such offence if they have not been found guilty by a court? So no, its not a criminal offence.

Non payment of the FPN, and when recipient does not opt for a court hearing in the time specified, the penalty may be increased by 50% and registered against the recipient as a fine (Non Payment of Fine at this point is when it becomes a criminal offence, so this is where it changes from civil to criminal). It may then be enforced by the normal methods used to enforce unpaid fines, including imprisonment in some circumstances.

Any way - The OP's dog did not foul on the land so whether its a crminal offence or not is irrelevant where it concerns the OP

I would concur about a lawfully-issued FPN becoming a criminal matter when the penalty is not paid. However, you cannot be accused of any offence and be penalised without being allowed to see the evidence and challenge the evidence alleged to prove the offence you are being accused of committing. Quite simply, a local authority has no power, in law, to sidestep or ignore due legal process. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights prevents punishment without there being an offence in law and certainly not without being first tried by a court or legally-convened tribunal. Articles 17 and 18 prevent a person's Convention rights from being destroyed or restricted. All rights under ECHR are inviolate and inalienable. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for any authority, person or commercial entity whose function is public, that is, on behalf of the State, whether local or national, to breach a person's Convention rights.

Andy58,

You appear to be posting links to different websites in an attempt to bolster your arguments. Citizen Khan and London Borough of Tower Hamlets are on a very sticky wicket, legally, and I suspect they know they are. I am very surprised the OP's dog did not sink its teeth into Citizen Khan's leg or backside or cock its leg and pee all over his trouser leg in protest. You certainly have a very good grasp on Civil Law and I won't deny that, but I am with Teaboy2 on this matter.