Show me the poo! - Over reactivive civil enforcement officer

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

Just to clarify the bye laws are made under the previously mentioned act. Which states

An Act to amend section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;

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

It is important to me that we pin down whether or not this is a criminal offence. It seems like that is the crux of whether or not a person in my situation would have to give their details to the Police when they turned up, which they did in my case.

It is criminal.

As for the legality of requiring you to give your details. I do knot know, I would guess that there i nothing stopping them asking, I do not think they would be able to arrest you if you refused, however giving false information may be an additional offence.

[bluebottle]

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

Yes I do not think the OP need loose any sleep. it is a technical point only, and a minor offence, nevertheless criminal in nature.

Indecently, so it should be, the OP is obviously a responsible dog owner, but there are plenty who are not, I take my grandchildren to school some mornings and the pavements around the school are disgusting.

As stated above, Andy, some local authorities can be disingenuous and, even, dishonest. Placing a statement on a website or written notice that a matter is a "criminal offence" when it is not is certainly disingenuous and potentially dishonest, also. Unfortunately, it does not mean it is a criminal offence. With fraud and corruption being uncovered within local authorities on an almost daily basis, I would say that unless the relevant legislation clearly indicates it is of a criminal nature or is a criminal offence by virtue of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended), it ain't a criminal offence, but may be an infringement of a byelaw for which a Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) is applicable.

Notwithstanding, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 penetrate far more deeply and with greater impact than central and local government believe or let on. it is very likely Citizen Khan breached Section 6 of the HRA by breaching a number of the OP's Convention rights, which means he acted unlawfully.

There is no doubt that Citizen Khan behaved like a prize Richard Head and if he gets fired over it, it will be his own fault. The other two CEOs who joined in should, at the very least, receive Final Written Warnings for failing to curb the unacceptable behaviour of their colleague.

[mio]

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

Sorry it is either civil or criminal. it aint a civil offence so what is it.

There are plenty of council websites which will confirm the fact.

I think the word offence means criminal offence, unless you think it means offensive to the olfactory organ.

It is important to me that we pin down whether or not this is a criminal offence. It seems like that is the crux of whether or not a person in my situation would have to give their details to the Police when they turned up, which they did in my case.

[mio]

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

The videos are likely to have the CEO and elected members of London Borough of Tower Hamlets crapping themselves, especially when they realise the videos are accessible worldwide and may end up on national broadcast and print media.

The story and video, and or stills, have already featured this week in The Evening Standard, The Daily Mail online, The Sun online, The Huffington Post, 9 News Australia, The Times of Mumbai and the Gulf Times just for starters!

I also forgot to mention I found an interesting thread about it on the Policespecials.com website where serving Police officers debate the procedure and legalities of Officer Khan's 'intervention'.

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

Valid question which I'm happy to answer. Offences heard by magistrates courts fall roughly into three categories -

1. Charges - These are offences for which the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment or more, e.g. theft, fraud, burglary. These are what most people call "criminal offences". It is necessary to lay a charge against the defendant;
2. Summary - These are offences for which the maximum penalty is less than five years' imprisonment, normally, a maximum of two years. These are normally dealt with by laying an information before the court and obtaining a summons which is then served on the defendant;
3. Process - These are offences for which the penalty is a fine only. These are normally dealt with by summons action, but some can be dealt with by issue of a Fixed Penalty Notice.

Be in no doubt, however, that Citizen Khan has almost certainly breached the law by his actions. Making false allegations is a serious matter in itself.

Yes I do not think the OP need loose any sleep. it is a technical point only, and a minor offence, nevertheless criminal in nature.

Indecently, so it should be, the OP is obviously a responsible dog owner, but there are plenty who are not, I take my grandchildren to school some mornings and the pavements around the school are disgusting.

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

Agreed with Bluebottle.

Just because legilsation refers to the word offence, it doesn't mean its a criminal offense. Criminal offences are dealt with under criminal law and prosecuted under the crown prosecution services. Getting a FPN for a parking offence doesn't mean your parking was a criminal offence, neither does getting an FPN for dog fouling.

Don't forget Council may use bylaws to issue FPN for dog fouling on land, which is likely what the solihul order 2007 is. Though these are regulated by local council and are no longer punishable as a criminal offence but instead punishable by FPN.

Also by-laws are now enforced by FPN's and not criminal punishment as in the past.

Sorry it is either civil or criminal. it aint a civil offence so what is it.

There are plenty of council websites which will confirm the fact.

I think the word offence means criminal offence, unless you think it means offensive to the olfactory organ.

[bluebottle]

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

That would make it criminal then ?

Makes sense really, calculating liquidated damages may be problematic

Whether the matter is triable before a court of summary jurisdiction or higher is important. If the alleged offence is not and dealt with by way of a decriminalised Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) and, therefore, a civil matter, Citizen Khan is in even deeper trouble than he is probably already in.

The threats of the OP being arrested by the police, made by him in the YouTube video, are patently ridiculous and false. The OP would be best emailing every elected member of London Borough of Tower Hamlets, as well as its Chief Executive, with links to the relevant videos and intimating legal action against the authority and, possibly, Citizen Khan as well. The videos are likely to have the CEO and elected members of London Borough of Tower Hamlets crapping themselves, especially when they realise the videos are accessible worldwide and may end up on national broadcast and print media.

It has been found that public exposure of such behaviour by so-called public servants is very effective in curbing it.

[teaboy2]

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

Agreed with Bluebottle.

Just because legilsation refers to the word offence, it doesn't mean its a criminal offense. Criminal offences are dealt with under criminal law and prosecuted under the crown prosecution services. Getting a FPN for a parking offence doesn't mean your parking was a criminal offence, neither does getting an FPN for dog fouling.

Don't forget Council may use bylaws to issue FPN for dog fouling on land, which is likely what the solihul order 2007 is. Though these are regulated by local council and are no longer punishable as a criminal offence but instead punishable by FPN.

Also by-laws are now enforced by FPN's and not criminal punishment as in the past.

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

Is the matter triable before a magistrates court, a crown court or both?

That would make it criminal then ?

Makes sense really, calculating liquidated damages may be problematic

[bluebottle]

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

Is the matter triable before a magistrates court, a crown court or both? Also, do not discount the fact that local authorities are increasingly being shown to be disingenuous and/or dishonest. I would not take what Solihull Council say as being a statement of fact. What they may claim is a criminal offence may not be in the eyes of the law.

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

Quick Google gives this for this particular council

http://www.solihull.gov.uk/transport/dogfouling.htm

Throughout Solihull, the person in charge of a dog has a duty to remove the dog's faeces from public land. The Fouling of Land by Dogs (Solihull) Order 2007, made under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, makes it is a criminal offence to fail to do so.

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

But OP is not subject to any dog control order neither was she issued with one, it was a fixed penalty notice the CEO was trying to give her (but there was no evidence of any alleged offence produced by the CEO) - Plus the council is responsible for enforcing FPN via prosecution, not police or crown prosecution service. So its is a civil offence not a criminal one.

So if Mia had opted to accept the FPN and chose for the matter to be heard in court instead of paying fixed penalty notice, then she would win due to no evidence other than hearsay. The council know this, hence why they have refused to provide her with the body cam footage.

She is under no obligation to provide her details to a CEO for issuing of a FPN.

I think the statute is enforce via means of a local government regulation, but I think you will find that it is criminally actionable.

[teaboy2]

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

But OP is not subject to any dog control order neither was she issued with one, it was a fixed penalty notice the CEO was trying to give her (but there was no evidence of any alleged offence produced by the CEO) - Plus the council is responsible for enforcing FPN via prosecution, not police or crown prosecution service. So its is a civil offence not a criminal one.

So if Mia had opted to accept the FPN and chose for the matter to be heard in court instead of paying fixed penalty notice, then she would win due to no evidence other than hearsay. The council know this, hence why they have refused to provide her with the body cam footage.

She is under no obligation to provide her details to a CEO for issuing of a FPN.

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