Fixed Penalty Notice for Littering

NeverEnough

brendon wrote: »

I think you are over reacting a little bit. I don't think the OP means frog-marched in a literal sense. If the boy did indeed litter in the streets, I don't see why he shouldn't be questioned about it.

But no need for some jobswerth to assault the child. And we do NOT know the boy was "littering", he might just have dropped a sweet, as the OP said.

brendon

NeverEnough wrote: »

But no need for some jobswerth to assault the child. And we do NOT know the boy was "littering", he might just have dropped a sweet, as the OP said.

Sorry, where does it say the child was assaulted? If he dropped a sweet, he should have picked it up.

Also, it's a well known fact that children tend to lie to their parents. I'm sure the school would have intervened if they had any concern about the child's welfare.

dealer_wins

brendon wrote: »

Sorry, where does it say the child was assaulted? If he dropped a sweet, he should have picked it up.

Also, it's a well known fact that children tend to lie to their parents. I'm sure the school would have intervened if they had any concern about the child's welfare.

Agreed. Littering is lazy and disgusting, and I am glad the council are doing something about it.

catgil

For heavens sake some posters need to get a life. A child drops a sweet in the street and you think he deserves an £80 fine. It's a disgrace that adults pick on little kids in that way :mad: If I were the OP I would be fuming!

wealdroam

brendon wrote: »

Sorry, where does it say the child was assaulted?

The implication is here:

naughtyjo wrote: »

...can the child be frog marched into their school...

From dictionary.com:

frog·march [frog-mahrch, frawg-]
verb (used with object)
to force (a person) to march with the arms pinioned firmly behind the back.

vuvuzela

wealdroam wrote: »

The implication is here:


From dictionary.com:

I bet you a substantial amount of money that the council official certainly did not do that

Azari

If he dropped a sweet as opposed to a sweet wrapper, as stated in the OP then it was clearly an accident. At least, it would not be possible to show beyond all reasonable doubt that a child intended to throw a sweet away.

As such, no criminal offence has been committed as there is no mens rea.

browneyedbazzi

naughtyjo wrote: »

they would have to take him to court and I would then be liable for the fine I am really annoyed that he has told my son its a crininal offence not to provide his details and then the school has confirmed the details to the warden which I think is wrong but the council say the school has to do it because he was investigating a crime !!! I think I will ring a solicitor because I am really peed off with this jobsworths behaviour

It is a criminal offence to obstruct an officer in the course of their duties (obstruction) or to give false or misleading information (perverting the course of justice). If you are annoyed with this then be annoyed with the law makers.

There is an exemption under the Data Protection Act that allows for personal information to be released to someone who requests the information for the purpose of legal action or to decide whether to pursue legal action. Many organisations require DPA requests to be made in writing and to state the exemption that applies and allows the release of information but this isn't strictly necessary.

Azari wrote: »

If he dropped a sweet as opposed to a sweet wrapper, as stated in the OP then it was clearly an accident. At least, it would not be possible to show beyond all reasonable doubt that a child intended to throw a sweet away.

As such, no criminal offence has been committed as there is no mens rea.

There are many offences that don't require mens rea - they are usually called 'strict liability' offences. In the case of strict liability offences only the act itself has to be proven, there does not have to be any knowledge or intent.

I haven't dealt with littering offences myself so I don't know if it is strict liability or not, but people should be aware that simply saying something was an accident won't necessarily 'get you off'.

Azari

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

There are many offences that don't require mens rea - they are usually called 'strict liability' offences. In the case of strict liability offences only the act itself has to be proven, there does not have to be any knowledge or intent.

Strict liability applies to such things as drink driving or watching TV without a licence. It is usually only used for offences where it would be difficult under many applicable circumstances to get a conviction without it.

Although I don't know for certain I think it's extremely unlikely that it applies to littering.

I haven't dealt with littering offences myself so I don't know if it is strict liability or not, but people should be aware that simply saying something was an accident won't necessarily 'get you off'.

Obviously not.

That was why I made (and highlighted) the point that if it was a sweet that was dropped as opposed to a sweet wrapper it would be very hard to show beyond reasonable doubt that the act was intentional.

SailorSam

I feel sorry for the Op and her son if she thinks the warden has 'picked on' her son and i do wonder if the same warden is as zealous in his job if it came to a gang of 20yr olds throwing their McD wrappers away in the street. But litter is one of the things that is often complained about especially around schools and shopping centres.
I think the OPs son should have been given the opportunity by the warden to pick it up, when i've seen reports on Tv they usually are, and then warned to take more care in future.