Fixed Penalty Notice for Littering

shaun_from_Africa

Azari wrote: »

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.

Dropping a sweet probably wouldn't be intentional, but dropping a sweet and then not picking it up would be intentional if you were aware that you had dropped it.
Without knowing exactly what happened (and to be honest, the only people who will know for sure are those who were present at the time), it's impossible to say for sure whether the son was aware of dropping anything.

browneyedbazzi

Azari wrote: »

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.



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.

Strict liability applies to many offences not because it's hard to obtain a conviction otherwise, but because there is a positive duty on individuals to ensure they don't commit the offence.

I've had a look at the offence for littering (s87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) and it doesn't require the act to be done 'knowingly' or 'wilfully' so I don't think there is a requirement to prove the act was intentional.

87 Offence of leaving litter.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.

Azari

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Strict liability applies to many offences not because it's hard to obtain a conviction otherwise, but because there is a positive duty on individuals to ensure they don't commit the offence.

Not really.

In many cases it catches people who simply cannot ensure they do not commit an offence.

There was an example of a teenage girl who was fined £100 for watching a TV without a licence.

She was baby sitting, and just watching the TV that was in the house.

Why would there need to be a positive duty to ensure you don't watch TV without a licence but not a positive duty for the vast majority of crime for which there is no strict liability?

I've had a look at the offence for littering (s87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) and it doesn't require the act to be done 'knowingly' or 'wilfully' so I don't think there is a requirement to prove the act was intentional.

87 Offence of leaving litter.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.

You've got that back to front, I'm afraid. To commit an offence mens rea must be present unless the offence is explicitly made strict liability in the relevant statute law.

Otherwise every offence would be strict liability by default.

browneyedbazzi

Azari wrote: »

Not really.

In many cases it catches people who simply cannot ensure they do not commit an offence.

There was an example of a teenage girl who was fined £100 for watching a TV without a licence.

She was baby sitting, and just watching the TV that was in the house.

Why would there need to be a positive duty to ensure you don't watch TV without a licence but not a positive duty for the vast majority of crime for which there is no strict liability?



You've got that back to front, I'm afraid. To commit an offence mens rea must be present unless the offence is explicitly made strict liability in the relevant statute law.

Otherwise every offence would be strict liability by default.

Do you have a link to the case about the teenage babysitter? I'd be interested to see it because that sounds very much like an urban myth.

And you're wrong about offences explicitly stating they are strict liability in the legislation. They don't. The wording of most offences require there to be an element of knowledge or intent. Those that don't include such language are strict liability.

dannny_2

Azari wrote: »

To commit an offence mens rea must be present unless the offence is explicitly made strict liability in the relevant statute law.

this is a question.

In which case half the cases in magistrates would fail as the person is either mentally ill, or utterly drunk at the time of the offence, and cannot have a guilty mind.

wealdroam

vuvuzela wrote: »

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

I am sure you are right, but we are told time and time again that we should believe the OP... after all, it is all the information we have.

If the OP is presenting false information, then they can hardly expect to get accurate advice.

Their choice really.

We are also expected to believe that little Johnny just dropped a sweet. I'll double your substantial amount of money and say that's not true either.

More likely to be a crisp packet at least we should be talking about.

brendon

The problem is, you might say "oh, it's only one sweet" but if everybody had that view, our streets would be filled with rubbish (which they are). It might seem like a tiny little sweet, but it doesn't just disappear -- it stays there with all the other rubbish until the street gets cleaned again in 2 months time, say.

(There was a funny story I remember about a guy who accidentally dropped £10 on the floor. And they fined him £50 for it!)

Azari

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Do you have a link to the case about the teenage babysitter? I'd be interested to see it because that sounds very much like an urban myth.

No, I don't.

However, I can tell you that it was Faversham Magistrate's Court and the local MP (Tory), Julian Brazier condemned those involved. I read the actual report in a newspaper, myself, so I know it is not an urban myth. It was a long time ago (early nineties) and I'm still annoyed about it to this day.

And you're wrong about offences explicitly stating they are strict liability in the legislation. They don't. The wording of most offences require there to be an element of knowledge or intent. Those that don't include such language are strict liability.

Not quite - I think you may be confusing strict liability as it applies (much more commonly) to civil law.

Strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no mens rea is specified, under the Model Penal Code or MPC, the default mens rea requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to a material element"

Lee, Cynthia (2009). Criminal Law Cases and Materials. F. Strict Liability Crimes: WEST A Thomas Reuters Business. pp. 219–221;989. ISBN 9780314151285.

(Yes, I did look it up in wikipedia. )

SevenOfNine

OP - ask your local Councillor (via email) to investigate this and find out exactly what the Council policy is on this type of 'offence' & the actions taken by the warden. Having worked for a Local Authority it always works better to make your Councillor get off his/her @r$e than be fobbed off with a direct approach to council officials yourself.

I'm more concerned that the warden appears to feel they may have had the right to take your 13 year old anywhere (even if they were standing right outside the school gates). An adult shouldn't be suggesting a child go with them and if they do the child should be saying "not likely", even if it's only a few steps away.

A child needs to be told the error of their ways when littering and asked to pick it up. IMO wardens should spend more time issuing fixed penalty's to smokers flicking their fag butts all over the place!

George_Michael

According to Defra (a government department), the accidental dropping of litter is an offence, therefore it must be classed as strict liability.

[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light]Was it dropped or did it fall? Intentional versus unintentional littering[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light]The essence of the question posed above is, does the unintentional dropping of a piece of litter constitute an offence? If a strict interpretation of the littering offence is applied, as described in section [/FONT][/FONT]87 [FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light]of the Environmental Protection Act 1[/FONT][/FONT]99[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light]0 [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light](i.e. ‘any individual who throws, drops or otherwise deposits litter….’) then yes an argument could be made that if something, for example, falls out from someone’s pocket, then according to the letter of the law an offence has been committed.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light]




[/FONT]




[/FONT]
[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][/FONT]
[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light]
[/FONT]

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/legislation/cnea/documents/fixed-penalty-guidance.pdf
[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light][/FONT]

[FONT=Frutiger LT 45 Light,Frutiger LT 45 Light]Fair enough, they do go on to say that they don't think a fixed penalty should be issued if the dropping of litter was accidental, but this doesn't change the fact that irrespective of it being non intentional, they still consider that an offence had been committed.[/FONT]