Littering fine

Maskface

Petriix said:

Does a cup of tea (unfinished) constitute 'litter'? Is the term 'litter' well defined in law?

Exactly how long was the cup there? For a criminal conviction, a crime has to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I'd say there's likely grounds for reasonable doubt if you we intending to finish your tea. 

Eventually yes. It falls over, blows away and becomes litter. Just like the empty Costa cups that get left on walls and railings outside stations. etc.

powerful_Rogue

Sounds spot on to me. You put it down and left it. If you forgot to pick it up 60 seconds* after putting it down, chances are you would have forgot to pick it up after your shop as well.

*Estimate of the time to get bags out of boot.

Undervalued

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

TELLIT01 said:

Common sense would suggest that an 'offender' would be given the opportunity to pick up the offending item, but common sense doesn't generate income.

Why would that be common sense? If you get caught committing other offences, you don't generally get away with it if you undo whatever you did.

Government guidance is for tickets not to be issued when litter is dropped without intent. 

To the letter of the law a tissue falling from your pocket unnoticed as you take out your wallet is an offence but it isn't within the spirit of the law.

But in this case the OP says they "carefully" put the cup down, it wasn't accidental. Not sure how you'd distinguish between somebody deliberately putting litter on the ground (and intending to pick it up later) and somebody deliberately putting litter on the ground (with no intention of picking it up).

I do agree the placing of the cup wasn't accidental but the leaving was (offence requires both to occur), judging solely on what OP said. It's down to the discretion of the person giving the ticket or the discretion of the court if the person chooses not to pay the fine. 

The problem with court is time and the risk of paying much more, the problem with the person issuing the fine is they may not be acting without bias. 

It could go either way with this case as you may well deliberately leave your cup on the floor by the car because you can't be bothered to carry it to the bin or may be absent minded and actually wanted to finish your drink but genuinely forgot.

I agree. However, if it went to court the offence would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is a criminal matter, and not the much lower bar in a civil court of on the balance of probabilities.

If the OP takes it to court and is convicted they would of course get a criminal record which could have all kinds of unwelcome consequences. Plus the fine would likely be higher than the FPN.

With hindsight the mistake was admitting at least part of the offence. Was a caution given? Obviously the OP had a right to remain silent (beyond giving their name and address).

sheramber

They weren't arrested. It was an on the spot fine.

Do you get a caution when you get a parking fine, when you get fined for not taxing your car?

peter_the_piper

Do think its worth checking, if he can,to find out if the council do actually own it and if the "warden" was entitled to be there.

powerful_Rogue

peter_the_piper said:

Do think its worth checking, if he can,to find out if the council do actually own it and if the "warden" was entitled to be there.

Not really. The legislation covers all areas the public have access to, either freely or via payment. So even if the carpark is private property, it's still covered under the act.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

peter_the_piper said:

Do think its worth checking, if he can,to find out if the council do actually own it and if the "warden" was entitled to be there.

Not really. The legislation covers all areas the public have access to, either freely or via payment. So even if the carpark is private property, it's still covered under the act.

That is open to the air, presumably this excludes indoor places (not that this affects the OP). 

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

TELLIT01 said:

Common sense would suggest that an 'offender' would be given the opportunity to pick up the offending item, but common sense doesn't generate income.

Why would that be common sense? If you get caught committing other offences, you don't generally get away with it if you undo whatever you did.

Government guidance is for tickets not to be issued when litter is dropped without intent. 

To the letter of the law a tissue falling from your pocket unnoticed as you take out your wallet is an offence but it isn't within the spirit of the law.

But in this case the OP says they "carefully" put the cup down, it wasn't accidental. Not sure how you'd distinguish between somebody deliberately putting litter on the ground (and intending to pick it up later) and somebody deliberately putting litter on the ground (with no intention of picking it up).

I do agree the placing of the cup wasn't accidental but the leaving was (offence requires both to occur), judging solely on what OP said. It's down to the discretion of the person giving the ticket or the discretion of the court if the person chooses not to pay the fine. 

The problem with court is time and the risk of paying much more, the problem with the person issuing the fine is they may not be acting without bias. 

It could go either way with this case as you may well deliberately leave your cup on the floor by the car because you can't be bothered to carry it to the bin or may be absent minded and actually wanted to finish your drink but genuinely forgot.

I agree. However, if it went to court the offence would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is a criminal matter, and not the much lower bar in a civil court of on the balance of probabilities.

If the OP takes it to court and is convicted they would of course get a criminal record which could have all kinds of unwelcome consequences. Plus the fine would likely be higher than the FPN.

With hindsight the mistake was admitting at least part of the offence. Was a caution given? Obviously the OP had a right to remain silent (beyond giving their name and address).

A lot of these enforcement people wear a body cam these days which likely caught the act, the bit of time for a brief conversation the OP had was unlikely to be a chance to put their side across but an opportunity for incriminating themselves!