Offence of Littering - Opportunity to pay fixed fine. Local Council

Alderbank

user1977 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

Not a crime to refuse to talk to a civilian enforcement officer (and in any event, a somewhat chicken-and-egg problem with enforcing any such obligation if the officer also doesn't have the power to detain you!), though things change if they can find a cop to help out with the questioning...

...and since great aunt Agatha escaped arrest by legging it to the getaway car the OP is at serious risk of the police seizing the car used to aid the criminal act and having it crushed.

The usual advice in these circumstances is a quick respray and change the plates.

charlie71

The aunt has confirmed to the OP that she committed the offence, therefore it is not heresy, the wife was a witness. 

Not that it makes much difference I guess, but she didn't confirm it to me (as I have not seen or spoken to her) - and my wife did not see the incident take place either. 

C.

user1977

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

Typo in my reply, I meant to say "as the culprit has been identified and his with both confirmed that the aunt was at fault", the culprit themselves, as well as a direct witness (the OP's wife) have confirmed that the aunt is the guilty party it is no longer "hearsay". After she did not initially do the decent thing by littering, she should now do the decent think and pay the fine. 

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

It is hearsay if the OP says the aunt was the guilty party, it is not hearsay if the wife says the aunt was the guilty party as the wife witnessed the offence being committed. 

The aunt has confirmed to the OP that she committed the offence, therefore it is not heresy, the wife was a witness. 

I don't think anybody has claimed it would be heresy! But it would be hearsay for the OP to tell the court about what somebody else told him about the crime

But in the real world, why would somebody in the witness box, who had already said they weren't at the scene, be asked who dropped the fag end anyway? The OP's only real interest here is being the registered keeper of the "getaway" vehicle.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

user1977 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

Not a crime to refuse to talk to a civilian enforcement officer (and in any event, a somewhat chicken-and-egg problem with enforcing any such obligation if the officer also doesn't have the power to detain you!), though things change if they can find a cop to help out with the questioning...

It is actually an offence with a fine of up to £1000 to refuse details to these people. 

In the OP’s case I can’t see they have to do anything, the enforcement officer will likely have body cam footage (which is likely how the reg was recorded) and if OP is a man and his aunt is a woman odds are it’s pretty clear the OP wasn’t the one dropping the butt. 

In terms of morals, in an ideal world there would be zero fines as zero people would litter, the opposite happens because fines brings in revenue begging the question of whether they really want to stop littering or really want to keep generating revenue from it happening… 

lincroft1710

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

Typo in my reply, I meant to say "as the culprit has been identified and his with both confirmed that the aunt was at fault", the culprit themselves, as well as a direct witness (the OP's wife) have confirmed that the aunt is the guilty party it is no longer "hearsay". After she did not initially do the decent thing by littering, she should now do the decent think and pay the fine. 

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

It is hearsay if the OP says the aunt was the guilty party, it is not hearsay if the wife says the aunt was the guilty party as the wife witnessed the offence being committed. 

The aunt has confirmed to the OP that she committed the offence, therefore it is not heresy, the wife was a witness. 

That is hearsay, being told something about an event where you were not present

lincroft1710

charlie71 said:

The aunt has confirmed to the OP that she committed the offence, therefore it is not heresy, the wife was a witness. 

Not that it makes much difference I guess, but she didn't confirm it to me (as I have not seen or spoken to her) - and my wife did not see the incident take place either. 

C.

So your wife was not a witness to the incident?

charlie71

lincroft1710 said:

charlie71 said:

The aunt has confirmed to the OP that she committed the offence, therefore it is not heresy, the wife was a witness. 

Not that it makes much difference I guess, but she didn't confirm it to me (as I have not seen or spoken to her) - and my wife did not see the incident take place either. 

C.

So your wife was not a witness to the incident?

Nope - She did not see the cigarette butt dropped in the gutter (although there is no doubt this occurred) - She just saw her aunt chatting to the enforcement officer after coming out of a shop.

I'd like to point out that this is hearsay too as I have only been told that this is how it happened!

C.

Alderbank

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

Not a crime to refuse to talk to a civilian enforcement officer (and in any event, a somewhat chicken-and-egg problem with enforcing any such obligation if the officer also doesn't have the power to detain you!), though things change if they can find a cop to help out with the questioning...

In the OP’s case I can’t see they have to do anything, the enforcement officer will likely have body cam footage (which is likely how the reg was recorded) and if OP is a man and his aunt is a woman odds are it’s pretty clear the OP wasn’t the one dropping the butt. 

Agreed, in this case bodycam footage will be the only evidence.

But you are opening a massive can of worms in assuming how the OP and his their aunt self-identify!

Have you never seen Psycho?

Andy_L

Okell said:

user1977 said:

RefluentBeans said:

You didn’t litter, just tell them that. But if they ask for the person who did, then I think you’re obliged to give the information out? Happy to be corrected though. 

Under what law? The alleged offence wasn't even a motoring-related one.

I was going to say that as well, but had second thoughts and edited my reply.

I don't think the OP is obliged to answer any question about who did it unless - and this is probably highly unlikely to happen - the council decided to prosecute anyway and the OP ended up in the witness box and was asked "who did drop the butt if it wasn't you?".  They can't very well say "I don't know" or "I refuse to answer".

Perhaps the littering offence would be time barred by then...  (I don't know but I presume any prosecution against the true culprit would have to commence before 6 months from the offence)

They can say they dont know because they weren't there to see who did it, or if it even happened.
They can say who they gave permission to drive the car (their wife) but can still say they dont know who the passenger was because, again, they weren't there

Okell

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

Alderbank said:

Okell said:

user1977 said:

RefluentBeans said:

You didn’t litter, just tell them that. But if they ask for the person who did, then I think you’re obliged to give the information out? Happy to be corrected though. 

Under what law? The alleged offence wasn't even a motoring-related one.

I don't think the OP is obliged to answer any question about who did it unless - and this is probably highly unlikely to happen - the council decided to prosecute anyway and the OP ended up in the witness box and was asked "who did drop the butt if it wasn't you?".  They can't very well say "I don't know" or "I refuse to answer".

I am a little surprised at your considered answer.

In that highly unlikely witness box (note the word 'witness') the OP would first be asked if he was present when the offence was committed.
If he truthfully answered that he was not and only heard about it from others, I don't think the judge would allow any further questions about what is legally called hearsay.

In that Kafka-like courtroom he could be asked whether his wife had taken the car out that afternoon, but that would be evidence of nothing more than she had gone somewhere in the car.

Apology: crossed post with @lincroft1710

My second post - which you quote - was based on my understanding that the aunt had already admitted to the OP that they had committed the offence, otherwise why would the aunt have told the OP that they would be happy to pay the fine?

If that indeed were the case I'd have expected the "admission" to be caught by the old common law exception to the hearsay rule and be admissible in criminal proceedings and something that the OP could give evidence about.  (Or at least I think that would have been the case when I studied law decades ago.  Maybe it's different now).

My concern was that in the highly unlikely** event that this ever got to court, then if the aunt had told the OP that she had committed the offence, then the OP might need to be careful as to how he answered any questions as to whether he knew who had committed the offence.  He could say "I wasn't present at the time" or other variations of "I wasn't there guv" or "I didn't witness anyone dropping litter", but saying "I don't know" would strictly be untruthful.

But i suppose the point is irrelevant anyway as the OP now says he has neither seen nor spoken to the aunt about the matter.  So she can't have told him "it's a fair cop!"  (Pity he didn't make that clearer in the first post... )

**  And for clarity I'll just emphasise - as I did originally - that I can't realistically see any council ever wanting to take this to court.  They're just trying to persuade the OP to cough up some cash