PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Loitering,littering and and anti-social driving ?, Warning
DaveyBadBoy
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:36
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,928



Morning,

My daughter was recently parked in a car park with 2 other vehicles. 1 of the other drivers had days previously received a warning from the police about frequenting a particular location, loitering,revving loudly and throwing McDonald wrappers out of the window. My daughter has never been to this location with her friend or as a group.

My daughter was approached by the same officer who had issued the warning to her friend days earlier. The officer asked was her name "XXXX". My daughter said no, she was then asked to confirm her name which she did. She was then asked was she aware of a particular address, she said no. The officer then went on describe where the address was in more detail, my daughter then realised she did know the address. The officer then asked her had she ever been there and my daughter said "maybe twice,but ages ago". The police lady then said we have a letter for you too. End of conversation. My daughter returned home and told us of the events.

The next day the Police arrived at our address with a brown hand written envelope. Officer said she was issuing a warning letter because our vehicle had been reported revving loudly, throwing litter and being driven anti socially at said address.

I asked what date did these offences take place, as 4 family members drive that vehicle, officer said there are no dates but this cars reg has "been reported" to us as being "part of a group" responsible. I repeated again I would like dates as the vehicle has a tracker for insurance purposes that records everything including location and manner of driving including speed,corenering acceleration and braking rates. And is scored daily.We also have CCTV at home to prove if the car was actually in use at all the times she said it was being anti social. Again I was told there was no dates ?

I put the letter straight in the bin without opening it in front of the officer and said if you cant provide dates, or incident numbers of the alledged offences I cannot take the warning seriously.

We was warned if alledged behavior is repeated the car will be seized.

I got the car keys out and started the car for the officer, it s a tiny 1.0 litre with a really quiet engine its barely audible, i revved it up for him and said are you seriously saying the noise is anti social ? The officer agreed it was a really quiet car but said if my daughter carrys on going to that place and driving around with "the others" they would seize the car. She does not go to that place but historically the car has been there, twice in its lifetime. Weeks and weeks ago.

Officer said "its a only a letter this time but next time it will be more serious".

Anybody have any idea what has just gone on and whether its legally enforceable?

Many Thanks


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 32)
Advertisement
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:37
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,508
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:27) *
The point being that there are ways to apply orders against the world at large. Very many orders will apply to anyone who has knowledge of them and the order itself can define how that knowledge can be imported.

I am happy to be corrected on this point but I am yet to see an order that purports to bind a person who has no knowledge of it at all. In any of the cases quoted, the court would make a finding of fact on whether the person accused of breaching the order had any knowledge of it. This can be obviated by making it all but impossible to not become aware of the order (such as by installing large signs by the side of the road as done in the car cruising ban order), but nonetheless a finding of fact that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order's existence would need to be made.

This is qualitatively different from an enactment, where the court will simply say that a person who has contravened an enactment is guilty of breaching the enactment (and potentially liable to a civil or criminal penalty), regardless of whether they had any knowledge of it.

I guess my point is, ignorance of the law is no defence (except, in theory, for section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007), but ignorance of a court order is.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:36
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,857
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:39) *
Will you be able to import it after Brexit? ......... sorry.

Take that man's name, sergeant. laugh.gif

I think the High Court deals with the issue of "knowledge" in the Intu case by this paragraph from the order:

"Service of this order may be effected on the second defendant [“persons unknown”] by posting notice of this order and its effect at all points of public access at the Claimant’s Shopping Centres and/or by giving notice through social media."

Whilst it may not directly address the "knowledge" issue it is clear that the court considers that posting notices at entrances satisfies "service". So if the order is deemed to have been served then I reckon it's a reasonable assumption that those on whom it has been served have knowledge of its restrictions. It's true that the Person Unknown would have to visit the shopping centre to be "served" with the notice, but it's hard to see how such a person could assist Ryan Taylor unless they did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:45
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,790
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I thought that a notice published in the London Gazette and 3(?) local publications used to serve as notice to the world at large. Is that no longer the case?


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:16
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,508
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:36) *
Whilst it may not directly address the "knowledge" issue it is clear that the court considers that posting notices at entrances satisfies "service". So if the order is deemed to have been served then I reckon it's a reasonable assumption that those on whom it has been served have knowledge of its restrictions. It's true that the Person Unknown would have to visit the shopping centre to be "served" with the notice, but it's hard to see how such a person could assist Ryan Taylor unless they did.

But service is still needed by some means or another. The court in this scenario would simply make a finding of fact that because notices were placed in such a manner that the accused contemnor must have seen them, it is more likely than not that he did see them and there is your finding of fact that the accused knew about the order. If on the other hand the accused could prove to the satisfaction of the court that he actually knew nothing of the order (say it could be proven that persons unknown had criminally damaged / removed all the warning signs), the court could warn the accused not to repeat his behaviour but could not punish him for breaching a court order he knew nothing about (not at least without doing a clear and I suspect unprecedented injustice which one would hope the CoA would overturn). The High Court has many powers and its orders must be treated with the greatest of respect, but the High Court is not the Crown in Parliament.

If on the other hand we were dealing with an offence under the Prohibition of Assistance to Ryan Taylor Act 2019 the issue of knowledge would not arise at all, even if the accused could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did not know and could not reasonably have known about the statutory prohibition, he would still be guilty and would be punished accordingly.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:38
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,857
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Yes I get your point, cp. An interesting topic with many cans of worms.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:51
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,935
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



An interesting discussion but the police would very probably simply arrest anyone who appeared to be breaching the order and leave it for the court to decide whether or not they were guilty of contempt.

Meanwhile there is also a different line of approach adopted by other local authorities, see for instance SCARBOROUGH and Essex Police pre-empting a planned event in HARLOW.


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 465
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.


The orders are against "persons unknown" and are broad in scope; personal service of the injunction is dispensed with pursuant to rule 81.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision against driving in convoy would actually cover a funeral cortege, a point which has been raised with councils and police, who respond that of course the order will be applied with discretion. It is concerning that perfectly legitimate activities should be covered in this way, and the public have to rely on police discretion in applying it. I think the first such order covered the Black Country, and full details are HERE


Indeed. I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van, and also for a couple of funerals.....

Its the usual sort of mealy mouthed claptrap youd expect though for trying to defend the indefensible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peodude
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,035



There has been an injunction across the Black Country for several years now, and has recently been extended.

https://www.dudley.gov.uk/residents/parking...ing-injunction/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:42
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
Indeed. I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van, and also for a couple of funerals.....


What did it say?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:37
Post #31


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,418
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?



--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:45
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 15:37) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?




OK, got it. laugh.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 19:08
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,508
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 14:54) *
QUOTE (bearclaw @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
I've got a letter somewhere from the CC after I reported his officers for driving in convoy with a prison van

Haven't the police been doing that for decades when moving dangerous crims?

Yes the way they block the roads, drive on the wrong side of the road, shout instructions at motorists and do all of this while carrying various offensive weapons including firearms could be said to be pretty antisocial tongue.gif


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 24th May 2019 - 02:08
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.