Advice after being summoned to Magistrate's court.

[matthew carey]

Hi,
I've been summoned to a Magistrate's court. I have a few problems with this that I'd love a response to, to help me get my head around it.

a) firstly, the magistrate's court on the letter is not my local one. It's an hours drive away. Can I get it scheduled for the one closer to me?
b) my cities Council are taking me for "apparently" dropping a cigarette. As I told the man who "caught" me, I don't smoke roll-ups as he suggested I dropped. There's no cameras, no evidence except a statement. I'm innocent, and will be willing to fight this.
c) if I win, can I claim back costs of travelling, time researched for legal advice on the internet and so forth via the internet? Should I document how much time I spend researching?

Thanks!

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:05:02 +0000, matthew carey put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Hi,
>I've been summoned to a Magistrate's court. I have a few problems with this that I'd love a response to, to help me get my head around it.
>
>a) firstly, the magistrate's court on the letter is not my local one. It's an hours drive away. Can I get it scheduled for the one closer to me?

Not normally, no. Magistrate's court hearings are normally allocated to the
court appropriate to where the (alleged) offence took place. That's why,
for example, you occasionally get national newspaper reports mentioning
courts in small towns that just happen to be close to a motorway where a
celebrity was caught speeding :-)

>b) my cities Council are taking me for "apparently" dropping a cigarette. As I told the man who "caught" me, I don't smoke roll-ups as he suggested I dropped. There's no cameras, no evidence except a statement. I'm innocent, and will be willing to fight this.

That, obviously, is up to you.

>c) if I win, can I claim back costs of travelling, time researched for legal advice on the internet and so forth via the internet? Should I document how much time I spend researching?

You can claim the actual costs of any money that you are reasonably
required to spend. You can't claim costs simply for your time, unless it is
at the expense of time when you would otherwise be earning money.

Mark
--
Please take my short survey on the Leveson Report:
http://goodge.eu/ak

[matthew carey]

Hi Mark,
I appreciate your response. After scouring through Google, it seems that the only cases which are won, are the ones where defendants don't turn up.

Can the court find my Guilty based on the council warden's "statement"?

Additionally, I do have a witness who is a friend and would be willing to testify. Thanks.

[matthew carey]

Hi Mark,
Can the Magistrate's court find me guilty based on a statement of a city council enforcement officer? The only cases I can find of a Council winning is when the defendant didn't show up, or when they admitted to it.
I do also have a friend who is willing to testify that I didn't drop a cigarette.

[matthew carey]

Hi, do you have any idea if they can even find me guilty with only a statement and no evidence?

[Francis Davey]

Le jeudi 3 janvier 2013 21:05:02 UTC, matthew carey a écrit :
> Hi, do you have any idea if they can even find me guilty with only a statement and no evidence?

A statement is evidence (one of the kind you describe is technically known as testimony). Anything you chose to say would also be evidence.

Francis

[Zapp Brannigan]

"matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...

> I appreciate your response. After scouring through Google, it seems that
> the only cases which are won, are the ones where defendants don't turn up.
>
> Can the court find my Guilty based on the council warden's "statement"?
>
> Additionally, I do have a witness who is a friend and would be willing to
> testify. Thanks.

If the only evidence against you is a council warden witness, then it's your
word against his and you may or may not persuade the court. One
unfortunate point is that a defendant has an obvious motive to lie, and the
warden does not.

However if you have another witness, and you present a confident,
respectable defence, there's a good chance of acquittal. The magistrates
are *supposed* to apply Beyond Reasonable Doubt as a threshold.

[matthew carey]

Thanks for your response.

I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there and tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke cigarettes, not roll ups. I told the warden the same thing at the time. My friend who was with me is willing to testify. See what happens. Either way, if it's decided in my absence, it'll be a £300-£600 fine, so I'll turn up to see if I can save myself a ridiculous amount.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:00:10 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>

>"matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> I appreciate your response. After scouring through Google, it seems that
>> the only cases which are won, are the ones where defendants don't turn up.
>>
>> Can the court find my Guilty based on the council warden's "statement"?
>>
>> Additionally, I do have a witness who is a friend and would be willing to
>> testify. Thanks.
>
>If the only evidence against you is a council warden witness, then it's your
>word against his and you may or may not persuade the court. One
>unfortunate point is that a defendant has an obvious motive to lie, and the
>warden does not.

The defendant doesn't need to suggest that the warden lied, though. A
simple mistake is far more probable.

Warden, giving evidence: "I saw the defendant appear to drop something.
When I looked, there was a roll-up cigarette butt on the floor."

Defendant: "I don't smoke roll-ups, so that couldn't have come from me. And
if there wasn't anything else on the floor that I could have dropped, then
the warden was probably mistaken in thinking that I had dropped something".

Friend of defendant: "I can confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, my
friend has never smoked roll-ups."

Magistrate: "Not guilty".

>However if you have another witness, and you present a confident,
>respectable defence, there's a good chance of acquittal. The magistrates
>are *supposed* to apply Beyond Reasonable Doubt as a threshold.

Just to emphasise this, "confident" and "respectable" are the keywords
here. Be sure of yourself, but don't act as if you feel that you are the
victim of anything more than an honest mistake. In particular, don't make
any suggestion whatsoever that the warden (or the council) was "out to get
you". It's far easier to prove error than malice.

[Norman Wells]

matthew carey wrote:
> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...

> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there and
> tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke cigarettes, not
> roll ups.

So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them? And
why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it matters a
jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?

> I told the warden the same thing at the time. My friend who
> was with me is willing to testify.

It depends what he says. If all he says is that you don't smoke
roll-ups, I see no point in his turning up.

> See what happens. Either way, if
> it's decided in my absence, it'll be a £300-£600 fine, so I'll turn
> up to see if I can save myself a ridiculous amount.

It will depend on the credibility of the warden who says he saw you
littering, and the believability of your denial. The exact nature of
what you are alleged to have dropped isn't of much relevance. If you're
found guilty, pleading not guilty and forcing the matter to trial will
result in a higher penalty than accepting your guilt before trial. Your
choice.

[The Todal]

On 4/1/13 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
> matthew carey wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there and
>> tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke cigarettes, not
>> roll ups.
>
> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them? And
> why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it matters a
> jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?

The council official accused him of dropping a roll-up. Perhaps the
official retained it as evidence. So it would be quite important.

That's only based on what the OP said, of course.

>
>> I told the warden the same thing at the time. My friend who
>> was with me is willing to testify.
>
> It depends what he says. If all he says is that you don't smoke
> roll-ups, I see no point in his turning up.

As above. I would suggest asking the prosecution whether they intend to
produce the offending item in court. They should be willing to say
whether or not they are.

>
>> See what happens. Either way, if
>> it's decided in my absence, it'll be a £300-£600 fine, so I'll turn
>> up to see if I can save myself a ridiculous amount.
>
> It will depend on the credibility of the warden who says he saw you
> littering, and the believability of your denial. The exact nature of
> what you are alleged to have dropped isn't of much relevance. If you're
> found guilty, pleading not guilty and forcing the matter to trial will
> result in a higher penalty than accepting your guilt before trial. Your
> choice.

Not being a smoker, I don't know what the correct method of disposing of
butt-ends might be. It seems reasonable to argue that the council
official saw something being dropped and because several people were in
the area, got confused about who had dropped it. I agree that if the
official sticks to his account and appears to be an impressive witness,
the magistrates could very easily find the case proved. They aren't
going to demand DNA evidence. They aren't going to agonise for ages
about whether or not there is a reasonable doubt in their minds.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <J1xFs.85655$1y.2...@fx01.am4>, Norman Wells
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes

If the dropped fag end was a roll-up - and the OP never smokes roll-ups
- it's obvious that he didn't drop the offending item. However, a court
may decide that he is lying through his teeth - and so is a friend (who
wasn't present when the incident occurred) who testifies to this 'fact'.

Like many cases of one person's word against another, while both should
carry equal veracity, the word of a person 'in authority' is sometimes
more equal than the accused's.
--
Ian

[Roland Perry]

In message <J1xFs.85655$1y.2...@fx01.am4>, at 09:15:01 on Fri, 4 Jan
2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>It will depend on the credibility of the warden who says he saw you
>littering, and the believability of your denial. The exact nature of
>what you are alleged to have dropped isn't of much relevance.

It is extremely relevant if there's no evidence that a standard
cigarette was dropped (but only a roll-up).
--
Roland Perry

[Jethro_uk]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:15:01 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them? And
> why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it matters a
> jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?

A filterless roll-up will degrade in a short order of time. I think
filters will outlast the human race. Although given the news that birds
are now seeking them out for insulating their nests, it's debatable
whether they are so environmentally damaging ...

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wGjVz1SG...@perry.co.uk...

I'm not sure how much credence the court will give to someone who says "I
don't smoke roll ups so it can't have been me" though. It's most definitely
not an automatic "get out of jail card" when faced with a warden who says
they saw you drop it.
I could claim that I don't eat cheese and onion crisps but wouldn't rely on
that to escape a conviction for dropping an empty bag.

On a more general note, do litter wardens keep items of rubbish as evidence
as a matter of course or do they just record the details and then bin it?


--
Alex

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:f_yFs.771909$9H4.4...@fx17.am4...

> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:15:01 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them? And
>> why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it matters a
>> jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?
>
> A filterless roll-up will degrade in a short order of time. I think
> filters will outlast the human race.

Anything from a month to 10+ years apparently. Not quick, but not as
indestructible as you suggest.

--
Alex

[Roland Perry]

In message <kc6hle$ht2$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:25:01 on Fri, 4 Jan 2013,
Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> remarked:

>I'm not sure how much credence the court will give to someone who says
>"I don't smoke roll ups so it can't have been me" though.

People either do or they don't, it's pretty clear cut.

>It's most definitely not an automatic "get out of jail card" when faced
>with a warden who says they saw you drop it.
>I could claim that I don't eat cheese and onion crisps but wouldn't
>rely on that to escape a conviction for dropping an empty bag.

But if you were a teetotal and were accused of dropping an empty beer
can?
--
Roland Perry

[tim.....]

"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
news:kc51vs$99p$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> I appreciate your response. After scouring through Google, it seems that
>> the only cases which are won, are the ones where defendants don't turn
>> up.
>>
>> Can the court find my Guilty based on the council warden's "statement"?
>>
>> Additionally, I do have a witness who is a friend and would be willing to
>> testify. Thanks.
>
> If the only evidence against you is a council warden witness, then it's
> your word against his and you may or may not persuade the court. One
> unfortunate point is that a defendant has an obvious motive to lie, and
> the warden does not.

Oh, so the fact that he is "paid by results" does not give him a motive to
make "mistakes" then.

tim

[Scion]

Ian Jackson spake thus:

The friend was present according to the OP.

I wonder if the friend smokes roll-ups?

> Like many cases of one person's word against another, while both should
> carry equal veracity, the word of a person 'in authority' is sometimes
> more equal than the accused's.

In car accident scenarios, evidence given by passengers can be assumed to
be fabricated, to the extent that when I had an accident my insurance
company asked if witnesses were present, excluding passengers.

[Norman Wells]

The Todal wrote:
> On 4/1/13 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>> matthew carey wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there and
>>> tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke cigarettes, not
>>> roll ups.
>>
>> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them?
>> And why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it
>> matters a jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?
>
> The council official accused him of dropping a roll-up. Perhaps the
> official retained it as evidence. So it would be quite important.

The offence is actually one of dropping litter in any place open to the
air, and that is what he is undoubtedly charged with. The nature of the
litter is unimportant. No-one is going to be in the least bit
interested whether it is a butt from a commercially produced cigarette
or a roll-up.

> That's only based on what the OP said, of course.
>
>>> I told the warden the same thing at the time. My friend who
>>> was with me is willing to testify.
>>
>> It depends what he says. If all he says is that you don't smoke
>> roll-ups, I see no point in his turning up.
>
> As above. I would suggest asking the prosecution whether they intend
> to produce the offending item in court. They should be willing to say
> whether or not they are.

They won't say, nor is it likely that they will produce it in court.
This is not a forensic investigation but a charge of dropping litter
whatever it was. Magistrates won't have the slightest interest. Do we
think he dropped something is all that they'll be concerned with.

>>> See what happens. Either way, if
>>> it's decided in my absence, it'll be a £300-£600 fine, so I'll turn
>>> up to see if I can save myself a ridiculous amount.
>>
>> It will depend on the credibility of the warden who says he saw you
>> littering, and the believability of your denial. The exact nature of
>> what you are alleged to have dropped isn't of much relevance. If
>> you're found guilty, pleading not guilty and forcing the matter to
>> trial will result in a higher penalty than accepting your guilt
>> before trial. Your choice.
>
> Not being a smoker, I don't know what the correct method of disposing
> of butt-ends might be. It seems reasonable to argue that the council
> official saw something being dropped and because several people were
> in the area, got confused about who had dropped it. I agree that if
> the official sticks to his account and appears to be an impressive
> witness, the magistrates could very easily find the case proved. They
> aren't going to demand DNA evidence. They aren't going to agonise for
> ages about whether or not there is a reasonable doubt in their minds.

Of course they won't. They'll decide in five minutes and, on the
arguments we've seen so far, almost certainly side with the warden.

[Norman Wells]

If you think magistrates are interested in discussing how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin, I think you're in for a surprise.

[Lordgnome]

How exactly does this all work? Assuming someone accused me of such a
heinous crime (justified or not) and asked for my details, suppose I
give a fictitious name and address and leave it at that? Am I required
in fact to give any such information other than to the police?

Les. (Alias Q.Z. Muggleton-Spoffin)

[The Todal]

On 4/1/13 11:10, Norman Wells wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
>> On 4/1/13 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> matthew carey wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>>>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there and
>>>> tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke cigarettes, not
>>>> roll ups.
>>>
>>> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them?
>>> And why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it
>>> matters a jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?
>>
>> The council official accused him of dropping a roll-up. Perhaps the
>> official retained it as evidence. So it would be quite important.
>
> The offence is actually one of dropping litter in any place open to the
> air, and that is what he is undoubtedly charged with. The nature of the
> litter is unimportant. No-one is going to be in the least bit
> interested whether it is a butt from a commercially produced cigarette
> or a roll-up.
>

With respect, I think you oversimplify this.

The prosecution witness (the council official) won't get away with
saying "I saw him drop litter. It doesn't matter what it was, and I
can't remember whether it was a piece of paper, a bit of orange peel, a
cigarette butt or a roll-up cigarette, it was definitely litter of some
kind".

At the time, he accused the OP of dropping a roll-up. If he changes his
mind and says in court that on closer examination he found it to be a
commercially produced cigarette butt, there might be some raised
eyebrows but he might get away with it and there might be a conviction.
However the court needs to be sure that a specific item was dropped, and
any uncertainty about what it was could make a conviction less likely.

[Jethro_uk]

ISTR that under the legislation, the police can be called (and therefore
you can be detained until they arrive) to verify any details given.

There was a post on ukl a while back, where someone was accused of
littering by a warden who called a policeman over to take details.

[Roland Perry]

In message <%JyFs.1381144$ti6.4...@fx20.am4>, at 11:10:03 on Fri, 4

Jan 2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>The offence is actually one of dropping litter in any place open to the
>air, and that is what he is undoubtedly charged with. The nature of
>the litter is unimportant. No-one is going to be in the least bit
>interested whether it is a butt from a commercially produced cigarette
>or a roll-up.

If the accused was a lifetime non-smoker, would that change your view at
all?
--
Roland Perry

[Scion]

Norman Wells spake thus:

> The Todal wrote:

<snip>

>> As above. I would suggest asking the prosecution whether they intend to
>> produce the offending item in court. They should be willing to say
>> whether or not they are.
>
> They won't say, nor is it likely that they will produce it in court.
> This is not a forensic investigation but a charge of dropping litter
> whatever it was. Magistrates won't have the slightest interest. Do we
> think he dropped something is all that they'll be concerned with.

But the likelihood of dropping an item is tied in to the likelihood of the
defendant holding that item in the first place. If the defendant doesn't
smoke roll-ups, how likely is it that he dropped a roll-up butt?

[michael adams]

"matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:34136c96-a5a1-4085...@googlegroups.com...
- Hi,
- I've been summoned to a Magistrate's court. I have a few
- problems with this that I'd love a response to, to help
- me get my head around it.

- a) firstly, the magistrate's court on the letter is not my
- local one. It's an hours drive away. Can I get it scheduled
- for the one closer to me?
- b) my cities Council are taking me for "apparently" dropping
- a cigarette. As I told the man who "caught" me, I don't smoke
- roll-ups as he suggested I dropped. There's no cameras, no
- evidence except a statement. I'm innocent, and will be
- willing to fight this.
- c) if I win, can I claim back costs of travelling, time
- researched for legal advice on the internet and so forth
- via the internet? Should I document how much time I
- spend researching?

- Thanks!


Unfortunately it's probably a bit late in the day to argue
your case. What I mean by this is as follows.

When the official said he was going to report you for the
offence, he should also have told you the penalty you
were likely to face. Which for the sake of argument
is say �60 if you admit the offence.

Now the law may be unfair, and everyone in theory
is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but in this
situation faced with a �60 fine - and assuming the official
is simply mistaken - you mighty reasonably have been expected
to have wanted to prove your innocence at that point. Either
by producing a packet of ready made cigarettes or offering
to turn your pockets out, and making sure the official make
a record of this offer of yours at the time. This was the
time to argue your case with the official. He wasn't going
to ask you to turn your pockets out as it wasn't his job
to argue your case for you.

Your problem may be that the official is honestly mistaken,
for whatever reason, but is absolutely certain in his own
mind. Which can make him a truly compelling witness despite
his evidence quite possibly being a load of nonsense.


michael adams

....

[Norman Wells]

By the very nature of the offence, it is not going to be observed at any
sort of distance where the difference between a commercial cigarette
butt and one from a roll-up can be determined. However, it will
normally be absolutely clear from the preceding actions and the manner
in which it is jettisoned that what has been discarded is a dog end, not
orange peel or anything else. The warden will quite likely say
something along the following lines 'From about 20m away, I observed the
accused who was smoking a cigarette. He took a final drag then flicked
the butt onto the pavement [before stamping it out]. On approaching
him, he was abusive to me asking if I had nothing better to do, and
fresh smoke was evident on his breath. I indicated a butt on the
pavement and asked if it was his, which he denied. I offered him a
fixed penalty fine, but he refused, saying he'd see me in court, you
jobsworth.'

All totally credible, I suggest, and unlikely to be a malicious
accusation. If the contrary argument is that the butt indicated was of
a roll-up and not a commercial cigarette which the accused only smoked,
do you really think that will sway the magistrates? If you do, I think
you have a rather naive view of how they come to their verdicts.

[Norman Wells]

Yes you are.

[Norman Wells]

If it was actually a case of mistaken identity, of course. But there's
no suggestion here that they 'got the wrong man', only that they might
have been mistaken as to whether the butt he discarded was that of a
commercial cigarette or a roll-up, which is just irrelevant trivia.
It's a matter of whether the accused threw something away, not of who
threw away something else.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <rxSju5VB...@perry.co.uk>,

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> People either do or they don't, it's pretty clear cut.

It's not. I know people who smoke either depending on, as far as I can tell,
their mood and how flush they feel.

> But if you were a teetotal and were accused of dropping an empty beer
> can?

"We're not accusing you of drinking it, Mr Perry, merely dropping it".

Of course, in your case it would be a bottle of Babycham.

Cheers,


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Roland Perry]

In message <5NBFs.86007$1y.6...@fx01.am4>, at 14:40:02 on Fri, 4 Jan

2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>By the very nature of the offence, it is not going to be observed at
>any sort of distance where the difference between a commercial
>cigarette butt and one from a roll-up can be determined.

However, if the warden has only a roll-up as evidence, and no regular
cigarette... Which makes one wonder why they specified that detail in
the case.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <FkCFs.1381442$ti6.6...@fx20.am4>, at 15:15:10 on Fri, 4

But if it was a case of discarding a can, and the one he was accused of
discarding was beer (and not cola) then that shows some reasonable doubt
as to what actually happened. Especially if the OP says he didn't
discard a cola can either.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

The charge is not that he dropped a roll-up butt specifically but that
he dropped litter. Any sort of litter will do.

[Norman Wells]

Janet wrote:
> In article <%JyFs.1381144$ti6.4...@fx20.am4>, h...@unseen.ac.am
> says...

>>
>> The Todal wrote:
>>> On 4/1/13 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> matthew carey wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there
>>>>> and tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke
>>>>> cigarettes, not roll ups.
>>>>
>>>> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them?
>>>> And why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it
>>>> matters a jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?
>>>
>>> The council official accused him of dropping a roll-up. Perhaps the
>>> official retained it as evidence. So it would be quite important.
>>
>> The offence is actually one of dropping litter in any place open to
>> the air, and that is what he is undoubtedly charged with. The
>> nature of the litter is unimportant.
>

> The fact it wasn't his litter, IS important.

No, it's extremely unimportant. What is important is the evidence that
he discarded some litter, any litter, not necessarily the exact piece of
litter discussed subsequently.

>> No-one is going to be in the least bit
>> interested whether it is a butt from a commercially produced
>> cigarette or a roll-up.
>

> Being a cigarette smoker, is not proof of being a litterlout or
> breaking any law.

No, but being observed by an accredited official smoking and then
throwing a butt away, is.

> I think you'll find that's a POV shared by magistrates who smoke.

Then he's bound to get off.

Perhaps he'll tell us in due course whether he does.

[Sara]

In article <FkCFs.1381442$ti6.6...@fx20.am4>,

The OP has not so far said he threw anything away. You seem very
convinced that he has.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Roland Perry]

In message <LOCFs.1455147$Ak.5...@fx24.am4>, at 15:50:02 on Fri, 4 Jan

2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>The charge is not that he dropped a roll-up butt specifically but that
>he dropped litter. Any sort of litter will do.

The OP seems to think it was that he dropped a roll-up.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnkedrk6...@cheddar.urgle.com>, at 15:55:02 on Fri,
4 Jan 2013, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> remarked:

>> People either do or they don't, it's pretty clear cut.
>
>It's not. I know people who smoke either depending on, as far as I can tell,
>their mood and how flush they feel.

But those "depending" people are firmly in the "do" camp. There's a very
big camp of people who neither smoke at all or when they do only smoke
manufactured cigs.

>> But if you were a teetotal and were accused of dropping an empty beer
>> can?
>
>"We're not accusing you of drinking it, Mr Perry, merely dropping it".

But why would one have such a can on one's person?

>Of course, in your case it would be a bottle of Babycham.

That's a blast from the past.
--
Roland Perry

[Iain]

But what the OP has not said (or maybe he has avoided saying it) is whether
he had just been smoking and just thrown away the dog-end, and whether the
warden just happened to point out the wrong dog-end.

If his defence is that he had not just been smoking a cigarette, and he has
a witness to prove it, and so could not have thrown down a dog-end, then I
would have though that he has a better chance of being acquitted. If,
however, he had just been smoking, just thrown away his dog-end, and the
warden happened to select the wrong dog-end, then he stands less chance of
being acquitted - the offence having been comitted, but there being an error
in technical detail.

--
Iain

[Norman Wells]

He won't be accused of discarding a particular can, but of littering.
If the OP didn't litter then it's a case of mistaken identity, but one
that is rather unlikely and difficult to prove as it would imply a lack
of professionalism, or particular malice, in a person trained
specifically to do that job. If the OP did litter, then the nature of
the can, or whatever he did throw away, is utterly irrelevant.

[Scion]

Norman Wells spake thus:

Of course - but the defence to the charge is that he is unlikely to have
dropped the litter that the warden saw, because he had no reason to have
been holding the item in the first place. This brings doubt that the
warden saw what he thinks he saw.

[Norman Wells]

Then he needs to look at the summons to check. Then perhaps he'll tell
us exactly what it says and exactly what he did. At the moment, details
are thinner on the ground than cigarette butts.

[matthew carey]

Hi,
I've seen this thread has got quite a few replies. Here's what the letter says:

His statement clearly states that I dropped a "rollup". His exact statement is:

"That on the 25th June 2012, Matthew did throw down, drop or otherwise deposit litter on XX, namely a roll up cigarette end in such circumstances as to cause or contribute to or tend to lead to the defacement by litter of the said place, contrary to Section 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended)."

I told the warden at the time, I do not smoke roll-ups and showed him a pack of commercial cigarettes. Whether or not he documented that - I don't know.

My point still stands. I did not drop the roll-up he's accusing me off. I wasn't smoking at the time. I dropped nothing.

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <kc6hoj$ie5$1...@dont-email.me>, AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!
@drzoidberg.co.uk says...

> > A filterless roll-up will degrade in a short order of time. I think
> > filters will outlast the human race.
>

> Anything from a month to 10+ years apparently. Not quick, but not as
> indestructible as you suggest.
>
>
Of course, both these claims could be true.

The Mayans may have miscalculated by a small margin.


--
Sam

[chrisj.doran%...@gtempaccount.com]

On Jan 4, 12:25 pm, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk>
wrote:
> I'm not sure how much credence the court will give to someone who says "I
> don't smoke roll ups so it can't have been me" though.

It worked in the case of the judge's underpants, didn't it? But Idon't
recollect hearing any other details of the case, so there may have
been other evidence.

Chris

[Iain]

If your friend/witness can corroborate that:
- you do not smoke roll-ups;
- you were not smoking at the time; and
- (s)he did not see you drop anything,
then I would have thought that you stand a better than even chance of
getting off.

I am assuming that XX is public property, or property that the council have
jurisdiction over, and that you and your friend have no cause to make the
court believe that you are not telling the truth.

IANAL
--
Iain

[Norman Wells]

Do you think anyone can tell from 20 metres away whether a cigarette
butt is one from a roll-up or a commercial cigarette?

[Norman Wells]

So, are you alleging it was a case of mistaken identity, or totally
invented out of particular malice towards you?

And how do you explain it? Was there anything dropped in your vicinity?
Was it a cigarette butt? Who dropped it?

[michael adams]

"matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bd3491c5-2f55-43fe...@googlegroups.com...
- Hi,
- I've seen this thread has got quite a few replies. Here's
- what the letter says:

- His statement clearly states that I dropped a "rollup".
- His exact statement is:

- "That on the 25th June 2012, Matthew did throw down, drop or
- otherwise deposit litter on XX, namely a roll up cigarette end
- in such circumstances as to cause or contribute to or tend to
- lead to the defacement by litter of the said place, contrary
- to Section 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
- (as amended)."

- I told the warden at the time, I do not smoke roll-ups and showed
- him a pack of commercial cigarettes. Whether or not he documented
- that I don't know.


Regardless of whether he documented it or not, providing he
noticed your producing the pack of ready-mades at the time,
when he's confronted with this fact in Court by yourself,
he has the option of either lying under Oath or realising
and admitting to his mistake.

The scope for any possible "misunderstanding" is severely
reduced when it rests on the infintessimal probablility of
your smoking both roll-ups and ready mades.

The point being that the improbability of this may have been
unknown to the official at the time, given his possible
unfamilarity with the habits of smokers.

If its similarly unfamiliar to the Bench at the hearing,
any decision could be appealed on this basis.



- My point still stands. I did not drop the roll-up he's
- accusing me off. I wasn't smoking at the time. I dropped
- nothing.

Regardless of what you may or may not have done, his specifically
referring to "roll-ups" coupled with your producing and showing
him a packet of ready mades at the time, totally undermines his
case, unless he's prepared to lie under oath.


michael adams

....

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:IcCFs.918323$EF4.7...@fx23.am4...

> Lordgnome wrote:

>> How exactly does this all work? Assuming someone accused me of such a
>> heinous crime (justified or not) and asked for my details, suppose I
>> give a fictitious name and address and leave it at that? Am I required
>> in fact to give any such information other than to the police?
>
> Yes you are.

It's really not that simple.

Sometimes, in some areas, with some persons accredited under some powers,
and if you are accused of certain offences, then you may be obliged to do
so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Safety_Accreditation_Scheme

It would be sensible to confirm the person's identity and authority with the
Police before disclosing any information to them. There are some very
strange people out there, purporting to have powers which they do not in
reality have.

For anyone interested in an egregiously silly and dangerous pretend police
force, Newham's council operation is an amusing read -
http://apps.newham.gov.uk/docs/asbr.pdf . Page 24 deals specifically with
the fact that they do not have the power to demand names and addresses.

[Roland Perry]

In message <roFFs.695629$nB6.5...@fx21.am4>, at 18:45:03 on Fri, 4 Jan

2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> I told the warden at the time, I do not smoke roll-ups and showed him
>> a pack of commercial cigarettes. Whether or not he documented that -
>> I don't know.
>>
>> My point still stands. I did not drop the roll-up he's accusing me
>> off. I wasn't smoking at the time. I dropped nothing.
>
>So, are you alleging it was a case of mistaken identity, or totally
>invented out of particular malice towards you?

The OP admits he was there, and was accused at the time of dropping a
roll-up (which he denies). What possible mechanism involves mistaken
identity?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <B9DFs.86186$1y....@fx01.am4>, at 16:15:01 on Fri, 4 Jan

2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>He won't be accused of discarding a particular can, but of littering.
>If the OP didn't litter then it's a case of mistaken identity, but one
>that is rather unlikely and difficult to prove as it would imply a lack
>of professionalism, or particular malice, in a person trained
>specifically to do that job.

I think you are placing rather more faith in a minimum wage employee
than their occupation deserves.

About a year ago I noticed a car parked on a zebra crossing, and a local
traffic enforcement officer walking away (but towards me) on the other
side of the road. When I asked him why he hadn't even approached the car
to ask it to move (let alone ticket it) he gave every impression it was
just too much trouble.

>If the OP did litter, then the nature of the can, or whatever he did
>throw away, is utterly irrelevant.

He says he was accused at the time of littering with a roll-up, which he
denies he ever had.

--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In message <2nCErtoB...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

When you are charged with an offence, I would have thought that the
charge would have to indicate some specific details of the offence. For
example, if you are charged with murder, aren't you specifically charged
(for example) with 'the murder of Fred Bloggs'? Similarly, if you are
charged with dropping litter, aren't you are charged with 'dropping
litter - namely a roll-up cigarette butt'? [Which, indeed, the OP was.]
--
Ian

[Norman Wells]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <B9DFs.86186$1y....@fx01.am4>, at 16:15:01 on Fri, 4 Jan
> 2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> He won't be accused of discarding a particular can, but of littering.
>> If the OP didn't litter then it's a case of mistaken identity, but
>> one that is rather unlikely and difficult to prove as it would imply
>> a lack of professionalism, or particular malice, in a person trained
>> specifically to do that job.
>
> I think you are placing rather more faith in a minimum wage employee
> than their occupation deserves.

It's the CPS that decides on and leads prosecutions, and they're far
from minimum wage employees.

> About a year ago I noticed a car parked on a zebra crossing, and a
> local traffic enforcement officer walking away (but towards me) on
> the other side of the road. When I asked him why he hadn't even
> approached the car to ask it to move (let alone ticket it) he gave
> every impression it was just too much trouble.
>
>> If the OP did litter, then the nature of the can, or whatever he did
>> throw away, is utterly irrelevant.
>
> He says he was accused at the time of littering with a roll-up, which
> he denies he ever had.

The prosecution is on the basis that he dropped litter contrary to
Section 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It doesn't
matter what.

[Norman Wells]

That it wasn't he who dropped it of course.

Or are you alleging that it's a purely vindictive and malicious
prosecution for personal reasons?

[Ian Jackson]

In article <kc79it$c7d$1...@dont-email.me>,

Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>For anyone interested in an egregiously silly and dangerous pretend police
>force, Newham's council operation is an amusing read -
>http://apps.newham.gov.uk/docs/asbr.pdf . Page 24 deals specifically with
>the fact that they do not have the power to demand names and addresses.

Wow, what a sorry tale! Thanks for that interesting read.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Judith]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:10:03 +0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

<snip>


>Of course they won't. They'll decide in five minutes and, on the
>arguments we've seen so far, almost certainly side with the warden.


What on earth makes you claim that?

Have you got the figures of how many people went before magistrates and pleaded
not guilty, having a witness who supported their version of events, and who
were found guilty by the magistrates?

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message

news:yDIFs.1041518$Rc7.1...@fx04.am4...

As long as the charge is made out, the details are somewhat irrelevant-
there is a case on shoplifting (the name of which I forget, and I haven't
got my Stone's handy) which says that a court can convict of stealing fewer,
and different, items than those charged if that's what the evidence
supports. The principle would appear to apply by analogy to the case under
discussion.
OTOH, if the evidence is given in relation to a roll-up and serious doubt is
cast on that, it does impugn the credibility of the prosecution witness. The
defendant OP is lucky to have a witness, as long as that witness supports
his case without being seriously inconsistent, in which case the magistrates
may well decide it's either a concoction or merely unreliable.

[Robin Bignall]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:30:03 +0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

Perhaps just that. There are people out there who, given some sort of
uniform, use its power to intimidate. Think of all the 'fitting up'
cases that have come to light during the past few decades, by warranted
police. Then take it a scale downwards to people in uniforms who do not
have some sort of oath of conduct.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England

[Judith]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:40:02 +0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>The Todal wrote:
>> On 4/1/13 11:10, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/13 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> matthew carey wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there
>>>>>> and tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke
>>>>>> cigarettes, not roll ups.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them?
>>>>> And why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it
>>>>> matters a jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?
>>>>
>>>> The council official accused him of dropping a roll-up. Perhaps the
>>>> official retained it as evidence. So it would be quite important.

>>>
>>> The offence is actually one of dropping litter in any place open to
>>> the air, and that is what he is undoubtedly charged with. The
>>> nature of the litter is unimportant. No-one is going to be in the
>>> least bit interested whether it is a butt from a commercially
>>> produced cigarette or a roll-up.
>>>
>>

>> With respect, I think you oversimplify this.
>>
>> The prosecution witness (the council official) won't get away with
>> saying "I saw him drop litter. It doesn't matter what it was, and I
>> can't remember whether it was a piece of paper, a bit of orange peel,
>> a cigarette butt or a roll-up cigarette, it was definitely litter of
>> some kind".
>>
>> At the time, he accused the OP of dropping a roll-up. If he changes
>> his mind and says in court that on closer examination he found it to
>> be a commercially produced cigarette butt, there might be some raised
>> eyebrows but he might get away with it and there might be a
>> conviction. However the court needs to be sure that a specific item
>> was dropped, and any uncertainty about what it was could make a
>> conviction less likely.

>
>By the very nature of the offence, it is not going to be observed at any
>sort of distance where the difference between a commercial cigarette

>butt and one from a roll-up can be determined. However, it will
>normally be absolutely clear from the preceding actions and the manner
>in which it is jettisoned that what has been discarded is a dog end, not
>orange peel or anything else. The warden will quite likely say
>something along the following lines 'From about 20m away, I observed the
>accused who was smoking a cigarette. He took a final drag then flicked
>the butt onto the pavement [before stamping it out]. On approaching
>him, he was abusive to me asking if I had nothing better to do, and
>fresh smoke was evident on his breath. I indicated a butt on the
>pavement and asked if it was his, which he denied. I offered him a
>fixed penalty fine, but he refused, saying he'd see me in court, you
>jobsworth.'
>
>All totally credible, I suggest, and unlikely to be a malicious
>accusation. If the contrary argument is that the butt indicated was of
>a roll-up and not a commercial cigarette which the accused only smoked,
>do you really think that will sway the magistrates? If you do, I think
>you have a rather naive view of how they come to their verdicts.
>
>
>
On the other hand:

I was observing a crowd of people. I saw this person drop a cigarette end on
the road and approached him. He said that he had not dropped the cigarette end
on the road and it must have been one of the other people as he was not even
smoking at the time. His friend who was with him also stated that the accused
had not even been smoking at the time and he would be willing to state this in
court under oath.

I wonder how the performance of the litter wardens is assessed? Perhaps they
have targets to achieve.

I know that some authorities use private companies as "litter wardens" - I
wonder if this was the case here?

[Judith]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:50:02 +0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>Scion wrote:
>> Norman Wells spake thus:
>>
>>> The Todal wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> As above. I would suggest asking the prosecution whether they
>>>> intend to produce the offending item in court. They should be
>>>> willing to say whether or not they are.
>>>
>>> They won't say, nor is it likely that they will produce it in court.
>>> This is not a forensic investigation but a charge of dropping litter
>>> whatever it was. Magistrates won't have the slightest interest. Do
>>> we think he dropped something is all that they'll be concerned with.
>>
>> But the likelihood of dropping an item is tied in to the likelihood
>> of the defendant holding that item in the first place. If the
>> defendant doesn't smoke roll-ups, how likely is it that he dropped a
>> roll-up butt?
>
>The charge is not that he dropped a roll-up butt specifically but that
>he dropped litter. Any sort of litter will do.

So it could have been a black bag full of rubbish which the warden mistook for
a fag end?

[Judith]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:55:16 +0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>Janet wrote:
>> In article <%JyFs.1381144$ti6.4...@fx20.am4>, h...@unseen.ac.am
>> says...

>>>
>>> The Todal wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/13 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> matthew carey wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there
>>>>>> and tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke
>>>>>> cigarettes, not roll ups.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what do you normally do with the ends once you've smoked them?
>>>>> And why, from the point of view of littering law, do you think it
>>>>> matters a jot whether it was from a roll-up or a cigarette?
>>>>
>>>> The council official accused him of dropping a roll-up. Perhaps the
>>>> official retained it as evidence. So it would be quite important.
>>>
>>> The offence is actually one of dropping litter in any place open to
>>> the air, and that is what he is undoubtedly charged with. The
>>> nature of the litter is unimportant.
>>

>> The fact it wasn't his litter, IS important.
>
>No, it's extremely unimportant. What is important is the evidence that
>he discarded some litter, any litter, not necessarily the exact piece of
>litter discussed subsequently.


Do you think that the type of litter (cigarette end, beer can, black bag of
rubbish) would be named in court?

If so - why do you think that would be? Perhaps because it is an important and
very relevant part of the charge?

[Judith]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 19:05:02 +0000, "michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

>The scope for any possible "misunderstanding" is severely
>reduced when it rests on the infintessimal probablility of
>your smoking both roll-ups and ready mades.
>
>The point being that the improbability of this may have been
>unknown to the official at the time, given his possible
>unfamilarity with the habits of smokers.

I fear it may be you who is unfamiliar with the habits of smokers. I know
quite a few people who smoke tailor made cigarettes. Sometimes they go to the
trouble of taking the tobacco out of the tailor made, and then making a rollup
out of it. I have no idea why they do this - perhaps it tastes different :-)

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6pnee8teanj60avnq...@4ax.com...

I doubt such figures exist, although there may be a study somewhere. One
problem is determining "who supported their versions of events", and you'd
also have to take into account how well the stories matched and how they
withstood cross-examination. There are certainly raw figures of not guilty
pleas in magistrates courts leading to convictions (my own research has some
from the mid-1980s in Leeds, Wolverhampton and Cardiff), but I doubt they go
beyond that.

[Jethro_uk]

I have heard of arrests where police claim to have seen from 30m that
someone was smoking a joint and therefore they had "reasonable suspicion"
to perform a search.

Maybe it's a contrast thing - black skin makes it stand out more ?

[Sara]

In article <BFIFs.1041521$Rc7.4...@fx04.am4>,

Why would the OP have to allege any such thing? It's not for him to
second-guess the motives of his accuser.

--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Sam Plusnet" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b511c13e...@news.plus.net...

<vbg>

--
Alex

[Roland Perry]

In message <BFIFs.1041521$Rc7.4...@fx04.am4>, at 22:30:03 on Fri, 4

Jan 2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> The OP admits he was there, and was accused at the time of dropping a
>> roll-up (which he denies). What possible mechanism involves mistaken
>> identity?
>
>That it wasn't he who dropped it of course.

Mistaken Identity would normally mean that the someone who did drop it
gave the OP's name and address when stopped.

If it was dropped by someone else present at the time, perhaps the OP
would have used that in his verbal defence at the time.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jupee8dva299dheku...@4ax.com>, at 23:45:02 on
Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>I know
>quite a few people who smoke tailor made cigarettes. Sometimes they go to the
>trouble of taking the tobacco out of the tailor made, and then making a rollup
>out of it. I have no idea why they do this - perhaps it tastes different :-)

No filter, presumably.

But if the OP is not one of the people who operate in this fashion, then
he can honestly deny ever being in possession of a roll-up.
--
Roland Perry

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:ddpee819lbqo2n7ei...@4ax.com...

Up to a point; particularisation of the charge (as it's known) is regarded
as important so that the accused can properly answer it, but, e.g "a
cigarette butt" need not specify whether it's a readymade or a roll-up, and
the wording is wide enough to sustain a conviction. OTOH, if the witness
statement states one and the defendant alleges another, it goes to the
credibility of the prosecution witness and a matter for cross-examination as
to how the witness came to use that description. It makes little difference
otherwise, but obviously an allegation of a "black bin liner full of
rubbish" is so different from "a cigarette butt" that something is bound to
have gone wrong, and the prosecutor should be invited to explain- however,
there are wide powers to vary charges even during the course of the trial,
and the only remedy is that the accused is entitled to an adjournment (but
little else) if misled by the charge. The requirements for advance
disclosure brought in in the 1980s make it less likely that this would
occur, however.

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <11see8due02j9uasr...@4ax.com>,
docr...@ntlworld.com says...

Maybe not even that.

Official is employed in an anti-litter role.
Sees some movement, & spots litter on the ground.
Sees person adjacent to that litter.
"He's an obvious litter lout".
Open & shut wotsit.

I recall, decades ago, being being accused of dumping some litter -
simply because I was the nearest person to the litter when the idiot
spotted it.
Numpty years later, the injustice of it still rankles.

--
Sam

[Ian Jackson]

In message <yDIFs.1041518$Rc7.1...@fx04.am4>, Norman Wells
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes

Obviously the act cannot be expected to specify every type of litter it
is intended to cover. However, I would have thought that the charge has
to give some indication of what the litter was. The prosecution cannot
say "He dropped some litter contrary to Section 87(1) of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 - but we are not saying what it was".
--
Ian

[Roland Perry]

In message <yDIFs.1041518$Rc7.1...@fx04.am4>, at 22:30:03 on Fri, 4

Jan 2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> I think you are placing rather more faith in a minimum wage employee
>> than their occupation deserves.
>
>It's the CPS that decides on and leads prosecutions, and they're far
>from minimum wage employees.

But they are would be relying completely on the warden's statement.

(Also, if the LA -rather than the police - is prosecuting, is the CPS
involved?)

>> About a year ago I noticed a car parked on a zebra crossing, and a
>> local traffic enforcement officer walking away (but towards me) on
>> the other side of the road. When I asked him why he hadn't even
>> approached the car to ask it to move (let alone ticket it) he gave
>> every impression it was just too much trouble.
>>
>>> If the OP did litter, then the nature of the can, or whatever he did
>>> throw away, is utterly irrelevant.
>>
>> He says he was accused at the time of littering with a roll-up, which
>> he denies he ever had.
>
>The prosecution is on the basis that he dropped litter contrary to
>Section 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It doesn't
>matter what.

It does when the charge sheet mentions a very specific form of litter.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> considered Fri, 04
> Jan 2013 12:25:01 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:wGjVz1SG...@perry.co.uk...
>>> In message <J1xFs.85655$1y.2...@fx01.am4>, at 09:15:01 on Fri, 4

>>> Jan 2013, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>> It will depend on the credibility of the warden who says he saw you
>>>> littering, and the believability of your denial. The exact nature
>>>> of what you are alleged to have dropped isn't of much relevance.
>>>
>>> It is extremely relevant if there's no evidence that a standard
>>> cigarette was dropped (but only a roll-up).
>>
>> I'm not sure how much credence the court will give to someone who
>> says "I don't smoke roll ups so it can't have been me" though. It's
>> most definitely not an automatic "get out of jail card" when faced
>> with a warden who says they saw you drop it.
>> I could claim that I don't eat cheese and onion crisps but wouldn't
>> rely on that to escape a conviction for dropping an empty bag.
>>
>> On a more general note, do litter wardens keep items of rubbish as
>> evidence as a matter of course or do they just record the details
>> and then bin it?
>
> If they don't present the evidence, but conceal it, would that not
> undermine any case?

Unless some connection can be shown between the item and the accused, eg
by DNA analysis, which won't happen, it's of no value as evidence, but
just a dog-end.

[Norman Wells]

It's not a Get-out-of-Jail-Free card. It depends whether what the
witness says is of any relevance to the case.

[Norman Wells]

No, the charge is dropping litter contrary to Section 87(1) of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The type of litter is part of the evidence. Evidence doesn't have to be
100% accurate, especially when it comes to minutiae like whether a
dog-end seen discarded from 20 metres away is from a commercial
cigarette or a roll-up. It just has to be sufficiently persuasive to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the law under which he has been
charged has been broken.

[Norman Wells]

I doubt it. I've seen people 30 metres away smoking, and it's perfectly
obvious from their generally inane demeanour, the shape of what they're
smoking, the way they hold it, and the way they inhale it, that it's a
joint, not an ordinary cigarette. They give themselves away by their
actions. It's got nothing to do with colour.

[Norman Wells]

A Council enforcement officer comes to court having been trained and
trusted to do his job on behalf of the community. Unless his motives
are seriously questioned, the likelihood is that his account of events
will be believed. If his motives are questioned, it's down to the
questioner to make his case that they are somehow malicious.

[Nick Odell]

Oh I don't know: it seems to me that this is just the thing for which
the proposed, new, 'secret' courts would be perfect.

Nick

[michael adams]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:jupee8dva299dheku...@4ax.com...

These friends of yours would be well advised not to smoke these
special roll-ups of theirs in the street, or in any public
place for that matter. And by recycling the butts rather than
discarding them in the street they can save themselves some
money, to say nothing of maybe further embarrassing
"misunderstandings", into the bargain.

In other words, informative and amusing though it may be, I very
much doubt if this charming anecdote about your friends and their
exotic habits, has any particular relevance to the matter
in hand.


michael adams

....

[michael adams]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:9Z1mUY5e...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <jupee8dva299dheku...@4ax.com>, at 23:45:02
> on Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>I know
>>quite a few people who smoke tailor made cigarettes. Sometimes they
>>go to the
>>trouble of taking the tobacco out of the tailor made, and then
>>making a rollup
>>out of it. I have no idea why they do this - perhaps it tastes
>>different :-)
>
> No filter, presumably.

That particular problem is more easily solved by only ever buying
double ended cigarettes and tearing the filter off of one end.

What Judith is presumably alluding to here, are informal
re-blending exercises involving additional ingredients not normally
available in your run of the mill tobacconist or Tesco.


michael adams

....

[Judith]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 08:35:16 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <jupee8dva299dheku...@4ax.com>, at 23:45:02 on
>Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>I know
>>quite a few people who smoke tailor made cigarettes. Sometimes they go to the
>>trouble of taking the tobacco out of the tailor made, and then making a rollup
>>out of it. I have no idea why they do this - perhaps it tastes different :-)
>
>No filter, presumably.

No - it must be something else - otherwise they would break off the filter and
smoke from the other end.

I think that they sometimes add their own "filter" - a "pike" or a "perch" or
some such thing ;-)

[Iain Archer]

Janitor of Lunacy <zo...@zonk.com> wrote on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 at 01:10:02:
>
>"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ddpee819lbqo2n7ei...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:55:16 +0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Janet wrote:
>>>> In article <%JyFs.1381144$ti6.4...@fx20.am4>, h...@unseen.ac.am
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> The Todal wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/13 09:15, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> matthew carey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 11:00:10 PM UTC, Zapp Brannigan
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "matthew carey" <k3z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:b3b55652-9d24-42ab...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess I'll send back my letter of Not Guilty and just go there
>>>>>>>> and tell the truth. I didn't drop a cigarette. I smoke
>>>>>>>> cigarettes, not roll ups.

[...]

>> Do you think that the type of litter (cigarette end, beer can, black
>>bag of rubbish) would be named in court?
>>
>> If so - why do you think that would be? Perhaps because it is an
>>important and very relevant part of the charge?
>>
>Up to a point; particularisation of the charge (as it's known) is regarded
>as important so that the accused can properly answer it, but, e.g "a
>cigarette butt" need not specify whether it's a readymade or a roll-up, and
>the wording is wide enough to sustain a conviction. OTOH, if the witness
>statement states one and the defendant alleges another, it goes to the
>credibility of the prosecution witness and a matter for cross-examination as
>to how the witness came to use that description. It makes little difference
>otherwise, but obviously an allegation of a "black bin liner full of
>rubbish" is so different from "a cigarette butt" that something is bound to
>have gone wrong, and the prosecutor should be invited to explain- however,
>there are wide powers to vary charges even during the course of the trial,
>and the only remedy is that the accused is entitled to an adjournment (but
>little else) if misled by the charge. The requirements for advance
>disclosure brought in in the 1980s make it less likely that this would
>occur, however.
>
>

So, is there any potential point in the defendant's contacting the CPS
prosecutor to say that he will be testifying at any hearing that he
never smokes roll-ups, did not drop any cigarette, ..., that he has a
supporting witness who will testify ..., etc? I assume that the "Not
Guilty" letter referred to is simply a notification to the court of his
intended plea.
--
Iain

[Paul Rudin]

Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:


> I fear it may be you who is unfamiliar with the habits of smokers. I
> know quite a few people who smoke tailor made cigarettes. Sometimes
> they go to the trouble of taking the tobacco out of the tailor made,
> and then making a rollup out of it. I have no idea why they do this -
> perhaps it tastes different :-)

One reason some people do this is to add other things to the tobacco -
e.g. grass or hash.

[Iain]

Surely it is also possible to question the accuracy of the events in the
statement, or reliabiliity of the council's witness. Casting any doubt as
to the facts presented starts to make the allegation less than 'beyond
reasonable doubt'.

--
Iain

[Clive George]

On 05/01/2013 15:20, Janet wrote:
> In article <877gnrv...@no-fixed-abode.cable.virginmedia.net>,
> paul....@rudin.co.uk says...

> People smoke lawns and corned beef? Get away.

People smoke herring and ham, so why not corned beef? :-)

[Lordgnome]

> A Council enforcement officer comes to court having been trained and
> trusted to do his job on behalf of the community. Unless his motives
> are seriously questioned, the likelihood is that his account of events
> will be believed. If his motives are questioned, it's down to the
> questioner to make his case that they are somehow malicious.

A council officer or anyone else, can make a mistake. I do not recall
the OP suggesting malicious intent, although the possibility remains.

Les.

[Judith]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 09:55:02 +0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

<snip>

>A Council enforcement officer comes to court having been trained and
>trusted to do his job on behalf of the community.

I guess you mean just like these traffic wardens:

Caught on camera: Jobsworth wardens SCRAPED SNOW from double yellow lines so
they could slap tickets on parked cars

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189419/Grandfather-70--caught-traffic-wardens-scraping-snow-double-yellow-lines-slap-parking-tickets-cars.html#ixzz2H6xWmsTo




I would also like to know whether the litter wardens in the OP's case were from
a private firm contracted by the LA or not.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:rKSFs.970653$W63.9...@fx05.am4...

The defence does not need to rest upon an accusation of malice,
incompetence, poor eyesight or anything else. Perhaps the warden was
hungover, or momentarily distracted by the pretty girls across the street.
Perhaps he is under pressure from his managers to improve his performance,
and fears losing his job. Perhaps he doesn't like the OP's gender,
fashion, age or race. Perhaps he's just a petty-minded jobsworth seeking
relief from being henpecked at home, and he feels better when he's accused a
few people.

All of these are speculative mind-reading defences, unlikely to capture the
sympathy of a magistrate and completely unnecessary to defend the
prosecution. The OP should *not* attempt to explain why a warden says he
saw something that did not happen. He should simply say that the warden
was mistaken, because the OP did not drop any object.

I think there's a risk that your postings will give the false impression
that he must prove his innocence. That is of course incorrect. He only
needs to establish a reasonable doubt, and he should then be acquitted. If
he presents smartly and courteously with a supporting witness, there is a
good chance of that.

[Norman Wells]

Of course it is. It helps to have something to justify it, however.

> Casting any
> doubt as to the facts presented starts to make the allegation less
> than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Only if there is in fact something to justify it.

[Norman Wells]

Janet wrote:
> In article <roFFs.695629$nB6.5...@fx21.am4>, h...@unseen.ac.am
> says...
>>
>> matthew carey wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I've seen this thread has got quite a few replies. Here's what the
>>> letter says:
>>>
>>> His statement clearly states that I dropped a "rollup". His exact
>>> statement is:
>>>
>>> "That on the 25th June 2012, Matthew did throw down, drop or
>>> otherwise deposit litter on XX, namely a roll up cigarette end in
>>> such circumstances as to cause or contribute to or tend to lead to
>>> the defacement by litter of the said place, contrary to Section
>>> 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended)."

>>>
>>> I told the warden at the time, I do not smoke roll-ups and showed
>>> him a pack of commercial cigarettes. Whether or not he documented
>>> that - I don't know.
>>>
>>> My point still stands. I did not drop the roll-up he's accusing me
>>> off. I wasn't smoking at the time. I dropped nothing.
>>
>> So, are you alleging it was a case of mistaken identity, or totally
>> invented out of particular malice towards you?
>>

>> And how do you explain it? Was there anything dropped in your
>> vicinity? Was it a cigarette butt? Who dropped it?
>
> It's not for him to explain or justify a third party's motives.

We don't even know if there was a third party. We know nothing about
any defence he might have. All we have from him is a denial. That
doesn't count for much if there is nothing else. And there won't be
anything else unless it comes from him and is credible.