Is wiping crap on a car a crime?

Is wiping crap on a car a crime?

Author
Discussion

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
In drugs legislation premises can include a field. Illogical I know but the definition of the person who expected the law to make sense is someone who needs a lawyer.
Have you looked at the ordinary and plain meaning of 'premises'? Premises is land and the buildings on it. A field is a pretty good example of land, is it not? By the ordinary meaning, it would be illogical to think a field is not 'premises'.


PoleDriver

28,614 posts

193 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
Thanks for the insight into the law!
I had some friends around the other day and one of them went into the bathroom. I keep a roll of expensive tissue paper in there which I had to pay for and they wiped crap all over it! yikes
Having read up on the laws I am now going to report them for criminal damage!


I don't hold much hope for a conviction, however, as they seem to have flushed the evidence down the toilet!

harry010

4,423 posts

186 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
Derek, the Literal Rule is the very first thing that Judges should consider.

It is one of the fundamental rules of statutory construction (the others being the mischief rule and the golden rule - I trust they taught you all about them at Police Academy), and Judges must not seek to put any other gloss on the words unless the statute makes specific provision to the contrary.

Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
harry010 said:


It is one of the fundamental rules of statutory construction (the others being the mischief rule and the golden rule - I trust they taught you all about them at Police Academy)
Police Academy ?

Is Derek really Hightower ? Or maybe T.J. Hooker ? (nice rug btw).

They were called police training centres. Have I missed something ?


XCP

16,875 posts

227 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
PoleDriver said:
Thanks for the insight into the law!
I had some friends around the other day and one of them went into the bathroom. I keep a roll of expensive tissue paper in there which I had to pay for and they wiped crap all over it! yikes
Having read up on the laws I am now going to report them for criminal damage!


I don't hold much hope for a conviction, however, as they seem to have flushed the evidence down the toilet!
I doubt the police would investigate. Probably just go through the motions.

PoleDriver

28,614 posts

193 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
XCP said:
I doubt the police would investigate. Probably just go through the motions.
Damn you! I was saving that line for later! rolleyes

XCP

16,875 posts

227 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
Sorry to be a party pooper!

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
It's a smear campaign.

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
Have you looked at the ordinary and plain meaning of 'premises'? Premises is land and the buildings on it. A field is a pretty good example of land, is it not? By the ordinary meaning, it would be illogical to think a field is not 'premises'.
Well, there you go. Your understanding of premises means land whereas I always thought premises was buildings and the adjoining land.

If I remember correctly the decision explained the 'strained' definition of premises, strained here being in its legal sense of totally destroyed, broken, razed, wrecked, wiped out, annihilated, broken, smashed, ruined but not strained. Most people, the normal, would consider premises to be accommodation, lodgings, rooms, quarters, shelter, housing and building. Indeed, they are included in my Oxford Thesaurus. It does not include field, not even one adjacent to premises.

I would assume therefore that normal use for a judge does not include normal for most people.

And damage: not the normal understanding of the word or else why the question by the OP? If damage included temporary, one that would wash off in the rain, then I would assume that the poster would have been able to work it out for himself. If they drove through mud and returned home to find the car covered in it very few drivers (see later) would consider their car 'damaged'.

I've no argument against damage including hiding a key to a machine. Not only that, I agree totally with the decision, which will, no doubt, have comforted the judge had he known of my agreement. However, I would disagree with any suggestion that the normal definition of damage included hiding a key.

I'm actually packing for a move of house at the moment so I have not got my normal range of dictionaries. I've just the one and in the list of different explanations of premises buildings, are included in all. I would also suggest that the normal definition of premises would include building with land.

Let's go for driving then. Why is one considered driving when one is out of the car? In fact I can understand why the legal definition of driving includes a person out of the car buying flowers for his missus but I would suggest that most people would consider that the person is not driving.

The strange thing is that a person who leaves the engine running on his car when buying said flowers might well be guilty of 'quitting' yet is considered to be driving. I'm not arguing as to why this is, only that normal people might be confused as to the meanings.

Judges rule. They decide what words mean and then that becomes their meaning. They may not use this facility, this power, frequently but using it once in a lifetime on the bench shows that they can.

When they changed the Codes of Practice for ID procedures in 2002 there was a change of phrase with regards consent. Knowing, as I did, that interpretation of statues suggested that if a word or phrase differs then it has a different meaning, I put my suggestion as to the meaning to the CPS as well as a nubmer of other ID officers. CPS agreed but less than wholeheartedly. I had included lots of supporting evidence but their suggestion, their strong suggestion, was that I should not avail myself of this interpretation as it might be challenged.

A particularly difficult case came along and I felt it appropriate to use the definition that I thought was normal. Otherwise the ID procedure would not have gone ahead. At court I was challenged on the matter and I gave the explanation that the CPS had fed me. I was later told that the resident judge had decided that he did not like that interpretation. However, he allowed it in this case after an objection by the defence.

Judges rule.

I could of course have ignored him but then CPS would not have run a case which depended on ID evidence where 'my' normal interpretation was used to gain agreement to a parade. Some time later there was a Home Office directive that the paragraph should be interpreted in a specific way, the way of the resident judge. I don't know of course but I would assume this was generated by judges.

Yet, without a shadow of a doubt, I was right according to the 'rules' of itnerpretation of statutes. The CPS said I was. I didn't see the note from the judge but I was told that it said that my interpretation was right in law, but . . . The but being that the judge didn't like it.

That said, it was worth a run. We probably would not have got a conviction had I not used it. The SIO, whom I'd obviously kept informed, was happy with the outcome. It was not the biggest job in the world but it was a job.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
With regards premises, the clue is in how you use the word; on the premises, rather than in the premises. Looking at pretty much any dictionary definition, it will be land including buildings. On that basis, not including land (be it fields, a car park or even a mosh pit full of the rowdy unwashed) would be on any reasonable reading, plain wrong.

As for damage, a common definition is something coming to harm. It's not really a stretch of the imagination to see that throwing excrement over a car is harming it, nor is rendering something useless by removing a required part.

Regards the rest, I admire your ability to spin a yarn regards any given situation, but yarns they often are. Magistrates and District Judges often make mistakes in law, including putting definitions to words in a way that is incorrect and beyond their remit. In many cases the perp will not have the brief, motivation, money or overall chance of success (or any of those) to warrant an appeal. In others, a verdict or sentence will hinge on an error in law, and courts higher up the ladder can reverse decisions where this happens.

Courts are entitled to give preference to one interpretation of a phrase or paragraph, the overall meaning of which can sometimes be open to debate. The answer to those questions can be discovered by looking at the meaning of the words themselves. What is perfectly clear, is that the courts are not entitled to create new definitions for words, that differ from their natural meaning, unless they are specifically directed to do by the legislation.

An example of an argument over a simple phrase (common sense prevails...):

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 14th June 19:50

carinaman

21,209 posts

171 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
You can't polish a turd







with a Lotus?

wink

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
CPS guidance:-

"Damage is not defined by the Act. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage (Archbold 23-6)."

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
With regards premises, the clue is in how you use the word; on the premises, rather than in the premises. Looking at pretty much any dictionary definition, it will be land including buildings. On that basis, not including land (be it fields, a car park or even a mosh pit full of the rowdy unwashed) would be on any reasonable reading, plain wrong.

As for damage, a common definition is something coming to harm. It's not really a stretch of the imagination to see that throwing excrement over a car is harming it, nor is rendering something useless by removing a required part.

Regards the rest, I admire your ability to spin a yarn regards any given situation, but yarns they often are. Magistrates and District Judges often make mistakes in law, including putting definitions to words in a way that is incorrect and beyond their remit. In many cases the perp will not have the brief, motivation, money or overall chance of success (or any of those) to warrant an appeal. In others, a verdict or sentence will hinge on an error in law, and courts higher up the ladder can reverse decisions where this happens.

Courts are entitled to give preference to one interpretation of a phrase or paragraph, the overall meaning of which can sometimes be open to debate. The answer to those questions can be discovered by looking at the meaning of the words themselves. What is perfectly clear, is that the courts are not entitled to create new definitions for words, that differ from their natural meaning, unless they are specifically directed to do by the legislation.

An example of an argument over a simple phrase (common sense prevails...):

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Thursday 14th June 19:50
There is no normal interpretation of premises that includes land without adjacent buidlings or structures. Fiddling with on and in is just not on. Whilst it can be, and has been, interpreted to include a field in law, the normal understanding of the word, let alone dictionary definitions, does not. So the law has picked one explanation that is not included in my dictionary.

One thing I do know is the English language. Words have multiple definitions, many archaic. However they have just one or two 'normal' ones. I feel confident that a field, empty of any structure, would not be called a premises except by a police officer wanting to exercise an authority under the Drugs Act. And quite rightly. If a field was a normal interpretation then the interpretation would not have required such an extended explanation in the decision.

Most people would consider a person had ceased driving when he left the car. Going into a shop would, in normal eyes, preclude that person from driving. But the law, for perfectly valid reasons, has decided that the normal definition is not helpful so extended driving to include certain stops. Whatever the legal definition of driving is, it is not normal.

One of the consequences of this has been the problem with drivers who have stopped at the side of the road to use their mobile phones. They assumed, using the normal interpretation of the word, that they were not driving. They obviously were not driving, they were parked. Their engines were off. Their handbrakes were on. They were not driving. Except in the eyes of the law of course, with their unique interpretation of the word driving. I've been approached by a neighbour who had been thus stopped. When I told him that even if he'd got out of his car and sat on a wall on the side of the road he was still driving his response supported my view that the legal definition of driving is not that used by drivers.

The law a law unto itself, at least as far as the English language is concerned.

Thank you for the compliment about my ability to tell stories. If you'd like to read some more true stories, I've written a book about my experiences in the City of London police. It is on Amazon. If you want, I'll send you a link. £1.99, and cheap at the price.

XCP

16,875 posts

227 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
No adverts please...

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
When I told him that even if he'd got out of his car and sat on a wall on the side of the road he was still driving his response supported my view that the legal definition of driving is not that used by drivers.
You are joking?

My favourite is the interpretation of the word 'using' although I accept wide interpretations are often necessary. It's just sour grapes because I once failed to wriggle out of a prosecution for 'using' a vehicle by arguing that using = driving, not parked and unattended. Failed miserably but I was young and naive.

monkey11477

128 posts

201 months

Thursday 14th June 2012
quotequote all
If it can be washed of with water and minimum effort then it is classed as non permanent criminal damage and is not a recordable crime according to the HOCR ( home office counting rules). However if you used a pressure washer to blast it off then it is criminal damage. Mad but true

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Friday 15th June 2012
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Most people would consider a person had ceased driving when he left the car. Going into a shop would, in normal eyes, preclude that person from driving. But the law, for perfectly valid reasons, has decided that the normal definition is not helpful so extended driving to include certain stops. Whatever the legal definition of driving is, it is not normal.
Could you please elaborate on what these 'certain stops' are.

Derek Smith said:
One of the consequences of this has been the problem with drivers who have stopped at the side of the road to use their mobile phones. They assumed, using the normal interpretation of the word, that they were not driving. They obviously were not driving, they were parked. Their engines were off. Their handbrakes were on. They were not driving. Except in the eyes of the law of course, with their unique interpretation of the word driving. I've been approached by a neighbour who had been thus stopped. When I told him that even if he'd got out of his car and sat on a wall on the side of the road he was still driving his response supported my view that the legal definition of driving is not that used by drivers.
Assuming a police officer would be sufficiently 'jobsworth' to actually go to the trouble of ticketing a driver who was out of the car and sitting on a wall, how far away from the vehicle would the he/she have to be before he/she could be deemed not to be 'driving'? Where might that line be drawn?



Edited by Red Devil on Friday 15th June 08:28

Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Friday 15th June 2012
quotequote all
Red Devil said:
Could you please elaborate on what these 'certain stops' are.
It is difficult to be precise as it is a question of fact whether a person is driving or not. But broadly put, you are driving from when you start your journey until the journey finishes.

A lot of the challenges to the definition of driving came with the drink drive prescribed limit offences. One of the early ones was to question how a person could be the driver when he was seated in the back of a police car. There were a few similar to the one quoted with regards a driver being out of a car buying flowers in a shop. (One or two of these were quite patently not stops to buy items but attempts to get away.) But the court felt that as the person was going to get back into the car to continue his journey then they were still driving for the pruposes of the Act.

It's a sensible and logical interpretation of the intention of the Act. Not only have I no argument with the assumed meaning of driving, I'm a full supporter. However, as pointed out, it is not what most people would call driving.

There have been a number of cases revolving around the definition of driving and it is not straightforward. My belief is that very few judges reach for the OED when deciding their interpretation of the word.

Other phrases to conjure with are 'breach of the peace' and 'public place'. Interpretation has changed over the years but in general one can fathom a certain logic to the courts intepretation but, especially for the former, it is not the generally accepted one.

BlackVanDyke

9,932 posts

210 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
DaveH23 said:
So driving along a dirty road is criminal damage if you have to wash your car aswell (exact same 'fix')

As I mentioned I hope the scrote is caught but I really do not agree that this is classed as damage.
Surely it's the intent that's relevant - doing something with the purpose of making it unusable?

monkey11477

128 posts

201 months

Sunday 17th June 2012
quotequote all
monkey11477 said:
If it can be washed of with water and minimum effort then it is classed as non permanent criminal damage and is not a recordable crime according to the HOCR ( home office counting rules). However if you used a pressure washer to blast it off then it is criminal damage. Mad but true
I'm obviously invisible! And as for the OT debate about what is driving and what isn't, sitting on a wall near a car with the engine off can never be driving! I would guess that there has been a misunderstanding and a story of drink drive has been passed on incorrectly. Under drink drive legislation such a situation may be classed as in charge of a motor vehicle but not driving. The same does not apply to mobile phone use obviously.