Police station representation?
Discussion
Mk3Spitfire said:
I said letting a tyre down wasn't criminal damage. You said it was. It isn't. You were wrong.
You were wrong because, and this might come as a shock, you are not perfect. I'm not either and some things I am misinformed or just wrong about.
You've changed your mind from "it might be." Interesting. I still say the offence is made out. Whether the police (specials included) want to deal or record it as such is another matter. If anyone wants to know what constitutes the offence then this is about as good as you'll get:You were wrong because, and this might come as a shock, you are not perfect. I'm not either and some things I am misinformed or just wrong about.
"B8.6 ‘Damage’ is left undefined in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The courts have construed the term liberally. Criminal damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. See Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735, where it was also said that: ‘What constitutes criminal damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the justices, applying their common sense, to decide whether what occurred was damage or not.’ In Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381, where a blanket was soaked (but not soiled) with water from a toilet in a police cell and three cell floors were flooded, a conclusion that the blanket and floor were not damaged (even though the damage was remediable) ‘would have been incomprehensible’.
Older (persuasive) authorities under pre-1971 enactments further illustrate the breadth of the notion of damage: see, e.g., Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868 (milk damaged by adulteration with water) and Tacey (1821) Russ & Ry 452 (machine damaged by removal of essential part, although if the constituent part or parts are not themselves damaged it is important to charge damage to the machine, i.e. to the whole rather than to the parts — see Woolcock [1977] Crim LR 104 and 161). Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330 is a more modern illustration of the scope of the meaning of ‘damage’, in which water-soluble pavement paintings were held to constitute damage to the pavement.
The damage need not be tangible or visible if it affects the value or performance of the property: see Cox v Riley (1986) 83 Cr App R 54, where a plastic circuit card for controlling a computerised saw was held to have been damaged by the erasure of the programs electronically written on it. Nor did it matter that the damage was not permanent in that it could be remedied, as restoring the programs necessitated ‘time, labour and expense’. See now Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr App R 25, where a computer disk was held to be damaged by the addition and deletion of files. The interference with the disk amounted to an ‘impairment of the value or usefulness of the disk to the owner’. These two decisions remain significant for the general meaning of damage but are overtaken as regards their own particular facts by the Computer Misuse Act 1990, s. 3 (see further B17.11)."
Might be, because if the tyre was slashed, it would be. You were referring to letting the tyre diwn via the valve. This would not be. You are wrong.
And now, as much as I enjoy our little chats, I'll stop arguing.
And now, as much as I enjoy our little chats, I'll stop arguing.
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Monday 3rd November 21:40
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Monday 3rd November 21:41
agtlaw said:
Don't believe him. I've heard this all too often. "Informal chats" have turned into dangerous driving trials in front of a jury.
Get a solicitor. It's free of charge if the firm has a criminal legal aid franchise. Doesn't matter if arrested or not.
Get a solicitor. It's free of charge if the firm has a criminal legal aid franchise. Doesn't matter if arrested or not.
This.
Some have suggested starting an informal chat and only asking for a solicitor if neccesary. I will strongly advice against doing this. Insist on a having a solicitor.
I remember when I attended a police station to have a chat. I even had a bag of McDonalds in hand, the police man's eyes lit up when he saw me. He politely and courteously invited me in. Once he shut the door behind me, he showed his true colours.
When I left the station 8 hours later after spending time in a cold cell, I knew the real meaning of a CHAT.
Edited by Eclassy on Monday 3rd November 22:49
Mk3Spitfire said:
Might be, because if the tyre was slashed, it would be. You were referring to letting the tyre diwn via the valve. This would not be. You are wrong.
And now, as much as I enjoy our little chats, I'll stop arguing
"Smith & Hogan's Criminal Law is regarded as the leading doctrinal textbook on criminal law in England and Wales and Wales".And now, as much as I enjoy our little chats, I'll stop arguing
"Deflating the tyres of a car would presumably amount to criminal damage since the car, albeit temporarily, is deprived of its usefulness". Smith & Hogan, 11th edition.
agtlaw said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
I said letting a tyre down wasn't criminal damage. You said it was. It isn't. You were wrong.
You were wrong because, and this might come as a shock, you are not perfect. I'm not either and some things I am misinformed or just wrong about.
You've changed your mind from "it might be." Interesting. I still say the offence is made out. Whether the police (specials included) want to deal or record it as such is another matter. If anyone wants to know what constitutes the offence then this is about as good as you'll get:You were wrong because, and this might come as a shock, you are not perfect. I'm not either and some things I am misinformed or just wrong about.
"B8.6 ‘Damage’ is left undefined in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The courts have construed the term liberally. Criminal damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. See Roe v Kingerlee [1986] Crim LR 735, where it was also said that: ‘What constitutes criminal damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the justices, applying their common sense, to decide whether what occurred was damage or not.’ In Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381, where a blanket was soaked (but not soiled) with water from a toilet in a police cell and three cell floors were flooded, a conclusion that the blanket and floor were not damaged (even though the damage was remediable) ‘would have been incomprehensible’.
Older (persuasive) authorities under pre-1971 enactments further illustrate the breadth of the notion of damage: see, e.g., Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868 (milk damaged by adulteration with water) and Tacey (1821) Russ & Ry 452 (machine damaged by removal of essential part, although if the constituent part or parts are not themselves damaged it is important to charge damage to the machine, i.e. to the whole rather than to the parts — see Woolcock [1977] Crim LR 104 and 161). Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [1986] Crim LR 330 is a more modern illustration of the scope of the meaning of ‘damage’, in which water-soluble pavement paintings were held to constitute damage to the pavement.
The damage need not be tangible or visible if it affects the value or performance of the property: see Cox v Riley (1986) 83 Cr App R 54, where a plastic circuit card for controlling a computerised saw was held to have been damaged by the erasure of the programs electronically written on it. Nor did it matter that the damage was not permanent in that it could be remedied, as restoring the programs necessitated ‘time, labour and expense’. See now Whiteley (1991) 93 Cr App R 25, where a computer disk was held to be damaged by the addition and deletion of files. The interference with the disk amounted to an ‘impairment of the value or usefulness of the disk to the owner’. These two decisions remain significant for the general meaning of damage but are overtaken as regards their own particular facts by the Computer Misuse Act 1990, s. 3 (see further B17.11)."
Coutning rules state
CLARIFICATION - NON-PERMANENT CRIMINAL DAMAGE
If the damage is easily rectified and non-permanent, i.e. it can be cleaned off or removed at no cost and with
little effort, record an incident and deal with in accordance with NSIR but do not record a crime.
The Home Office doesn't determine what amounts to a crime. Parliament does that. Plainly a cynical attempt to keep the recorded crime figures down but understandable that the police don't want to know.
OP, back on topic, see here for solicitors in your local area.
http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk
OP, back on topic, see here for solicitors in your local area.
http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk
T0nup said:
If you are invited to the station, there is nothing friendly about the chat. Get legal representation regardless of what the PC says.
Note. If the police want to talk to you at the station, they do not want to help you. They are investigating something and looking for an angle.
Not always true. In some RTC circs, paperwork has to be filled in. As is the case with a lot of other police enquiries. You don't need legal representation to fill in a traffic card. Granted, it may be that they wish to interview you, and then you can have your brief. (I recommend agtlaw, very good at his job). Will be interesting to hear what the outcome of the OP's case is though.Note. If the police want to talk to you at the station, they do not want to help you. They are investigating something and looking for an angle.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff