Fly Tippers caught red handed... and nothing done!
Discussion
You are not thinking about this with clarity. How can the defendant instruct his or her lawyer as to possible bases for challenging the evidence if the defendant does not know who the witness is? Suppose that the witness has a demonstrable motive for telling a lie about the defendant. The lawyer can't guess this - he or she needs instructions from the defendant.
The opportunity to know the identity of your accuser is fundamental to open justice. Anonymous accusation is the hallmark of tyrannies.
The opportunity to know the identity of your accuser is fundamental to open justice. Anonymous accusation is the hallmark of tyrannies.
Breadvan72 said:
The idea of making all witnesses in all criminal cases anonymous is a very bad one that has not been thought through by those suggesting it. Allowing anonymous denunciation is a slippery slope away from a free society. Take for example a case of an alleged offence invoking neighbours or colleagues. Personal grudges and grievances may impact on witness credibility. Witness anonymity offends against the general principle of open justice, and so should be granted only in clear cases where the need for it is shown.
Grudges and grievances should become apparent to the investigating officer which could subsequently affect the special measures being introducedBreadvan72 said:
You are not thinking about this with clarity. How can the defendant instruct his or her lawyer as to possible bases for challenging the evidence if the defendant does not know who the witness is? Suppose that the witness has a demonstrable motive for telling a lie about the defendant. The lawyer can't guess this - he or she needs instructions from the defendant.
The opportunity to know the identity of your accuser is fundamental to open justice. Anonymous accusation is the hallmark of tyrannies.
Aside from defendants being asked from the outset if they know of anybody with a grudge against them (according to every cop show I've seen The opportunity to know the identity of your accuser is fundamental to open justice. Anonymous accusation is the hallmark of tyrannies.
), in this case of flytipping where there is an electronic witness in the form of video and the witness is only required to say how and when it was taken, what is the need here for anyone else to know who took that footage?Absolutely I take your points as totally valid, but as usual a blanket approach doesn't seem ideal.
I don't think Special Measures will be granted on the basis that the people fly tipping may be travellers who may intimidate the witness because that's what travellers apparently do, somehow.
CPS said:
When assessing whether a victim is intimidated, the service provider must take account of:
• Any behaviour towards the victim on
the part of the accused, members of
the family or associates of the accused,
and any other person who is likely to
be an accused or witness in a potential
court case;
• The nature and alleged circumstance of
the offence to which a potential court
case relates. Victims of a sexual offence
or human trafficking will automatically
be considered to be intimidated;
• The victim’s age and, if relevant, the
victim’s social and cultural background,
religious beliefs or political opinions,
ethnic origin, domestic and employment
circumstances.
• Any behaviour towards the victim on
the part of the accused, members of
the family or associates of the accused,
and any other person who is likely to
be an accused or witness in a potential
court case;
• The nature and alleged circumstance of
the offence to which a potential court
case relates. Victims of a sexual offence
or human trafficking will automatically
be considered to be intimidated;
• The victim’s age and, if relevant, the
victim’s social and cultural background,
religious beliefs or political opinions,
ethnic origin, domestic and employment
circumstances.
Had some t
ts dump a wagon load of crap down the tenfoot at the bottom of our gardens a year or so ago!! Thankfully on the day the binmen came! The binmen stacked some plasterboard up against my back gate, so the wagon could get past! My neighbor saw the binmen do this and told me as I'd been out. I phoned the council, got an email address and sent pictures, also praising the job the binmen do, 
, and explained that, due to them stacking it against my gate, I couldn't use it.
I was told that, due to the actions of the binmen, they would clear it away, This Time. Their binmen would be told, from now on, Not to touch anything dumped that blocked their way, leaving householders bins full if necessary.
That way, they, the council, could charge the householders affected to clear it!! No mention of checking the rubbish for an address on an old envelope or something! aholes! 
ts dump a wagon load of crap down the tenfoot at the bottom of our gardens a year or so ago!! Thankfully on the day the binmen came! The binmen stacked some plasterboard up against my back gate, so the wagon could get past! My neighbor saw the binmen do this and told me as I'd been out. I phoned the council, got an email address and sent pictures, also praising the job the binmen do, , and explained that, due to them stacking it against my gate, I couldn't use it.I was told that, due to the actions of the binmen, they would clear it away, This Time. Their binmen would be told, from now on, Not to touch anything dumped that blocked their way, leaving householders bins full if necessary.
That way, they, the council, could charge the householders affected to clear it!! No mention of checking the rubbish for an address on an old envelope or something! a
holes! Breadvan72 said:
Bigends said:
Grudges and grievances should become apparent to the investigating officer which could subsequently affect the special measures being introduced
This is a naive view that has little connection to practical reality.It might well not be. Real life is not a TV show, and not every police officer is a super-sleuth. A witness might and probably would conceal a motive for a false accusation. I reiterate that anonymous denunciation is a commonplace feature of tyrannical legal systems. Open society legal systems guarantee the right of a person accused to know who is accusing him or her. That right should only be limited in special circumstances.
Bigends said:
Centurion07 said:
I accept there are examples where a witness statement would be needed to corroborate but to just automatically apply that to EVERY instance is ridiculous.
Also, as long as the judge and defence team are satisfied as to the identity of the witness, why can they not remain anonymous in court with a screen or suchlike? I'm assuming that kind of thing is only granted in serious cases?
They can remain anonymous to the offenders. I posted earlier about special measures in place for vulnerable or intimidated witnessesAlso, as long as the judge and defence team are satisfied as to the identity of the witness, why can they not remain anonymous in court with a screen or suchlike? I'm assuming that kind of thing is only granted in serious cases?
That's not me being a pussy either, as most of you will know, it doesn't matter how hard you are, you wont win with them, crazy to think you will. And it certainly would turn nasty.
Thinking about it now, its why they were doing it as bold as brass in the daylight with cars pulling in, nobody can do anything apart from the police catching them red handed and that's nigh impossible nowadays.
Bigends said:
Fly tipping is a notifiable offence and all reports made to Police should be recorded even if the LA subsequently deal
It was always logged as an incident. The ability to respond depended on the details and ability to catch them in the act or a clear danger such as chemical/fire. If not possible then the LA would pick it up and pursue those identified either from the witness evidence or from items at the site (paperwork etc). Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 27th October 13:46
Two points:
1: The fly tippers do get caught sometimes, but for reasons explained above video evidence by itself it not sufficient to convict.
2. You could have challenged the fines in the cases you mention if you disputed the video or photo evidence, but presumably you didn't because you had done the blags.
1: The fly tippers do get caught sometimes, but for reasons explained above video evidence by itself it not sufficient to convict.
2. You could have challenged the fines in the cases you mention if you disputed the video or photo evidence, but presumably you didn't because you had done the blags.
CoolHands said:
Amazing that I’ve been given fines by camera for bus lanes, parking in red route, stopping in a bus stop, all heinous crimes, yet these fks can’t be fined for doing what we all know they do daily and here are caught in film.
Look on the positive side. Clearly the legal rationale in this thread shows that any DCW will have to attend court in person if they use footage of you to try and get you done.ks can’t be fined for doing what we all know they do daily and here are caught in film.
Breadvan72 said:
Two points:
1: The fly tippers do get caught sometimes, but for reasons explained above video evidence by itself it not sufficient to convict.
Yep - Aldershot mags court used to get them in on a very regular basis. Admittedly defendants tended to turn up, smirk, get given a fine and pay it there and then from a large roll of cash. Ended up in the local news once when my mother handed out the maximum fine to all of em. 1: The fly tippers do get caught sometimes, but for reasons explained above video evidence by itself it not sufficient to convict.
CoolHands said:
Amazing that I’ve been given fines by camera for bus lanes, parking in red route, stopping in a bus stop, all heinous crimes, yet these fks can’t be fined for doing what we all know they do daily and here are caught in film.
It’s not really amazing as any relevant person would be willing to turn up at court (assuming the above mentioned transgressions are dealt with at a magistrates’ court) should you wish to have a trial. ks can’t be fined for doing what we all know they do daily and here are caught in film.Johnnytheboy said:
Look on the positive side. Clearly the legal rationale in this thread shows that any DCW will have to attend court in person if they use footage of you to try and get you done.
Yes, if you plead ‘not guilty’ and request them, then they will. I don’t know why the police aren’t targeting all these shonky vans and pulling them over all the time to check drivers details and if they’ve got a waste carriers permit etc. Guaranteed many of them will not be the insured driver, many of them clearly have roadworthyness faults, and doubtless some won’t have the waste licence.
I see loads around. It should be prioritised as fly tipping is rife.
I see loads around. It should be prioritised as fly tipping is rife.
Jimboka said:
I’m surprised that the council didn’t want to know.
A friend of mine is a fly tipper chaser for local council. He retired early from police & now does this.
Very diligent in getting evidence & prosecuting them.
The fines are eye watering, eg £500 fine & 2k costs etc
Snap!A friend of mine is a fly tipper chaser for local council. He retired early from police & now does this.
Very diligent in getting evidence & prosecuting them.
The fines are eye watering, eg £500 fine & 2k costs etc
Not anywhere near Bristol and a retired DC by any chance?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff