Criminal damage or civil matter
Discussion
When the tree at Hadrian's Wall is cut down the culprits are charged with criminal damage.
When a pub chain instructs contractors to enter land, which is not theirs, and chop down an oak tree, the police close the investigation and say it is a civil matter.
Any of the great and the good have an insight into why?
When a pub chain instructs contractors to enter land, which is not theirs, and chop down an oak tree, the police close the investigation and say it is a civil matter.
Any of the great and the good have an insight into why?
Big_Fluffy_One said:
When the tree at Hadrian's Wall is cut down the culprits are charged with criminal damage.
When a pub chain instructs contractors to enter land, which is not theirs, and chop down an oak tree, the police close the investigation and say it is a civil matter.
Any of the great and the good have an insight into why?
They didn’t own the freehold but they did have a lease. I can’t see how there’s a crime but maybe a civil case depending on what’s in the lease.When a pub chain instructs contractors to enter land, which is not theirs, and chop down an oak tree, the police close the investigation and say it is a civil matter.
Any of the great and the good have an insight into why?
Could it come down to intent?
Toby Carvery's version of events is that they hired professionals to do some work, the professionals then advised them the tree was dangerous and needed to be cut down.
If that is the case, then their intent was very different to the chaps who hacked down the sycamore gap tree.
A quick google suggests:
The quote also mentions intent and/or reckless as being thresholds to pass to meet the crime. Maybe by hiring tree surgeons the police felt that the pub chain wasn't being reckless and that their intent was the safety of the public and not to cause damage? Or maybe one of the "lawful excuses" mentioned in Section 5 of the act was in play as a result of how they went about hiring the tree surgeons?
Toby Carvery's version of events is that they hired professionals to do some work, the professionals then advised them the tree was dangerous and needed to be cut down.
If that is the case, then their intent was very different to the chaps who hacked down the sycamore gap tree.
A quick google suggests:
Criminal Damage Act 1971 said:
Destroying or damaging property.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—
(a)intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b)intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;
shall be guilty of an offence.
My reading of this is that there are a number of lawful excuses that would stop damage reaching the threshold for the crime of criminal damage. I don't know what those are ... Section 5 of the act appears to touch on them, but I found it quite heavy going and so will leave it to those who understand these things better.(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—
(a)intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and
(b)intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;
shall be guilty of an offence.
The quote also mentions intent and/or reckless as being thresholds to pass to meet the crime. Maybe by hiring tree surgeons the police felt that the pub chain wasn't being reckless and that their intent was the safety of the public and not to cause damage? Or maybe one of the "lawful excuses" mentioned in Section 5 of the act was in play as a result of how they went about hiring the tree surgeons?
Edited by Rotary Potato on Thursday 17th April 15:24
Billy Eyelash said:
If I wanted to chop a tree down illegally, I would employ some dodgy contractors who were prepared to put in writing that they believed it necessary.
Although in this case there doesn't seem to be anything gained by the pub? The tree wasn't obviously in the way of anything, and is surrounded by other trees.Sheepshanks said:
Although in this case there doesn't seem to be anything gained by the pub? The tree wasn't obviously in the way of anything, and is surrounded by other trees.
But there was also nothing gained by the sycamore gap duo (alledged) so that can't be the basis for the difference. Rotary Potato said:
My reading of this is that there are a number of lawful excuses that would stop damage reaching the threshold for the crime of criminal damage. I don't know what those are ... Section 5 of the act appears to touch on them, but I found it quite heavy going and so will leave it to those who understand these things better.
The quote also mentions intent and/or reckless as being thresholds to pass to meet the crime. Maybe by hiring tree surgeons the police felt that the pub chain wasn't being reckless and that their intent was the safety of the public and not to cause damage? Or maybe one of the "lawful excuses" mentioned in Section 5 of the act was in play as a result of how they went about hiring the tree surgeons?
Section 5 of the criminal damage act does indeed have a couple of get out of jail clausesThe quote also mentions intent and/or reckless as being thresholds to pass to meet the crime. Maybe by hiring tree surgeons the police felt that the pub chain wasn't being reckless and that their intent was the safety of the public and not to cause damage? Or maybe one of the "lawful excuses" mentioned in Section 5 of the act was in play as a result of how they went about hiring the tree surgeons?
Edited by Rotary Potato on Thursday 17th April 15:24
Ie, and honestly held belief that:
- the owner would have consented
- protect property belong to the accused
I get it that people like trees, but the leader of the council ranting about this being criminal is not helpful. I recall another council (Sheffield?) used police and security to suppress protest when they cut down a whole bunch of trees.
The pub chain should probably have done more due diligence, especially as the council is freeholder.
But of course they would instantly have had a tpo on the tree had they alerted the council, so I can see why they wanted to get the works done first.
Good question.
I’d assume they’d rely on the lawful excuse of permission.
They honestly believed that the person entitled to consent would have consented to the damage if they knew of the circumstances (that it was dead and a risk to people).
The believe is subjective (so it can be unreasonable, as long as honestly held).
I’d assume they’d rely on the lawful excuse of permission.
They honestly believed that the person entitled to consent would have consented to the damage if they knew of the circumstances (that it was dead and a risk to people).
The believe is subjective (so it can be unreasonable, as long as honestly held).
Sheepshanks said:
Billy Eyelash said:
If I wanted to chop a tree down illegally, I would employ some dodgy contractors who were prepared to put in writing that they believed it necessary.
Although in this case there doesn't seem to be anything gained by the pub? The tree wasn't obviously in the way of anything, and is surrounded by other trees.tegwin said:
Sheepshanks said:
Billy Eyelash said:
If I wanted to chop a tree down illegally, I would employ some dodgy contractors who were prepared to put in writing that they believed it necessary.
Although in this case there doesn't seem to be anything gained by the pub? The tree wasn't obviously in the way of anything, and is surrounded by other trees.tegwin said:
I have seen mention elsewhere of what appears to be a desire to build some kind of sports convention centre on the land….. that may well be a suitable motivation to quietly remove the tree.
Bearing in mind it’s in every newspaper and TV report, how quietly do you think they did it?Oceanrower said:
tegwin said:
I have seen mention elsewhere of what appears to be a desire to build some kind of sports convention centre on the land….. that may well be a suitable motivation to quietly remove the tree.
Bearing in mind it’s in every newspaper and TV report, how quietly do you think they did it?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff