QUESTION FOR THE BIB carpark barrier controled
Discussion
Ok someone enters a private car park. with a automatic payment barrier system. upon leaving car park gos to ticket machine. It wont take money. just rejects all or the persons change. They then try a second machine same againg.
They go to exit with there car press buzzer and ask for some to come to exit to take money. they agree.
person waits for them they come back over com and tell person to keep walking around and try other machines
person refuse to mess about and demans that the come and acept payment in legal tender for the parking charge and open barrier
or they will leav paymennt on barrier control and open its there selfs. they refuse to acept payment for debt in legal tender person then leavs money on top barrier control in pay ment and leaves breaking barrier.
can person be convited of criminal damage ?
They go to exit with there car press buzzer and ask for some to come to exit to take money. they agree.
person waits for them they come back over com and tell person to keep walking around and try other machines
person refuse to mess about and demans that the come and acept payment in legal tender for the parking charge and open barrier
or they will leav paymennt on barrier control and open its there selfs. they refuse to acept payment for debt in legal tender person then leavs money on top barrier control in pay ment and leaves breaking barrier.
can person be convited of criminal damage ?
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 18:49
Symbolica said:
Wouldn't it have been a LOT easier for "the person" to just find another machine and try that, as opposed to breaking the barrier?
Seems a slight over-reaction to me...
Seems a slight over-reaction to me...Bear in mind its a time based system and that you will end paying more than is due if you do this
company has assets in excess of 7.6 billion and thay cant be asked to get machines that ever work right.
legal point has been missed so far nothing to do with reckless.
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 19:41
julianhj said:
If the barrier has been damaged and the person damaging it can be considered to have acted 'recklessly' with regard to whether damage would be caused then it would seem so IMHO. Though of course it's down to the legal system to decide 
julianhj you seemed to have mised quite an inportain point of law.
This is not a go just a experiment to see how many bibs mis it.
as you seemed to mised a defence
julliahj or any other bibs know the answer in the scenario described ?
any solisitors hush let them answer first.
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 20:19
[quote=vonhosen]Could be a defence under Sec 5(2)(b) of Criminal Damage Act 1971
yep you got it a its a intent based offence most of the prof bears with the cps
as it not a absolute offence
defendant dose no even need to prove he was in the right if he belives he is right then there is no intent proven
and no criminal damage comited
as defendant belived he had lawful excuse
and in above case it couldd be argues not only did he belive he had lawfull excuse that infact he did have it.
the civl part of is not for the court to decide
a good case law ref would be chamberlin v lindon 1998 to support the defence.
bearing this in mind if an arrest was made and at the time of the arrest a pc had all the facts of what had happend
could he claim he had reasonable suspicion at the time ?
As a bib would you arrest in above case knowing all the facts and being told by the acused that no offence had bee comited and the accused did no belive you have reasonable suspicion for an arrest ?
yep you got it a its a intent based offence most of the prof bears with the cps
as it not a absolute offence
defendant dose no even need to prove he was in the right if he belives he is right then there is no intent proven
and no criminal damage comited
as defendant belived he had lawful excuse
and in above case it couldd be argues not only did he belive he had lawfull excuse that infact he did have it.
the civl part of is not for the court to decide
a good case law ref would be chamberlin v lindon 1998 to support the defence.
bearing this in mind if an arrest was made and at the time of the arrest a pc had all the facts of what had happend
could he claim he had reasonable suspicion at the time ?
As a bib would you arrest in above case knowing all the facts and being told by the acused that no offence had bee comited and the accused did no belive you have reasonable suspicion for an arrest ?
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 21:07
dragonlord003 said:
vonhosen said:
Could be a defence under Sec 5(2)(b) of Criminal Damage Act 1971
yep you got it a s its a inten based offence most of the prof bears with the cps
as it not a absolute offence
defendant dose no even need to prove he was in the right if he belives he is right then there is no intent proven
the civl part of is not for the court to decide
agood case ref would be chamberlin v lindon 1998 to suport the defence.
bearing this in mind if an arrest was made and at the time of the arrest a pc had all the facts of what had happend
could he claim he had reasonable suspicion at the time
as a bib would you arrest in that case.
It is very rare that a Police officer would have all the facts at the time.
I don't arrest because an allegation is made as a matter of course. Only where necessary.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 18th June 21:02
I agree with what you are saying that normaly that would be the case that they would not have facts at time
and as you have said your approch would be a fair ballanced one
This case is one where they would have investigated and had time to do so and are going around telling pepole they want to arrest suspect.
and as you have said your approch would be a fair ballanced one
This case is one where they would have investigated and had time to do so and are going around telling pepole they want to arrest suspect.
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 23:26
which bit would you like explained ?
The question relates to a legal defence to criminal damage.
of whats called lawfull excuse.
criminal damage is an intent based charge like say murder. You have to not only prove that the the victim dead you have to also prove the killer intended to kill them. to prove the charge or murder. the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the offence in inportaint to the case.
unlike say speeding whitch is a absolute charge ie you did it or dident do. What you were thinking at the time has nothing to do with you guilt.
Ciminal damage is a intent offence as well where the prosocution would not only have to prove you did it They have to prove you stae of mind at the time you did it .
But the defence in above case is a bit more complicated than that.
wheather the person was right or not he has a defence to the charge if he belives at the time and honistly belived he had law full excuse
The he is not guilty of criminal damage.
and the berdon of proof is on the CPS not the defendant
if you search for the case of Chamberlain v Lindon, 1998
you should get the idear.
The question relates to a legal defence to criminal damage.
of whats called lawfull excuse.
criminal damage is an intent based charge like say murder. You have to not only prove that the the victim dead you have to also prove the killer intended to kill them. to prove the charge or murder. the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the offence in inportaint to the case.
unlike say speeding whitch is a absolute charge ie you did it or dident do. What you were thinking at the time has nothing to do with you guilt.
Ciminal damage is a intent offence as well where the prosocution would not only have to prove you did it They have to prove you stae of mind at the time you did it .
But the defence in above case is a bit more complicated than that.
wheather the person was right or not he has a defence to the charge if he belives at the time and honistly belived he had law full excuse
The he is not guilty of criminal damage.
and the berdon of proof is on the CPS not the defendant
if you search for the case of Chamberlain v Lindon, 1998
you should get the idear.
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 23:41
timsta said:
Could someone please explain in plain english?
Ta
Ta
Criminal damage is where 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.
Sec 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 deals with the lawful excuse part of the offence.
Under Sec 5(2)(b) if someone damaged the property in order to protect property belonging to themself or another and at the time of the damaging they believed that the property was in immediate need of protection and that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable they wouldn't commit an offence.
The immeadiacy required is dealt with in the stated case quoted by dragonlord003 (Chamberlain v Lindon 1998). In that case defendant was charged with criminal damage after destroying a wall erected by his neighbour which obstructed a right of access to his property. The court held that the defendant had a lawful excuse for his action because the obstruction to his rights had already happened and he believed that his rights would be further prejudiced if the the wall remained in place.
dragonlord003 is drawing a parallel comparison with the driver being prevented from leaving where they have done nothing wrong & have taken reasonable steps to leave peacefully but have been prevented from doing so.
timsta said:
Well from what you posted, if I read it correctly, The car owner isn't liable for the damage because he was under the impression that he could leave, even if it meant damaging the barrier?
Is that right?
Is that right?
yes
pluss on top of that it can be Argued he is right
pay ment of the car park is a civl matter it is a defence to none payment of a debt if the creditor refuses payment in legal tender.
ie machine refused it twice workers refused payment
person can argue he has lawful excuse in protecting his property ie his righ of way and his car and over payment of a time base parking charge as no thing or no one will accepts payment when he wanted to leave.
but he does not have to prove hes right even if hes wroung if he belives hes right hes not guilty of criminal damage.
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 23:50
Edited by dragonlord003 on Sunday 18th June 23:52
dragonlord003 said:
timsta said:
Well from what you posted, if I read it correctly, The car owner isn't liable for the damage because he was under the impression that he could leave, even if it meant damaging the barrier?
Is that right?
Is that right?
yes
pluss on top of that it can be Argued he is right
pay ment of the car park is a cival matter it is a defence to none payment of a debt if the creditor refuses payment in legal tender.
ie machine refused it twice workers refused payment
person can argue he has lawfule excuse in protecting his property ie his righ of way and his car and payment of a timebace parking charge as no thing or no one will accepts payment.
but he does not have to prove hes right even if hes wroung if he belives hes right hes no guilty of criminal damage.
It's not a simple case of claiming you are right though, however preposterous the circumstances. There is the matter of a honestly held belief & the court would decide the validity of that if it's in question.
yes thats corect I agree
Fourthly, the judge considered the suggestion that Lindon should not have resorted to ‘self-help’ except in an emergency, and that the law should not condone such action by acquitting him. Lots of case law is quoted here, to say that self-help actions involving force are only recognised as legal as a ‘last resort’ and in emergency situations.[note] These arguments were put forward to support the previous argument, although they were treated separately by the judge.
The judge answers these points by rfirst saying that, as this is a matter of criminal law, he does not have to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law, and then says that, for the purpose of the criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable—i.e. a subjective test.
as said in chamberlain v lindon 1998
in the in case of the above barrie and car park it I would infact say not only does the person belive hes right he was right.
as what has not been said yet is that he could not very well leave the car as he was careing for a menaly ill person who was a passanger in the the car also he had spinal and joint problems so repetedly pissing around going up and down stairst to diferent machines is taking the piss.
pluss before he broke it he opened it without damageing it and they closed it again remotly.
Fourthly, the judge considered the suggestion that Lindon should not have resorted to ‘self-help’ except in an emergency, and that the law should not condone such action by acquitting him. Lots of case law is quoted here, to say that self-help actions involving force are only recognised as legal as a ‘last resort’ and in emergency situations.[note] These arguments were put forward to support the previous argument, although they were treated separately by the judge.
The judge answers these points by rfirst saying that, as this is a matter of criminal law, he does not have to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law, and then says that, for the purpose of the criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable—i.e. a subjective test.
as said in chamberlain v lindon 1998
in the in case of the above barrie and car park it I would infact say not only does the person belive hes right he was right.
as what has not been said yet is that he could not very well leave the car as he was careing for a menaly ill person who was a passanger in the the car also he had spinal and joint problems so repetedly pissing around going up and down stairst to diferent machines is taking the piss.
pluss before he broke it he opened it without damageing it and they closed it again remotly.
Edited by dragonlord003 on Monday 19th June 00:13
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff