Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 question.
Discussion
This is a question for BiB and the legal people on here.
Someone I know was out last night (new years eve/new years day) and got a Penalty Notice issued under the Section 5 law.
I have a couple of questions....
The Penalty Notice says:
Quote ".....payment of the penalty involves no admission of guilt and will not not result in a record criminal conviction against you"
But in a preceding paragragh it says:
Quote: A record of this notice will be kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes. This information may be used to help decide whether or not to issue you with another disorder penalty notice in relation to any subsequent offences for which such notice may be issued.
Question 1: So it's not a criminal record but it is recorded, why?
Q 2: Is an offense under section 5 not criminal?
If not why is it still "kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes". Just what interests are they.
................................
The person that was given this Penalty Notice was not arrested or told their rights (pace?) but was handcuffed in the street put into a Police van and taken to a Police Station, where the Penalty Notice was issued.
Q 3: Can the Police do this?
I would have though/hoped that in this country the Police can't just handcuff you, throw you into the back of a van and take you to a Police station with out actually arresting you..
Q 4: How to I/the person concerned go about asking for the CCTV footage from the area?
Thanks in advance.
Steve
Someone I know was out last night (new years eve/new years day) and got a Penalty Notice issued under the Section 5 law.
I have a couple of questions....
The Penalty Notice says:
Quote ".....payment of the penalty involves no admission of guilt and will not not result in a record criminal conviction against you"
But in a preceding paragragh it says:
Quote: A record of this notice will be kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes. This information may be used to help decide whether or not to issue you with another disorder penalty notice in relation to any subsequent offences for which such notice may be issued.
Question 1: So it's not a criminal record but it is recorded, why?
Q 2: Is an offense under section 5 not criminal?
If not why is it still "kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes". Just what interests are they.
................................
The person that was given this Penalty Notice was not arrested or told their rights (pace?) but was handcuffed in the street put into a Police van and taken to a Police Station, where the Penalty Notice was issued.
Q 3: Can the Police do this?
I would have though/hoped that in this country the Police can't just handcuff you, throw you into the back of a van and take you to a Police station with out actually arresting you..
Q 4: How to I/the person concerned go about asking for the CCTV footage from the area?
Thanks in advance.
Steve
Q1: So it's not a criminal record but it is recorded, why?
A1: It's not recorded in that it will not appear on a list of convictions (as it's not a conviction) but records of who has been issued with these notices has to be kept as you only get one. In that respect they're like a caution - a record has to be kept by police, but it is not a "criminal conviction" and your "friend" will not have earned a criminal record by getting this ticket.
Q 2: Is an offense under section 5 not criminal?
If not why is it still "kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes". Just what interests are they.
A2: Yes, it is still a criminal offence (As are all traffic offences) it's just that because it has not been proven in a court of law there is no criminal conviction. The interests of justice are as stated above, i.e. ensuring that the scheme is fair to all so that you, sorry, your friend, can't go picking up these tickets week in week out when they should start being charged and sent to court.
Q 3: The person that was given this Penalty Notice was not arrested or told their rights (pace?) but was handcuffed in the street put into a Police van and taken to a Police Station, where the Penalty Notice was issued. Can the Police do this?
A3: in that case it sounds very much like they were arrested. Whether it as practicable at the time to caution the person, or whether the person was told or able to hear that they were arrested is another matter. Public order situations are by their nature chaotic, and it can be acceptable to delay cautioning if it's not possible at the time of arrest. I make a habit of at least shouting it through the cage in the van so that the person understands. To all intents and purposes though, if you're in cuffs it's fairly obvious that you've been nicked.
Q 4: How to I/the person concerned go about asking for the CCTV footage from the area?
A4: It sounds like you/they are not very happy with the events leading up to the issuing of the ticket, in which case there is a section of the ticket where you can request a court hearing. In this case the officers notes and whatever CCTV ther is avaialble would be gathered for presentation at court, and you would be entitled to a copy of the evidence in order to prepare your, sorry, your friends defence. Be aware though that this is very much a double or quits situation - in that you have the option of removing your liability for prosecution by paying the disorder notice, but you leave yourself liable to criminal conviction should you challenge the evidence in court.
Hope that info helps.
A1: It's not recorded in that it will not appear on a list of convictions (as it's not a conviction) but records of who has been issued with these notices has to be kept as you only get one. In that respect they're like a caution - a record has to be kept by police, but it is not a "criminal conviction" and your "friend" will not have earned a criminal record by getting this ticket.
Q 2: Is an offense under section 5 not criminal?
If not why is it still "kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes". Just what interests are they.
A2: Yes, it is still a criminal offence (As are all traffic offences) it's just that because it has not been proven in a court of law there is no criminal conviction. The interests of justice are as stated above, i.e. ensuring that the scheme is fair to all so that you, sorry, your friend, can't go picking up these tickets week in week out when they should start being charged and sent to court.
Q 3: The person that was given this Penalty Notice was not arrested or told their rights (pace?) but was handcuffed in the street put into a Police van and taken to a Police Station, where the Penalty Notice was issued. Can the Police do this?
A3: in that case it sounds very much like they were arrested. Whether it as practicable at the time to caution the person, or whether the person was told or able to hear that they were arrested is another matter. Public order situations are by their nature chaotic, and it can be acceptable to delay cautioning if it's not possible at the time of arrest. I make a habit of at least shouting it through the cage in the van so that the person understands. To all intents and purposes though, if you're in cuffs it's fairly obvious that you've been nicked.
Q 4: How to I/the person concerned go about asking for the CCTV footage from the area?
A4: It sounds like you/they are not very happy with the events leading up to the issuing of the ticket, in which case there is a section of the ticket where you can request a court hearing. In this case the officers notes and whatever CCTV ther is avaialble would be gathered for presentation at court, and you would be entitled to a copy of the evidence in order to prepare your, sorry, your friends defence. Be aware though that this is very much a double or quits situation - in that you have the option of removing your liability for prosecution by paying the disorder notice, but you leave yourself liable to criminal conviction should you challenge the evidence in court.
Hope that info helps.
The above information from weird neville is spot on.
Penalty notices can be issued on the street after an arrest or before an arrest is made.
If the person has been arrested, then after the notice has been written and acceptred, then they can be de-arrested at the scene witout being presented at a custody unit. This is allowed under PACE 1986. A record of de-arrest is made at the station.
If the person is not arrested, they can still be given a penalty notice.
If the person is arrested and presented at the custody unit, they can be dealt with either through process and charge or the disposal mthod of penalty notice. This decision is usually that of the custody Sgt. This also depends on how the person has behaved in relation to the original offence and how they have behaved whilst they are in detention.
Those who are a persistent pain in the arse in custody, banging all night long and who show no remorse in the morning when they are sobered up and it comes to decision time usually don't get the offer of a non recordable penalty notice disposal!
Penalty notice records are kept so that the next time the miscreant person imbibes too much truth serum on the street, we know they have a tendancy to be a moron and they do not get another £80 room for the night with an all day breakfast thrown in before they are released
.
In fact, its rather good value. There are serving staff to attend to your every need (well most of them
) all night long at the touch of a button. The rooms are at a premium because they are often solidly booked out for days on end. They all have en-suite facilities but beware that if your are bored and decide to while away the hours with the odd bit of self entertainment, you are likely to be seen masturbating by the custody staff who watch activity on each cell camera. They can also hear what noises you make!
Hope that helps
Penalty notices can be issued on the street after an arrest or before an arrest is made.
If the person has been arrested, then after the notice has been written and acceptred, then they can be de-arrested at the scene witout being presented at a custody unit. This is allowed under PACE 1986. A record of de-arrest is made at the station.
If the person is not arrested, they can still be given a penalty notice.
If the person is arrested and presented at the custody unit, they can be dealt with either through process and charge or the disposal mthod of penalty notice. This decision is usually that of the custody Sgt. This also depends on how the person has behaved in relation to the original offence and how they have behaved whilst they are in detention.
Those who are a persistent pain in the arse in custody, banging all night long and who show no remorse in the morning when they are sobered up and it comes to decision time usually don't get the offer of a non recordable penalty notice disposal!
Penalty notice records are kept so that the next time the miscreant person imbibes too much truth serum on the street, we know they have a tendancy to be a moron and they do not get another £80 room for the night with an all day breakfast thrown in before they are released
.In fact, its rather good value. There are serving staff to attend to your every need (well most of them
) all night long at the touch of a button. The rooms are at a premium because they are often solidly booked out for days on end. They all have en-suite facilities but beware that if your are bored and decide to while away the hours with the odd bit of self entertainment, you are likely to be seen masturbating by the custody staff who watch activity on each cell camera. They can also hear what noises you make!Hope that helps
Edited by Mg6b on Tuesday 1st January 22:22
esselte said:
IANAL but will they keep the record so that if he is in the same position again then he may actually be arrested/charged as opposed to being given a "warning"...?
The notice is a warning. It costs £80 to make people think about their behaviour!The record is kept so the we know they have taken no notice of the fact that they are aware that they are a pain in the arse whilst drunk!
Mg6b said:
esselte said:
IANAL but will they keep the record so that if he is in the same position again then he may actually be arrested/charged as opposed to being given a "warning"...?
The notice is a warning. It costs £80 to make people think about their behaviour!The record is kept so the we know they have taken no notice of the fact that they are aware that they are a pain in the arse whilst drunk!
Hope this works
I'll try to put my replies in bold....
Just done a preview and my bold replies don't appear to have worked to well - hope you can understand it all. [/b]
I'll try to put my replies in bold....
WeirdNeville said:
Q1: So it's not a criminal record but it is recorded, why?
A1: It's not recorded in that it will not appear on a list of convictions (as it's not a conviction) but records of who has been issued with these notices has to be kept as you only get one. In that respect they're like a caution - a record has to be kept by police, but it is not a "criminal conviction" and your "friend" will not have earned a criminal record by getting this ticket.
So a bit like speeding points?
Q 2: Is an offense under section 5 not criminal?
If not why is it still "kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes". Just what interests are they.
A2: Yes, it is still a criminal offence (As are all traffic offences) it's just that because it has not been proven in a court of law there is no criminal conviction. The interests of justice are as stated above, i.e. ensuring that the scheme is fair to all so that you, sorry, your friend, can't go picking up these tickets week in week out when they should start being charged and sent to court.
[b]I thought that most traffic offices were not 'criminal', is speeding a criminal offense?
So if it has not been proven in a court of law why does the fact there is no crime have to be recorded?
Or are mow living in a country that records all these things/my phone calls/my emails ?
BTW it is not me I'm talking/writing about - I'm just being cautious for when this matter goes further.[/b]
Q 3: The person that was given this Penalty Notice was not arrested or told their rights (pace?) but was handcuffed in the street put into a Police van and taken to a Police Station, where the Penalty Notice was issued. Can the Police do this?
A3: in that case it sounds very much like they were arrested. Whether it as practicable at the time to caution the person, or whether the person was told or able to hear that they were arrested is another matter. Public order situations are by their nature chaotic, and it can be acceptable to delay cautioning if it's not possible at the time of arrest. I make a habit of at least shouting it through the cage in the van so that the person understands. To all intents and purposes though, if you're in cuffs it's fairly obvious that you've been nicked.
[b]No the person was not arrested, they were not drunk, they were not violent, or looking like they were going to be violent.
So I am concerned about how they where treated - handcuffed, driven away in a van....
To be fair the person could have view it as a new year prank, someone dressed up as Police - but the person didn't they just accepted the situation.
My concern is that they could have been kidnapped but people dressed as Police.[/b]
Q 4: How to I/the person concerned go about asking for the CCTV footage from the area?
A4: It sounds like you/they are not very happy with the events leading up to the issuing of the ticket, in which case there is a section of the ticket where you can request a court hearing. In this case the officers notes and whatever CCTV ther is avaialble would be gathered for presentation at court, and you would be entitled to a copy of the evidence in order to prepare your, sorry, your friends defence. Be aware though that this is very much a double or quits situation - in that you have the option of removing your liability for prosecution by paying the disorder notice, but you leave yourself liable to criminal conviction should you challenge the evidence in court.
[b] I have advised the the person concerned to see a solicitor,
Their ( the persons concerned ) attitude is...
"I did nothing wrong so why should I pay £80.
Yes I know I will lose at court but it's not right."
.........................
BTW the person is 19 year old, very intelligent, not a chav,
just a normal person.
But they come to me having lost all respect in the Police and the law [/b]
Hope that info helps.
[b] Neville, thanksA1: It's not recorded in that it will not appear on a list of convictions (as it's not a conviction) but records of who has been issued with these notices has to be kept as you only get one. In that respect they're like a caution - a record has to be kept by police, but it is not a "criminal conviction" and your "friend" will not have earned a criminal record by getting this ticket.
So a bit like speeding points?
Q 2: Is an offense under section 5 not criminal?
If not why is it still "kept in the interests of justice for administration purposes". Just what interests are they.
A2: Yes, it is still a criminal offence (As are all traffic offences) it's just that because it has not been proven in a court of law there is no criminal conviction. The interests of justice are as stated above, i.e. ensuring that the scheme is fair to all so that you, sorry, your friend, can't go picking up these tickets week in week out when they should start being charged and sent to court.
[b]I thought that most traffic offices were not 'criminal', is speeding a criminal offense?
So if it has not been proven in a court of law why does the fact there is no crime have to be recorded?
Or are mow living in a country that records all these things/my phone calls/my emails ?
BTW it is not me I'm talking/writing about - I'm just being cautious for when this matter goes further.[/b]
Q 3: The person that was given this Penalty Notice was not arrested or told their rights (pace?) but was handcuffed in the street put into a Police van and taken to a Police Station, where the Penalty Notice was issued. Can the Police do this?
A3: in that case it sounds very much like they were arrested. Whether it as practicable at the time to caution the person, or whether the person was told or able to hear that they were arrested is another matter. Public order situations are by their nature chaotic, and it can be acceptable to delay cautioning if it's not possible at the time of arrest. I make a habit of at least shouting it through the cage in the van so that the person understands. To all intents and purposes though, if you're in cuffs it's fairly obvious that you've been nicked.
[b]No the person was not arrested, they were not drunk, they were not violent, or looking like they were going to be violent.
So I am concerned about how they where treated - handcuffed, driven away in a van....
To be fair the person could have view it as a new year prank, someone dressed up as Police - but the person didn't they just accepted the situation.
My concern is that they could have been kidnapped but people dressed as Police.[/b]
Q 4: How to I/the person concerned go about asking for the CCTV footage from the area?
A4: It sounds like you/they are not very happy with the events leading up to the issuing of the ticket, in which case there is a section of the ticket where you can request a court hearing. In this case the officers notes and whatever CCTV ther is avaialble would be gathered for presentation at court, and you would be entitled to a copy of the evidence in order to prepare your, sorry, your friends defence. Be aware though that this is very much a double or quits situation - in that you have the option of removing your liability for prosecution by paying the disorder notice, but you leave yourself liable to criminal conviction should you challenge the evidence in court.
[b] I have advised the the person concerned to see a solicitor,
Their ( the persons concerned ) attitude is...
"I did nothing wrong so why should I pay £80.
Yes I know I will lose at court but it's not right."
.........................
BTW the person is 19 year old, very intelligent, not a chav,
just a normal person.
But they come to me having lost all respect in the Police and the law [/b]
Hope that info helps.
Just done a preview and my bold replies don't appear to have worked to well - hope you can understand it all. [/b]
skeggysteve said:
Ok, thanks to all that have replied whilst I was typing my last reply.
I'll get back to you asap.
Only thing to say now is that the person concerned was not drunk or violent.
And yes it was not me - promise!
PND can be issued for shoplifting offences less than £100 in value. They can also be issued for minor criminal damage.I'll get back to you asap.
Only thing to say now is that the person concerned was not drunk or violent.
And yes it was not me - promise!
Section 5 offences require an element of the accused causing harassment alarm or distress to someone else who can be a notional/virtual person, i.e. they were not there but if they had have been, they would have been harassed alarmed or distressed by the conduct that was occurring.
If you friend was not drunk, violent or abusive, I wonder why he has attracted the attentions of the police
for Section 5 public order Act? It is not normal practice to issue these notices to someone who is 'walking on by, minding their own business' 
skeggysteve said:
Hope this works
I'll try to put my replies in bold....
So a bit like speeding points?
Good job I read HTML. Almost exactly like a traffic ticket really, without points. Apart from you'll only get one chance at a PND.I'll try to put my replies in bold....
So a bit like speeding points?
skeggysteve said:
I thought that most traffic offices were not 'criminal', is speeding a criminal offense?
So if it has not been proven in a court of law why does the fact there is no crime have to be recorded?
Or are mow living in a country that records all these things/my phone calls/my emails ?
BTW it is not me I'm talking/writing about - I'm just being cautious for when this matter goes further.
This is the difference between a criminal offence and a recordable offence. Whilst most traffic offences are criminal in nature, only a few of the more serious ones are recordable, i.e. get you a criminal record if convicted. Not my area of expertise though - no doubt someone else can clarify this more. And yes, all you phone calls and internet usage is routinely monintored "just in case".So if it has not been proven in a court of law why does the fact there is no crime have to be recorded?
Or are mow living in a country that records all these things/my phone calls/my emails ?
BTW it is not me I'm talking/writing about - I'm just being cautious for when this matter goes further.
Not really. There's a orld of diffence between the DVLA knowing the cumulative tally of how many points you've received over your driving career and wide scale telecommunications evesdropping.
skeggysteve said:
No the person was not arrested, they were not drunk, they were not violent, or looking like they were going to be violent.
So I am concerned about how they where treated - handcuffed, driven away in a van....
To be fair the person could have view it as a new year prank, someone dressed up as Police - but the person didn't they just accepted the situation.
My concern is that they could have been kidnapped but people dressed as Police.
I wasn't there so I can't commment on the specifics. However I maintain that they will have been arrested in order for them to be handcuffed and put in a van. That doesn't happen unless you're either under arest of detained for certain types of search.So I am concerned about how they where treated - handcuffed, driven away in a van....
To be fair the person could have view it as a new year prank, someone dressed up as Police - but the person didn't they just accepted the situation.
My concern is that they could have been kidnapped but people dressed as Police.
Fortunately we are not yet at the stage where abductions by criminals posing as the police are widespread (not to say it can't happen). However, realistically I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that police action should be seen to be lawful and justified, and in this case it appears that you don't think it was. Only you can resolve that matter, I am not party to the facts.
skeggysteve said:
I have advised the the person concerned to see a solicitor,
Their ( the persons concerned ) attitude is...
"I did nothing wrong so why should I pay £80.
Yes I know I will lose at court but it's not right."
.........................
BTW the person is 19 year old, very intelligent, not a chav,
just a normal person.
But they come to me having lost all respect in the Police and the law
Well, not much I can add to that apart from to say if he really did nothing, was subjected to an unlawful arrest and does not wish to accept the penalty notice, then he should make a complaint about the police action and challenge the PND at court. That's why the process for challengeing the tickets is there. He may have lost faith in the police, perhaps the judicial system can uphold it's end of the bargain.Their ( the persons concerned ) attitude is...
"I did nothing wrong so why should I pay £80.
Yes I know I will lose at court but it's not right."
.........................
BTW the person is 19 year old, very intelligent, not a chav,
just a normal person.
But they come to me having lost all respect in the Police and the law
re Question 3 Caution.
Does it really matter that he was not cautioned? The evidence for the offence would be his conduct and any verbal would be immaterial? I do agree that he should be told the grounds for his arrest (conduct allowing - case stated).
Never could understand cautioning a drunk while trying to evade flailing arms, legs etc whilst wrapping him up.
dvd
Does it really matter that he was not cautioned? The evidence for the offence would be his conduct and any verbal would be immaterial? I do agree that he should be told the grounds for his arrest (conduct allowing - case stated).
Never could understand cautioning a drunk while trying to evade flailing arms, legs etc whilst wrapping him up.
dvd
Mg6b said:
PND can be issued for shoplifting offences less than £100 in value. They can also be issued for minor criminal damage.
Section 5 offences require an element of the accused causing harassment alarm or distress to someone else who can be a notional/virtual person, i.e. they were not there but if they had have been, they would have been harassed alarmed or distressed by the conduct that was occurring.
If you friend was not drunk, violent or abusive, I wonder why he has attracted the attentions of the police for Section 5 public order Act? It is not normal practice to issue these notices to someone who is 'walking on by, minding their own business'
The problem is that virtually every action may cause harassment alarm or distress to someone, walking through the park with a child may cause distress to a couple who have just lost their child, wearing a swimming costume on the beach may cause distress and alarm to the more prudish etc. The law does seem to be framed in such a way that anyone can be done for anything if the police so desire. I would argue that the police themselves are often committing a section 5 offence because their very presence causes alarm or distress to many people.Section 5 offences require an element of the accused causing harassment alarm or distress to someone else who can be a notional/virtual person, i.e. they were not there but if they had have been, they would have been harassed alarmed or distressed by the conduct that was occurring.
If you friend was not drunk, violent or abusive, I wonder why he has attracted the attentions of the police
for Section 5 public order Act? It is not normal practice to issue these notices to someone who is 'walking on by, minding their own business' voyds9 said:
Mg6b said:
PND can be issued for shoplifting offences less than £100 in value. They can also be issued for minor criminal damage.
Section 5 offences require an element of the accused causing harassment alarm or distress to someone else who can be a notional/virtual person, i.e. they were not there but if they had have been, they would have been harassed alarmed or distressed by the conduct that was occurring.
If you friend was not drunk, violent or abusive, I wonder why he has attracted the attentions of the police for Section 5 public order Act? It is not normal practice to issue these notices to someone who is 'walking on by, minding their own business'
The problem is that virtually every action may cause harassment alarm or distress to someone, walking through the park with a child may cause distress to a couple who have just lost their child, wearing a swimming costume on the beach may cause distress and alarm to the more prudish etc. The law does seem to be framed in such a way that anyone can be done for anything if the police so desire. I would argue that the police themselves are often committing a section 5 offence because their very presence causes alarm or distress to many people.Section 5 offences require an element of the accused causing harassment alarm or distress to someone else who can be a notional/virtual person, i.e. they were not there but if they had have been, they would have been harassed alarmed or distressed by the conduct that was occurring.
If you friend was not drunk, violent or abusive, I wonder why he has attracted the attentions of the police
for Section 5 public order Act? It is not normal practice to issue these notices to someone who is 'walking on by, minding their own business' element of the offence.
Update.
The person concerned spoke to a lot of people, including another police officer at the same station, and decided that it would be easier to just pay the fine and move on.
Whilst I dis-agree with just accepting it if you know your are right I can understand it - how many people just accept a speeding ticket because it's the simple option?
Anyway the person concerned phoned up to pay and there is no answer, phone records show they tried 8 times before getting an answer - not a 0870 number, maybe the tax collecting dept, are missing a trick
The person that answered the call, I've listened to the call, treated the caller like scum. No customer care skills at all, very bad personal communication skills and just not a polite person.
End result is that the person that got the sec 5 is now very anti police.
They had a very bad experience thorough no fault of their own but feel the are unable to anything but put up with it.
I've told them it is not like this all the time but what else can I do to reaffirm their faith in the police/British justice?
The person concerned spoke to a lot of people, including another police officer at the same station, and decided that it would be easier to just pay the fine and move on.
Whilst I dis-agree with just accepting it if you know your are right I can understand it - how many people just accept a speeding ticket because it's the simple option?
Anyway the person concerned phoned up to pay and there is no answer, phone records show they tried 8 times before getting an answer - not a 0870 number, maybe the tax collecting dept, are missing a trick
The person that answered the call, I've listened to the call, treated the caller like scum. No customer care skills at all, very bad personal communication skills and just not a polite person.
End result is that the person that got the sec 5 is now very anti police.
They had a very bad experience thorough no fault of their own but feel the are unable to anything but put up with it.
I've told them it is not like this all the time but what else can I do to reaffirm their faith in the police/British justice?
skeggysteve said:
I've told them it is not like this all the time but what else can I do to reaffirm their faith in the police/British justice?
You can't. Tell him that he will feel exactly like many other hundreds of thousands of people who receive penalty notices for something they did not do.Prisons and custody areas are full of people who did nothing!
Tell him to put it down to experience and move on. He has no record other than the fact that he has been issued with an £80 fine.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff