Discussion
any of you here?
do you know the law?
my car came under heavy-kebab attack last night, when some scrote decided to stuff his food into my vents/rads on my bonnet (elise).
not bothered about the food, just the precedent it would set for further damage.
so i call GMP and decide to make a report of crim damage.."sorry mate its not crim damage unless its actually damaged"
does this idiot not know, that the case law clearly states that damage is anything which renders the object imperfect, or needing repair
"...yes but it doesnt need repair does it?.." so i calmly told him the names of cases that he should be aware of which show that any action required to make the object perfect again, is clear evidence of damage.
"i've been an officer for 30 yrs and have never heard of this" yeah? well im a law student of 2003 and have just studied this area!
so then i basically say to the BiB, all i want is a car to swing round, to make whoever did it, brick it. (i live in a private flat with restricted access..must be a neigbour who did it).
"sorry mate cant help you" and then later tells me theres
-all he can do. lovely.
i know all BiB arent like this, but i cant wait until tonite when i can go out and spray shit all over peoples cars and have all done to me.
atleast they should know the law they are supposed to uphold.
do you know the law?
my car came under heavy-kebab attack last night, when some scrote decided to stuff his food into my vents/rads on my bonnet (elise).
not bothered about the food, just the precedent it would set for further damage.
so i call GMP and decide to make a report of crim damage.."sorry mate its not crim damage unless its actually damaged"
does this idiot not know, that the case law clearly states that damage is anything which renders the object imperfect, or needing repair
"...yes but it doesnt need repair does it?.." so i calmly told him the names of cases that he should be aware of which show that any action required to make the object perfect again, is clear evidence of damage.
"i've been an officer for 30 yrs and have never heard of this" yeah? well im a law student of 2003 and have just studied this area!
so then i basically say to the BiB, all i want is a car to swing round, to make whoever did it, brick it. (i live in a private flat with restricted access..must be a neigbour who did it).
"sorry mate cant help you" and then later tells me theres
-all he can do. lovely. i know all BiB arent like this, but i cant wait until tonite when i can go out and spray shit all over peoples cars and have
all done to me. atleast they should know the law they are supposed to uphold.
did you not hear the government are getting tough on nuisance neighbours 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3188022.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3188022.stm
If your car would not work without removing the item then it is criminal damage. There is case law from the Luddite era where a chap removed a nut from a machine rendering it defective until it was replaced.
I went to an appeal at crown court for a business man who stuck a ring pull into a parking meter when parking his Porsche. I won my case but much was made of the method of making the thing work again. Here a specialist (traffic warden) was required to go through a series of actions. Just removing the kebab? Unlikely to succeed.
As for interference, the law says 'interfering with the brake or other mechanism'. Under ejusdem generis, where the particular is followed by the general you will interpret the general in relation to the particular. Or, to put it another way, go with the flow. Therefore the 'other mechanism' must be something similar to the braking system.
I'd say not applicable in these circumstances.
Derek
I went to an appeal at crown court for a business man who stuck a ring pull into a parking meter when parking his Porsche. I won my case but much was made of the method of making the thing work again. Here a specialist (traffic warden) was required to go through a series of actions. Just removing the kebab? Unlikely to succeed.
As for interference, the law says 'interfering with the brake or other mechanism'. Under ejusdem generis, where the particular is followed by the general you will interpret the general in relation to the particular. Or, to put it another way, go with the flow. Therefore the 'other mechanism' must be something similar to the braking system.
I'd say not applicable in these circumstances.
Derek
Sorry, but if I had seen him stuff food in your vents I would have nicked him.
Also most stations now have civilians on the front desk some of these are lazy bastards.
One even tried to tell a friend of mine that having his wing mirror ripped off by a pissed off motorist was 'one of those things' got knicked when I lodged a complaint.....the guy got 12 months suspended and a large fine and costs.
Also most stations now have civilians on the front desk some of these are lazy bastards.
One even tried to tell a friend of mine that having his wing mirror ripped off by a pissed off motorist was 'one of those things' got knicked when I lodged a complaint.....the guy got 12 months suspended and a large fine and costs.
Em, I would be careful dragstar, my dad works for the Police and they say the most awkward people are Law freshers - they think they know the law better than the policeman/woman.
In this situation it might be different (I don't know) but you will certainly raise their backs and they'll stop wanting to help you if you start stating you're a law student....
In this situation it might be different (I don't know) but you will certainly raise their backs and they'll stop wanting to help you if you start stating you're a law student....
docevi1 said:
Em, I would be careful dragstar, my dad works for the Police and they say the most awkward people are Law freshers - they think they know the law better than the policeman/woman.
In this situation it might be different (I don't know) but you will certainly raise their backs and they'll stop wanting to help you if you start stating you're a law student....
i appreciate what you are saying and i agree with it.
i did not call and shout im a law student do what i say. but when i know what hes saying is bollocks, then i have to back up why i hold that opinion. i just mentioned that im a law student and have RECENTLY studied this topic, and hopefully know the law. if he takes it the wrong way than its his problem.
finally, i still contend that its crim damage..if you look at the case of hardman:
Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset
(Crown Ct (Bristol)) Crown Court (Bristol)
c.1986
Summary
Subject: Criminal law
Keywords: Criminal damage; Public order offences
Catchphrases: Criminal damage; meaning of "damage"
Abstract: The appellants painted silhouettes on a pavement as part of a protest, using soluble paint which would be washed away eventually by rainwater. The local authority washed the markings away with high pressure jets.
Summary: Held, dismissing their appeals against convictions of causing damage to the pavement, that there had been "damage" within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s. 1 (Samuels v Stubbs 4 S.A.S.R. 200 approved; A (A Juvenile) v. Queen, The [1978] Crim. L.R. 220 considered).
this CLEARLY shows that anything done to property which requires a cleaning process is DAMAGE. enough said.
dragstar said:
this CLEARLY shows that anything done to property which requires a cleaning process is DAMAGE. enough said.
If you think that any piece of case law clearly shows anything, I must assume you haven't been a law student for long.
I've been a prosecuting inspector and I would not have gone to the CPS and asked them to consider a kebab in a grill as crimdam. I would have been be asked why it is in the public interest to pursue such a case.
Lord Hailsham said that the law does not concern itself with trifles and I'm afraid that a kebab in the grill comes under that definition (I know a kebab is not a trifle per se as it has no custard, cream, jelly, cream, sponge or cream in it). If you had been present or nearby when it occurred then there's public order to consider. Litter is a possibility as it says 'otherwise deposits' but criminal damage is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If I was presented with the case file I would ask the reporting PC why he didn't deal with the matter some other way.
Derek
yes derek, once again you are correct.
i do understand that cases can be interpreted in various ways just as legislation can be. this explains our abundance of caselaw and precedent system.
(it keeps you in the job aswell)
but i do think, the above case CLEARLY shows that such "damage" (can be interpreted) and be classed as criminal damage, does it not?
and finally, i didnt want to take this further (come on it was just a kebab). all i wanted was a car to fly-by to scare the shit out of a neighbour. "on what basis shall we send one?" i was asked
well on the basis of hardman, i would say (and i am entitled to do so) crim damage.
if you prosecutors, judges, barristers etc can interpret cases/legislation in a variety of ways. why cant the police? a little bit of common sense should prevail and this attitude of "oh hes a law student..pompous, big headed twat" should not come into it, if you dont know the parameters of the job you are working in, i.e. you dont know the full extent of the law, then i have a right to complain, no?
would you care to comment?
>> Edited by dragstar on Wednesday 15th October 16:19
i do understand that cases can be interpreted in various ways just as legislation can be. this explains our abundance of caselaw and precedent system.
(it keeps you in the job aswell)
but i do think, the above case CLEARLY shows that such "damage" (can be interpreted) and be classed as criminal damage, does it not?
and finally, i didnt want to take this further (come on it was just a kebab). all i wanted was a car to fly-by to scare the shit out of a neighbour. "on what basis shall we send one?" i was asked
well on the basis of hardman, i would say (and i am entitled to do so) crim damage.
if you prosecutors, judges, barristers etc can interpret cases/legislation in a variety of ways. why cant the police? a little bit of common sense should prevail and this attitude of "oh hes a law student..pompous, big headed twat" should not come into it, if you dont know the parameters of the job you are working in, i.e. you dont know the full extent of the law, then i have a right to complain, no?
would you care to comment?
>> Edited by dragstar on Wednesday 15th October 16:19
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff