URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Non-motoring legal advice
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 4894--------------------------------------------------
       FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as evid
       ence only
       By: ello91 Date: September 11, 2023, 11:54 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hello,
       Few days ago I was sent a letter in the post from Newham for:
       "Interview under caution" for Environmental Protection act 1990
       s33, s34, s87.
       Containing questions about a bin bag being placed outside, I
       replied to all the questions with "no comment" and that i
       normally dispose of all rubbish during the timed collection
       hours, i did not admit guilt or acknowledge the rubbish as mine.
       On this occasion, Enforcement officers had gone through bin bags
       and found my name and address, they did not witness me place it
       there or directly approach me for this FPN, everything has been
       through post or email assuming i placed it.
       Do I have any chance of appealing this due to lack of evidence?
       or simply having your personal details inside rubbish is enough
       to be at fault?
       This is there response after I answered the interview questions:
       on this occasion, having reviewed your answers, I have concluded
       this matter can be dealt with by service of a Fixed Penalty
       Notice (FPN),
       All householders, including yourself have a Duty of Care under
       Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to ensure
       that any waste generated at your property is disposed of legally
       and responsibly, Upon looking at the evidence in exhibit JM001S
       you have not disposed of this legally .
       Can anyone help? I've searched online and not found much
       information regarding this type of situation.
       only way to respond to this is as "Representations" or should I
       just pay the fine and avoid any court issues?
       #Post#: 4898--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: ivanleo Date: September 11, 2023, 12:41 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I've sent you a PM.
       If you want to contest this, you can ignore the FPN and wait for
       the court summons. You will then be able to plead not guilty and
       it will be for the council to prove, beyond reasonable doubt,
       that you are guilty.
       I've had a local authority solicitor openly admit to me that
       they just try it on knowing that most people don't know the law,
       and if you simply turn up to court on the day they drop the
       charges as they have no evidence.
       #Post#: 4903--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: andy_foster Date: September 11, 2023, 1:35 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       With most minor legal issues, there are 2 parts - what does the
       applicable law say, and when happens in practice.
       For example, if in practice the prosecution invariably drop the
       case if you blink first, the law is of little consequence.
       As has been said, there is currently nothing to appeal - you can
       accept their offer of an out of court disposal, or you can
       decline/ignore it and they can subsequently prosecute you or
       not.
       As far as I can tell, their comment about s. 87 EPA 1990 is a
       big fat lie (specific legal term) - actual legislation here
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/87.<br
       />However, whether or not their pants are on fire has little
       bearing on whether or not they can prove beyond any reasonable
       doubt that you committed the actual offence created by s. 87 (as
       opposed to the one they made up to try to intimidate you).
       In a criminal trial, the court have to be certain beyond any
       reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. This is
       not quite the same as the flawed belief that the prosecution
       must prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt. The way that
       a trial works (in theory) is that the prosecution present their
       case (evidence and legal argument) and then the court decide
       whether or not there is a case to answer (whether they are
       satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused is
       guilty). The defence then present their case, and the court can
       take such inferences as might be proper from the accused's
       refusal to give evidence, although they cannot convict on
       inference alone. If at the end of the defence's case they are
       satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is
       guilty, they will convict.
       For future reference (doesn't help you now), if you're going to
       seek legal advice, do so before doing something that could
       potentially paint you into a corner.
       "No comment" in an interview under caution can give rise to the
       inference that if it wasn't you, you would have said so".
       However, if you had declined to answer until such time as you
       had obtained legal advice, that cannot be held against you.
       In relation to a note inviting you to incriminate yourself, I
       would not consider that to be an interview until such time as I
       responded, which would be sometime around "never" - unless I had
       some defence that I wanted to set out at the earliest
       opportunity. I do not believe that ignoring the letter could
       have been held against you.
       I would suggest that if material addressed to you was found in
       illegally deposited litter, that raises a case to answer that it
       was you who deposited it. On its own it is not proof beyond any
       reasonable doubt, but combined with inferences that a court
       might make of your "no comment" "interview", it could be. The
       obvious questions is, if you didn't deposit the litter, what
       reasons might you have had for declining to comment (other than
       bloody-mindedness).
       #Post#: 4906--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: ivanleo Date: September 11, 2023, 3:01 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I would suggest if you're going to trial, you need to
       cross-examine the council witness who found the evidence. They
       will not be able to give any positive evidence to show that you
       physically placed the litter there, and I suspect that if you
       object to their statements being read out in court that might be
       enough for the council to fold.
       #Post#: 4907--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: Southpaw82 Date: September 11, 2023, 3:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=cp8759 link=topic=520.msg4906#msg4906
       date=1694462465]
       I would suggest if you're going to trial, you need to
       cross-examine the council witness who found the evidence. They
       will not be able to give any positive evidence to show that you
       physically placed the litter there, and I suspect that if you
       object to their statements being read out in court that might be
       enough for the council to fold.
       [/quote]
       If they can’t give any positive evidence (which one would expect
       to be give in evidence in chief, either orally or via a s 9
       statement) why would you cross-examine them? If the crucial
       evidence hasn’t been given, you don’t want to them give them the
       opportunity (in cross or in re-examination) to then give it.
       #Post#: 4914--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: ello91 Date: September 11, 2023, 3:23 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you for all your responses,
       Unfortunately I was silly not to ask for advice sooner and have
       never been in a legal situation, so presumed the reason they did
       not immediately send a FPN but instead a Interview letter, was
       to just scare people with these questions into admitting guilt
       when they lacked evidence, I thought "no comment" would protect
       me from saying anything to incriminate myself, weather innocent
       or not and they would not pursue it further. at least have
       learned more about the law in this thread.
       It also mentioned if I did not respond within 7 days, they would
       send a Fixed Penalty notice instead.
       #Post#: 4918--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: ivanleo Date: September 11, 2023, 4:07 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Southpaw82 link=topic=520.msg4907#msg4907
       date=1694462693]
       If they can’t give any positive evidence (which one would expect
       to be give in evidence in chief, either orally or via a s 9
       statement) why would you cross-examine them? If the crucial
       evidence hasn’t been given, you don’t want to them give them the
       opportunity (in cross or in re-examination) to then give it.
       [/quote]
       We'd want to see the statement first, but I'm sort of assuming
       (dangerous I know) that they'd claim the rubbish was placed
       there by ello91 because of the contents they found, so you'd
       then want to ask them how they know that ello91 personally put
       the items there rather than some other person in their
       household, a disgruntled neighbour or whoever else. If in answer
       to a direct question about that the prosecution witness can't
       give a credible answer, their case should fall flat on its face.
       Of course I'm starting from the premise that the officer isn't
       going to just lie and claim he's seen something he or she hasn't
       seen at all.
       #Post#: 4920--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: Southpaw82 Date: September 11, 2023, 4:13 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=cp8759 link=topic=520.msg4918#msg4918
       date=1694466445]
       We'd want to see the statement first, but I'm sort of assuming
       (dangerous I know) that they'd claim the rubbish was placed
       there by ello91 because of the contents they found, so you'd
       then want to ask them how they know that ello91 personally put
       the items there rather than some other person in their
       household, a disgruntled neighbour or whoever else.
       [/quote]
       Just make the submission that there’s no evidence beyond the
       presence of the defendant’s name and address in the bag. It’s
       all tactics and experience but that’s probably the route I’d go
       down, all other things being even.
       #Post#: 4922--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: ivanleo Date: September 11, 2023, 4:15 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=ello91 link=topic=520.msg4914#msg4914
       date=1694463823]
       Unfortunately I was silly not to ask for advice sooner and have
       never been in a legal situation, so presumed the reason they did
       not immediately send a FPN but instead a Interview letter, was
       to just scare people with these questions into admitting guilt
       when they lacked evidence, I thought "no comment" would protect
       me from saying anything to incriminate myself, weather innocent
       or not and they would not pursue it further. at least have
       learned more about the law in this thread.
       [/quote]
       In other countries it is indeed safe to say nothing as there is
       no law on adverse inference, there is much information online
       about how it's best to say nothing at all and that is good
       advice for instance in the US.
       Over here, it's far safer to avoid being interviewed under
       caution in the first place, which is why the police have a power
       to arrest people in order to interview them (but obviously the
       council has no such powers).
       I'm not sure that a paper questionnaire could be relied upon for
       the purposes of an adverse inference. Looking at section 34 of
       the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 it mentions "on
       being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover
       whether or by whom the offence had been committed", presumably
       there's something somewhere the disapplies the constable
       requirement for local authority investigations?
       #Post#: 4923--------------------------------------------------
       Re: FPN - Section s33. s87 - Name and address inside bin bag as 
       evidence only
       By: ivanleo Date: September 11, 2023, 4:17 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Southpaw82 link=topic=520.msg4920#msg4920
       date=1694466802]
       Just make the submission that there’s no evidence beyond the
       presence of the defendant’s name and address in the bag. It’s
       all tactics and experience but that’s probably the route I’d go
       down, all other things being even.
       [/quote]
       I don't disagree, but I'd want recommend that once the summons
       comes through [member=564]ello91[/member] asks for the initial
       details of the prosecution case so that we can confirm this is
       the best tactic.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page