Instant Justice

[detective-boy]

A slimy evasion worthy of a politician. Clearly I wasn't referring to vehicle insurance but to the measures that could be taken against groups of people hanging around in the street whose presence could be judged by the police to be 'undesirable'.

It wasn't meant as an evasion. The answer "not really" applied to it all - the other bit was an attempt at humour ... but I should have realised that that was not a good idea with someone worrying about political demonstrations ...

No. I wouldn't have thought they will be misused significantly more in those circumstances than in any other. The description of the propsoed powers and the circumstances they are designed for would lead me to expect they would be defined in such a way as to be unavailable for a typical political meeting anyway.

 

[mauvais]

I suppose you have to look at this from the perspective of the authorities, and to be fair to the police, I'm well up for getting some kind of massive Robocop outfit on and striding round the streets booming out 'IN-STUNT JUST-ISS!' in a deep futuristic voice, smiting the fuck out of innocent people below for no good reason at all

 

[teqniq]

that the media and the public said they wanted.

The media said they wanted it? Ok must be fine then......

@Mauvais

 

[Firky]

WHERE is there ANY mention of increased powers of arrest?

Two words: Walter Wolfgang.

The powers will be abused by som police, just like poor ol' Walter Wolfgang.

 

[Bigdavalad]

Two words: Walter Wolfgang.

The powers will be abused by som police, just like poor ol' Walter Wolfgang.

Wasn't he abused by private security employed by the Labour Party, not by police?

 

[detective-boy]

You'll note I didn't say all cops. Just a large enough percentage to worry me if they had these powers.

A large proportion of youths hanging round town centres at night commit violent crimes. You'll note I didn't say all youths hanging round town centres at night. Just a large enough percentage to worry me if the police didn't have these powers ...

See ... it doesn't really work does it. (And I would put a lot of money on the percentage of youths hanging round town centres committing violent crimes being somewhat higher than the percentage of cops who are "half-bright, violence-loving twats")

 

[detective-boy]

Wasn't he abused by private security employed by the Labour Party, not by police?

Yes, but they don't allow the truth to get in the way of a good story.

The ONLY involvement of the police was when he tried to come back in and the Labour Party staff said he was not allowed to - as the organisers of any meeting are perfectly entitled to do. When he tried to force his way in a couple of officers stopped him and during the course of their debate with him mentioned their powers under the Terrorism Act. They were mistaken in doing this, as was acknowledged by Sussex Police within a few hours, because the powers they actually were using (such as the Common Law of trespass and the power to prevent a breach of the peace) were nothing at all to do with the Terrorism Act.

 

[In Bloom]

If this is anything like that fixed penalty notice bollocks, there's no way it won't be used by police for their own ends.

I got a nice £80 fine and an overnight stay in the custody suite the other day for literally fuck all off some bobby in a bad mood, how the fuck is anybody supposed to trust them with these sort of powers of "instant justice"?

 

[detective-boy]

I got a nice £80 fine and an overnight stay in the custody suite the other day for literally fuck all off some bobby in a bad mood, how the fuck is anybody supposed to trust them with these sort of powers of "instant justice"?

I take it you are challenging the penalty and asking for a Court appearance?

This is what I don't understand about half the complaints about fixed penalties. ABSOLUTELY nothing has changed in terms of the powers used to deal with you up front - the ONLY difference is that there is now a hassle-free (for you), bureaucracy-free (for the police) way of finalising the matter IF you accept what you did was an offence.

Old Days: In Bloom meets bobby in bad mood and somehow pisses them off. Bobby decides to arrest In Bloom. In Bloom gets a night in the cells. On awaking, In Bloom is charged with drunk and disorderly or some such trivial offence. Police have to prepare file for CPS. CPS have to read it. In Bloom has to go to Court. Court gets tied up dealing with trvia at great expense. If In Bloom accepts guilt then there may only be one appearance and there will be a fine of £50-£100. If In Bloom contests it there may only be one other appearance for trial, probably taking 2 hours which may result in acquittal or conviction. If convicted, In Bloom likely to be fined £200 plus, maybe with costs.

New Days: In Bloom meets bobby in bad mood and somehow pisses them off. Bobby decides to arrest In Bloom. In Bloom gets a night in the cells. On awaking, In Bloom is issued with fixed penalty notice for £80 for drunk and disorderly or some such trivial offence. If In Bloom accepts guilt and simply pays the fine there is no need to prepare file, incolve CPS, waste Court time or any Court appearance at all for In Bloom. If In Bloom contests it there may only be one appearance for trial, probably taking 2 hours which may result in acquittal or conviction. If convicted, In Bloom likely to be fined £200 plus, maybe with costs.

I accept that the ease with which the fixed penalty tickets can be given out may lead to abuse and I agree that that needs to be monitored. But to slag the system off as some form of erosion of civil liberties and Human Rights is simply bollocks.

 

[In Bloom]

I take it you are challenging the penalty and asking for a Court appearance?

My word against two police officers? You're having a laugh, aren't you? If I take it to court, the fine just gets bigger and I'll end up losing. I can scarcely afford £80 as it is.

I accept that the ease with which the fixed penalty tickets can be given out may lead to abuse and I agree that that needs to be monitored. But to slag the system off as some form of erosion of civil liberties and Human Rights is simply bollocks.

My problem with it is that by turning offences like drunk and disorderly into something like a parking ticket, it shifts the burden of proof towards the accused to a certain extent. Not a good thing IMO.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm more than a little sceptical of the ability of the Merseyside Police to stamp out "abuse" of these powers, given that they all seem to be as bent as a contortionist in a chiropractors' office.

 

[Yossarian]

And I would put a lot of money on the percentage of youths hanging round town centres committing violent crimes being somewhat higher than the percentage of cops who are "half-bright, violence-loving twats")

I'll take that fucking bet!

 

[detective-boy]

My word against two police officers? You're having a laugh, aren't you? If I take it to court, the fine just gets bigger and I'll end up losing. I can scarcely afford £80 as it is.


My problem with it is that by turning offences like drunk and disorderly into something like a parking ticket, it shifts the burden of proof towards the accused to a certain extent. Not a good thing IMO.

You entirely miss my point.

In the old days it would STILL have been your word against two police officers. Nothing has changed.

In the old days if you had pleaded not guilty and been convicted you would still probably have got a higher fine. Nothing has changed.

The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the prosecution just the same. Nothing has changed.

ALL that has changed is that if you plead guilty you have certainty of penalty and you don't have to fuck around at court. Nothing else.

Why can you not see this?

 

[Fruitloop]

Isn't the problem that it's an encouragement just to cough up and avoid court and a larger fine, regardless of whether you're guilty or not? Particularly if your experience of the justice system has been a bit dicey in the past, or have reason to believe that court proceedings might not go well (previous form, wrong social class, bit punky, thick lips - that kind of thing) that's quite a big incentive.

Plus presumably anyone going to court will have some legal advice on the likely outcomes of a particular plea, whereas the man on the street will have no such thing, and might be inclined to pay even if legally speaking he would have a pretty good case. It certainly looks like it'll be handy in hitting those targets that politicians get so excited about.

 

[Roadkill]

You entirely miss my point.

In the old days it would STILL have been your word against two police officers. Nothing has changed.

In the old days if you had pleaded not guilty and been convicted you would still probably have got a higher fine. Nothing has changed.

The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the prosecution just the same. Nothing has changed.

ALL that has changed is that if you plead guilty you have certainty of penalty and you don't have to fuck around at court. Nothing else.

Why can you not see this?

Perhaps because that's not how it looks to someone outside the OB, detective boy.

The impression I've been given (mainly via a good mate of mine who took expert advice after being given a fixed penalty in highly dubious circumstances) is that if you try and challenge a fixed penalty notice, you won't win. The average magistrate will generally take the view that if you were given a fixed penalty you must have deserved it, and your chances of convincing them otherwise are slim. In other words, what fixed penalty tickets amount to is, 'pay up or prove your innocence,' and the latter is virtually impossible to do. Or so it seems to most people.

Now, it might always have been the case that in a case for, say, D&D, the magistrate would take the copper's side. However, the suspicion is that, because with a fixed penalty the whole process is over and done with quickly, the police are doing more people for offences like D&D than they used to, and perhaps in circumstances where they might not be able to secure a conviction n court but where they can be fairly confident that, because people don't believe they can successfully fight a fixed penalty, they won't have to try.

IMVHO, fixed penalty notice are a reversal of innocent until proven guilty - in substance if not technically - and they have been used, in effect, to penalise people who the police don't like the look of.

besides, we have a separate police force and judiciary for a reason. it's not a copper's job to be judge, jury and jailer.

 

[Firky]

I wonder what to the CPS think of this?

 

[detective-boy]

Isn't the problem that it's an encouragement just to cough up and avoid court and a larger fine, regardless of whether you're guilty or not? Particularly if your experience of the justice system has been a bit dicey in the past, or have reason to believe that court proceedings might not go well (previous form, wrong social class, bit punky, thick lips - that kind of thing) that's quite a big incentive.

Plus presumably anyone going to court will have some legal advice on the likely outcomes of a particular plea, whereas the man on the street will have no such thing, and might be inclined to pay even if legally speaking he would have a pretty good case. It certainly looks like it'll be handy in hitting those targets that politicians get so excited about.

But, apart from your own perception, you have STILL not provided any example of how it differs from what went before. In the old days if you thought court proceedings might not go well you'd just plead guilty at the first hearing.

There is no difference in your access to legal advice. ANYONE in custody is entitled to consult a solicitor at any time. That applies equally at the point where they are offering a fixed penalty. Once you have the fixed penalty ticket there is NOTHING to stop you going to see a solicitor for advice before paying it. So far as I am aware the legal aid situation is exactly the same.

If you didn't do it, don't pay it. If you can't be arsed to fight it that is YOUR problem, not the systems. Why should everyone else that likes the idea of simply paying without the hassle of court and everyone who has to pay for the wasted court time be put out just because you can't be bothered?

 

[detective-boy]

besides, we have a separate police force and judiciary for a reason. it's not a copper's job to be judge, jury and jailer.

That is true, but just like cautioning there is no reason to force someone who is willing to admit their guilt to go through the whole court hassle and expense.

The perception of the public needs to be addressed - the only people who can do that are the media but they tend to print bollocks if they print anything.

And, as I have said before, there need to be proper checks and balances on the use of the process. But no-one worries about it in relation to speeding fixed penaties (which can have a far, far more long-lasting effect in terms of insurance costs, etc.) so why worry so much about minor disorder fixed penalties.

Whether you believe it is an erosion of rights is not the point. The simple fact is that it is not. People need to understand that and they need to understand how to challenge improper use. There are enough real issues to worry about without inventing more, imaginary ones.

 

[In Bloom]

And, as I have said before, there need to be proper checks and balances on the use of the process. But no-one worries about it in relation to speeding fixed penaties (which can have a far, far more long-lasting effect in terms of insurance costs, etc.) so why worry so much about minor disorder fixed penalties.

Partly because you can't use speeding tickets to get at people involved in political activity, I suspect.

 

[Roadkill]

That is true, but just like cautioning there is no reason to force someone who is willing to admit their guilt to go through the whole court hassle and expense.

The perception of the public needs to be addressed - the only people who can do that are the media but they tend to print bollocks if they print anything.

And, as I have said before, there need to be proper checks and balances on the use of the process. But no-one worries about it in relation to speeding fixed penaties (which can have a far, far more long-lasting effect in terms of insurance costs, etc.) so why worry so much about minor disorder fixed penalties.

Whether you believe it is an erosion of rights is not the point. The simple fact is that it is not. People need to understand that and they need to understand how to challenge improper use. There are enough real issues to worry about without inventing more, imaginary ones.

I take your points on board, but I've yet to be convinced that, because fixed penalties are easy to hand out and difficult to challenge, the police aren't using them in situations where they'd be unable to make a case in court. I'm certainly not alleging that the police are systematically abusing them, but I do think that, as it stands, the system is open to abuse and I'm not comfortable with the idea of extending it. I think that's a pretty widely held view too, and not only on here.

The fact that it's a measure introduced by Tony 'why use an existing law when I can make myself look proactive by passing another ten?' Blair's government doesn't help. IMHO, like so many of New Labour's flagship policies, it's more about looking 'tough on crime' to appease the Mail-reading brigade than making a real difference. Certainly, I don't feel that the existence of fixed penalty notices has made much difference in terms of safety in the street.

If fixed penalty notices are to stay (and, as you say, they've existed for a long time for traffic offences and seem to work, so it's hard to argue against them in principle), then at the very least they should be, and should be seen to be, easier to challenge in court.

 

[Fullyplumped]

If fixed penalty notices are to stay (and, as you say, they've existed for a long time for traffic offences and seem to work, so it's hard to argue against them in principle), then at the very least they should be, and should be seen to be, easier to challenge in court.

Isn't the point that they are EXACTLY as easy to challenge or defend in court as the full process is?

 

[Roadkill]

Isn't the point that they are EXACTLY as easy to challenge or defend in court as the full process is?

In theory yes, but I'm not convinced that's how it works in practice.

 

[detective-boy]

In theory yes, but I'm not convinced that's how it works in practice.

Why aren't you convinced? What have you experienced / seen / heard that leads you to that conclusion?

 

[detective-boy]

I take your points on board, but I've yet to be convinced that, because fixed penalties are easy to hand out and difficult to challenge, the police aren't using them in situations where they'd be unable to make a case in court..

WHY do you say they are "difficult to challenge"? What is "difficult" about filling in and posting a bit of paper requesting a Court hearing? Why is that more "diffiuclt" than attending Court and standing up and, in front of lots of people, saying "Not Guilty" when asked how you plead (which would have been the old way)?

If the police are using them in situations where they'd be unable to make a case in Court then we should be seeing a long list of not guilty verdicts when they are not accepted and, when that becomes apparent, the police will learn / be supervised in to changing their ways. But I am not aware of any evidence of any such misuse. Are you?

 

[Roadkill]

Why do I say they're 'difficult to challenge?' Because I remain convinced that if you've been given a fixed penalty and try to challenge it in court, the magistrate is likely to take the side of the police. I may be wrong, but that's how it seems from here.

If the police are using them in situations where they'd be unable to make a case in Court then we should be seeing a long list of not guilty verdicts when they are not accepted and, when that becomes apparent, the police will learn / be supervised in to changing their ways. But I am not aware of any evidence of any such misuse. Are you?

Maybe people should be more willing to challenge them and then there might be more 'not guilty' verdicts. But as it is, the perception is that it's not worth trying, so no wonder there aren't many 'not guilty' verdicts.

What am I basing this on? Experiences of friends, primarily, as well as comments from a copper of my acquaintance. I'm not claiming any great expertise. Problem is, though, it seems to me that a great many non-experts feel the same as I do.