Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
They probably have strong views about.cycle helmets and insist on telling everyone else they're wrong.
recording images in public places
- Thread starter lewis1641
- Start date
PurpleFrog
Kona Fan
lewis1641":t2gdryk2 said:
I think you should consider that what they did may actually be pretty reasonable:
- If the dog had caught the cat, it might well have been killed and they want to ***prevent*** this
- Their children might be using that area and if people are letting dogs they can't control run free there, those children might get bitten
How reasonable they were in making a report obviously depends on the exact circumstances - if someone was letting a big dog like a German Shephard off the leash in a children's play area and it wasn't well enough trained to recall when it tried to kill a cat, I'd report them.
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
Report them for what? There's no crime when a dog kills a cat, unless the owner intentionally sets the dog on it.
Having a dog simply out of control in a public place is not an offence, though that may change. It needs to be dangerously out of control, and to cause fear of injury to a person, or cause an actual injury before the offence is complete.
Simply munching on Tiddles doesn't cut it.
Having a dog simply out of control in a public place is not an offence, though that may change. It needs to be dangerously out of control, and to cause fear of injury to a person, or cause an actual injury before the offence is complete.
Simply munching on Tiddles doesn't cut it.
PurpleFrog
Kona Fan
Chopper1192":250o4v6p said:
Not true:
Note the use of "thinks" and "could" - this gives the court EXTREMELY broad latitude even if the animal is not injured. In fact in general:
The consequences:
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand things it is a general principle of the legal system that anything that is wrong if you do it deliberately is also wrong - but to a lesser extent - if it occurs as a failure of your duty. If you are walking a dog off the lead, it is your duty to see that it does not cause harm to anyone - i.e. you should release it unless it is reasonably well trained and will respond to a recall order. Failure of this duty is, indeed, against the law.
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
Now go and read reams of case law so you understand how the courts and CPS interpret the law. Just reading the legislation (and that's overview is not the legislation, it's quite a poor interpretation) won't win you any court cases.
You also need to read the guidelines.for prosecutor's dog.v cat incidents, which basically say its in the nature of dogs to chase cats, so a cat would not normally be considered 'an animal' for the purposes the act. However, if the dog were deliberately set upon it then it would be criminal damage, not Dangerous Dogs legislation that applies.
The case law also clearly defines what 'could' means.
You are right, you're clearly not a lawyer. For criminal law there has to be mens rea, or intent. For certain pieces of criminal law 'recklessness' is sufficient. Just failing in a perceived duty doesn't automatically make the consequences criminal.- you need 'intent', or in some cases 'recklessness', and you need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can demonstrate that the failure to control the dog was intentional (or reckless for criminal damage offences) then straight away you have no case.
You also need to read the guidelines.for prosecutor's dog.v cat incidents, which basically say its in the nature of dogs to chase cats, so a cat would not normally be considered 'an animal' for the purposes the act. However, if the dog were deliberately set upon it then it would be criminal damage, not Dangerous Dogs legislation that applies.
The case law also clearly defines what 'could' means.
You are right, you're clearly not a lawyer. For criminal law there has to be mens rea, or intent. For certain pieces of criminal law 'recklessness' is sufficient. Just failing in a perceived duty doesn't automatically make the consequences criminal.- you need 'intent', or in some cases 'recklessness', and you need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can demonstrate that the failure to control the dog was intentional (or reckless for criminal damage offences) then straight away you have no case.
Chopper the ex Copper
Alpinestars Fan
As aforementioned, the guidelines to prosecutors is that cat v dog incidents are not criminal, unless the dog was deliberately set upon the cat. 'Under control' does not apply to these circumstances. In any case, it's DANGEROUSLY out of control that applies, not the opposite 'under control'.
'Under control' is a term not defined in criminal law.
As for civil law you would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the dog owner was negligent, and balance of probabilities applies the test of 'as perceived by a person of reasonable firmness' - find me a person of reasonable firmness that thinks it's reasonable to never ever walk your dog off the lead.
'Under control' is a term not defined in criminal law.
As for civil law you would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the dog owner was negligent, and balance of probabilities applies the test of 'as perceived by a person of reasonable firmness' - find me a person of reasonable firmness that thinks it's reasonable to never ever walk your dog off the lead.
PurpleFrog
Kona Fan
Chopper1192":3anxey6g said:
You said there is not an offense. There is! If you meant "There is a law, but in practice I think it never gets applied" then you should say that. Really.
Whereas telling the court that a law that makes something an offense does not exist is a guaranteed case winner...
This is very strange - a few moments ago you said there was no such law, now you claim to have read prosecutors guidelines???
While I agree I am not a lawyer, I think you should consider that you might be even less of one.
Concerning mens rea, you have made two mistakes:
1. There are such things as "strict liability" offenses where mens rea does not apply.
2. When an offense is defined as being a failure of duty, the only mens rea needed is the intention to fail in that duty - not to perform the actual resulting act. For example, if you deliberately skip on airliner safety and people, then get you have committed a crime - that you didn't want them intend them to die does not remove mens rea for criminal negligence, only for murder. The law I referred to is phrased - according to the government summary - in the same way: failure of responsibility is defined as in itself cuplable.
You might not like this, but that is the law!
Good morning,
Interesting thread and interesting diversion off topic too. I do not want to mediate but i have a good idea what Chopper is/was and i totally understand his points. PurpleFrog - you are reading some form of guidelines which are not the actual legislation - they seem, to me, to be some type of government warning (more nanny state stuff). If you find the actual legislation - it should be here somewhere -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
it should give the definitive law on the topic. The law is enacted by Parliament for Police Officers and other agents (Dog Wardens) to enforce where necessary. It must be read in conjunction with other legislation - PACE usually, which will details what the enforcement authorities can actually do. The enforcement authorites report the facts to the CPS, who make a decision as whether to prosecute or dispose of the case by other means. Guidance on CPS prosecution guidelines are available on line. If a case is brought to Court the Resident Magistrate/District Judge/Judge will deal with it as they deem appropriate - i am pretty sure there are Sentencing Guidelines available on line somewhere too. All in all, this is a pretty confusing process and each agency normally concentrates on their own part - Police report, CPS decide, Court sentences (or not).
Trying to quote law and legal practices in a forum is difficult at the best of times and each individual will have their own knowledge and input. It is dangerous to misquote or misinterpret sections and this will prolong any discussion/arguement. If you can stick to one set of circumstances and one offence it is pretty simple.
In this case where a dog chases a cat and the cat is injured - a few pieces of legislation may be appropriate for enforcement agengies - if it is 'dog issue' perhaps it would be a Dog Warden who investigates but if the dog deliberatly was 'set on' the cat - that may be Criminal Damage - which would be a Police matter. Where the dog is classed as a 'Dangerous Dog' both agencies may be involved! So, what appears to be a simple topic at the outset has become more complicated.
This is before mens rea is considered - this is another can of worms to discuss and both posters have made valid points in relation to the subject of 'mens rea' but (i suspect you both know) that mens rea requires to be proved in some circumstances and not in others so it really is a moot point until you decide what offence you are discussing.
Happily, i do not own a dog, unhappily i have dog shit in my garden regularly which is left by the minority of dog owners who live locally. If CCTV was an option i would consider it, but on the news this week, the local Dog Wardens have threatened to install covert CCTV cameras to catch these owners. This gets back on topic regarding RIPA - and my opinion is that authorisation is not required as it is not targetting at an individual but at a public area. I can see that it may be required if an individual dog owner is subject to covert surveillance.
To conclude the madness of our legislation (thankyou ECHR!) - i presume that some Rbers have helmet cams etc and i presume that, on occasion, that they may pedal past a school etc. I presume the camera records as they pedal past and perhaps the school children are getting out and are recorded. What about the legality of that?
A song to make you smile (i remembered it when typing about my garden!) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjtBeVYsEw
Thanks for reading my 3p's worth, i await comments with interest,
Richard
Interesting thread and interesting diversion off topic too. I do not want to mediate but i have a good idea what Chopper is/was and i totally understand his points. PurpleFrog - you are reading some form of guidelines which are not the actual legislation - they seem, to me, to be some type of government warning (more nanny state stuff). If you find the actual legislation - it should be here somewhere -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
it should give the definitive law on the topic. The law is enacted by Parliament for Police Officers and other agents (Dog Wardens) to enforce where necessary. It must be read in conjunction with other legislation - PACE usually, which will details what the enforcement authorities can actually do. The enforcement authorites report the facts to the CPS, who make a decision as whether to prosecute or dispose of the case by other means. Guidance on CPS prosecution guidelines are available on line. If a case is brought to Court the Resident Magistrate/District Judge/Judge will deal with it as they deem appropriate - i am pretty sure there are Sentencing Guidelines available on line somewhere too. All in all, this is a pretty confusing process and each agency normally concentrates on their own part - Police report, CPS decide, Court sentences (or not).
Trying to quote law and legal practices in a forum is difficult at the best of times and each individual will have their own knowledge and input. It is dangerous to misquote or misinterpret sections and this will prolong any discussion/arguement. If you can stick to one set of circumstances and one offence it is pretty simple.
In this case where a dog chases a cat and the cat is injured - a few pieces of legislation may be appropriate for enforcement agengies - if it is 'dog issue' perhaps it would be a Dog Warden who investigates but if the dog deliberatly was 'set on' the cat - that may be Criminal Damage - which would be a Police matter. Where the dog is classed as a 'Dangerous Dog' both agencies may be involved! So, what appears to be a simple topic at the outset has become more complicated.
This is before mens rea is considered - this is another can of worms to discuss and both posters have made valid points in relation to the subject of 'mens rea' but (i suspect you both know) that mens rea requires to be proved in some circumstances and not in others so it really is a moot point until you decide what offence you are discussing.
Happily, i do not own a dog, unhappily i have dog shit in my garden regularly which is left by the minority of dog owners who live locally. If CCTV was an option i would consider it, but on the news this week, the local Dog Wardens have threatened to install covert CCTV cameras to catch these owners. This gets back on topic regarding RIPA - and my opinion is that authorisation is not required as it is not targetting at an individual but at a public area. I can see that it may be required if an individual dog owner is subject to covert surveillance.
To conclude the madness of our legislation (thankyou ECHR!) - i presume that some Rbers have helmet cams etc and i presume that, on occasion, that they may pedal past a school etc. I presume the camera records as they pedal past and perhaps the school children are getting out and are recorded. What about the legality of that?
A song to make you smile (i remembered it when typing about my garden!) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjtBeVYsEw
Thanks for reading my 3p's worth, i await comments with interest,
Richard
Similar threads
