Imitating a Police man

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:17:53 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

"You should consider the value of goods the alleged shoplifter has
taken. Where the value exceeds £100, a prosecution should follow."

Such a statement would in no way imply that anyone who steals less
that £100 of goods from a shop will not be prosecuted.

I've passed you the CPS contact number in another post, I'm sure they
will be able to explain the charging guidelines to you if you ask.

Or at least one person's view on them. Did you specifically ask about
the case in question and were told that the cyclists would definitely
not be prosecuted?

The thing though with "guidelines" in any case is that they don't
*have* to be followed, and various organisations frequently come up
with 100's of reasons why it was inappropriate to follow the
guidelines in this or that specific case. AFAIAA it is completely
futile for a defence lawyer to tell the court that the CPS guidelines
state that his client should not have been prosecuted.

If a person has committed a crime *in fact*, and has also behaved in
ways that are legal but the police think are "just not right" or the
person is "making a nuisance of himself", then the probability of a
prosecution for a technical offence is very high regardless of what
guidelines may exist.

--
Cynic

In article , ks (Steve
O) wrote:

prosecute where there is evidence of an intent or likelihood to
cause harm or loss and do not prosecute if it is absent.

so prosecute actors and strippagrams, then? Their intent is clearly for
personal gain.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

On 24/04/2013 13:54, Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:17:53 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

"You should consider the value of goods the alleged shoplifter has
taken. Where the value exceeds £100, a prosecution should follow."

Such a statement would in no way imply that anyone who steals less
that £100 of goods from a shop will not be prosecuted.

I've passed you the CPS contact number in another post, I'm sure they
will be able to explain the charging guidelines to you if you ask.

Or at least one person's view on them. Did you specifically ask about
the case in question and were told that the cyclists would definitely
not be prosecuted?

That was the discussion, and it was with the senior solicitor at the CPS.
She was quite interested in the subject as she is a cyclist herself.
I explained the situation, that a cyclist was dressing up in clothing
quite similar to a police officer, with the word "Polite" substituted
for police and that it was the intention of the cyclist to cause drivers
to slow down and adhere to traffic speeds by making them believe he was
a police officer.
She reread the guidelines in relation to the offence, and agreed that
although the guidelines did not specifically state "No prosecution
should follow if there is no likelihood of harm or loss" that she would
not put forward a prosecution where someone was dressed like that in
order to make a point about traffic speeds and not for any other illicit
purpose, as that is how she interpreted the guidelines.


The thing though with "guidelines" in any case is that they don't
*have* to be followed, and various organisations frequently come up
with 100's of reasons why it was inappropriate to follow the
guidelines in this or that specific case.

Of course.

AFAIAA it is completely
futile for a defence lawyer to tell the court that the CPS guidelines
state that his client should not have been prosecuted.

Why not?
If the guidelines are unclear, and if there is no stated case which
defines what constitutes an intent to deceive and whether such a
deception was for a good reason is permissible then why shouldn't it be
mentioned?
It could help the court to set a precedent.


If a person has committed a crime *in fact*, and has also behaved in
ways that are legal but the police think are "just not right" or the
person is "making a nuisance of himself", then the probability of a
prosecution for a technical offence is very high regardless of what
guidelines may exist.


But not in this particular case, if you go by what the CPS are saying.
Why not contact your local office, and see what they have to say?
They are very happy to help.

On 24/04/2013 01:10, Steve O wrote:

On 23/04/2013 22:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 16:59, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 08:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 06:14, Steve O wrote:
On 22/04/2013 22:45, Judith wrote:

snip

It is obvious it is the intent to deceive and make people believe
that the person is a police officer.
Therefore an offence has been committed - no ifs buts or maybes.
It matters not one jot whether it is an " honest" or "dishonest"
purpose.

Incorrect- see below.

I really cannot believe that some people cannot understand
something which is very straight forward. (OK there are the
usual ****wits - but they don't count)

You are missing the point and you haven't given the matter enough
thought.
The legislation does not specify what constitutes an intent to
deceive in these matters- it is still open for precedence.
Under normal circumstances for a prosecution for this offence to be
effective the prosecutor should be able to demonstrate that some
harm is likely to result as a consequence of the defendant's
actions.

Which bit of the Act provides that?

The act doesn't, but the CPS charging guidelines are very clear and
they do provide for it.

Are CPS "charging guidelines" the same as an Act of Parliament which
creates a criminal offence?

No, but they give an indication of what the CPS believe a court may
think on a particular matter.

You seem to be confused as between the role of the CPS and the role of
the courts.

It is courts which set case-law, not the CPS.

This means the issue is open for precedence.

???

See above

I don't understand what your sentence meant, so sating that something
else means the same without saying what that something else might be is
no clearer.

Unfortunately, there is no current precedence to go by which would
indicate that there would be a defence to someone who imitates a
police officer for an honest intention.

Impersonating a police officer is a dishonest act, by definition. What
honest intention justifies that dishonesty?

I can accept - just - that intervening by dishonest means in order to
save someone's life from an imminent or current aggressive attack might
well be justified. One might, for instance, pretend to have a deadly
weapon to use. But you still couldn't call it "honest" without being
guilty of an attack on the English language.

Since no such defence is provided by the Act, that would hardly matter.

That's correct, but I was suggesting that in the example given, the
court may decide to set a precedent, bearing in mind that the CPS had
already anticipated one, and had issued guidelines to avoid charging
where it cannot be shown that the accused intended or was likely to
cause harm or loss.

The court can decide nothing unless they are presented with cases to try.

Obviously, the circumstances do not arise so much, which is why the
particular circumstances given here are so interesting.

Could you really say in this instance that harm will result from a
cyclist dressing as a police officer on the road unless he is
doing so for a criminal purpose?

Does that matter?

Yes it does, according to CPS charging guidelines.

But not according to Parliament's "guidelines", which we usually call
"the law".

All of parliamentary Law is open to interpretation and precedent.

Only within reason.

That section of that Act is not the slightest bit ambiguous.

I was simply suggesting that if the matter involved in these
circumstances ever got to a court, the precedent could be set along
similar lines to the CPS Charging Guidelines

But it hasn't been.

Now, I appreciate that the guidelines are not law,, but they do have a
an effect on whether someone could be prosecuted for doing this, which
is the original question.

Do they?

Yes of course they do- they are the specific guidelines used by the CPS
to decide whether a person should be charged with an offence or not.

The CPS seem to overvalue themselves.

Or at least, you think they do.

If the CPS do not charge where it cannot be shown that there was a
likelihood of harm or loss then no such case as this one would ever
reach a court, and if for some reason it did, any decent defence
solicitor would quickly point out to a court that the CPS had breached
their own guidelines in bringing the case to court in the first place.
In the example given, there is no suggestion at all that the cyclist was
wearing an outfit similar to police clothing in order to cause harm or
loss.

They only have an effect on whether the CPS can be bothered to charge
someone who has been caught impersonating a police officer with intent
to deceive.

See above.
Perhaps a court could be persuaded to set a precedent whereby in these
circumstances, there would not amount to an offence, and it is more than
likely that the wording of the precedent would be something along the
same lines as the CPS charging guideline in this case.

Of course not, most likely what will happen is the opposite- the
roads would be safer, which is the intention of the cyclist.

His intention is to deceive other members of the public so that they
will do something nearer to what he wants them to do rather than what
they wanted to do.

Yes of course.

Deceit.
Intent.
Impersonation.
All the elements of the offence.

I would not disagree with you, but as I originally stated, there is
still an opportunity for a precedent to be set under these
circumstances, which was all I was saying

No opportunity at all unless of of these patently dishonest miscreants
is charged and tried.

There is no "I was doing it for what I consider to be a good reason"
defence.

So far, no.

Good.

But there could be, for the reasons I have given above.

No, there could not be, because it is clearly not allowed for in the
law. The law simply isn't ambiguous enough for that.

But the CPS, before deciding to charge or not, will consider
whether or
not his actions and behaviour are likely to cause harm or loss to
someone.
I do not think we could say it would under the circumstances
described.

Harm or loss do not need to be demonstrated.

Yes I know.

That intention sits squarely within the wording of the Act and the
behaviour, taken together with the easily-inferred intention, is a
criminal offence.

Of course.

Here us some information from the CPS charging standards relating
to the
offence under section 90 which might help to clarify matters.-

"Section 90 Police Act 1996 creates...

...hardly... the offence already existed under the legislation
replaced
by the 1996 Act... the provision merely re-provides existing law...

Well, if you disagree with the CPS'S own wording, take it up with
them,
not me

It has LONG been an offence to impersonate a police officer. That the
CPS appear not to know that is not a good sign, is it?

They do know it.
But their guidleines clearly show that they do not think it is a good
idea to present such a case before a court where it cannot be shown that
the accused was not likely to cause any harm or loss by his actions

...several offences relating to the
impersonation of police officers or the possession of articles of
police
uniform, namely:

Impersonating a police officer (including a special constable);
making a statement or doing any act calculated falsely to suggest
membership of a police force;
wearing a police uniform calculated to deceive;
possessing an article of police uniform.
The circumstances of the case may disclose more than one of these
offences. It will seldom be necessary to charge more than one
offence.
You should select the most appropriate.

(Note the following)
You should consider the motive of the defendant. Where the
impersonation
involves a threat to the safety of any person, or to property, or is
done with a view to financial gain, then a prosecution should
follow."

"You should consider the motive of the defendant".

That is what it says.

So glad to see you can read.
;-)

His motive is patently to deceive other members of the public.

Into doing what?

Into doing what the cyclist offender wants.

And how is that likely to cause harm or a loss to the motorist?

And is his deception likely to cause harm or loss to someone?

That does not matter in the slightest.

It does, according to the CPS, and they do not prosecute such cases
where the likelihood of harm or loss is absent

If it isn't, he would not be charged and would not get to court.

That is
the only possible sane reading of the situation.

But you haven't examined his motive, you have dismissed it as
irrelevant, and it clearly isn't.

His motive only needs to be established.

And in this case, it would very quickly be established that his motive
was not to cause harm or loss, but in fact, to prevent road accidents.

On your basis, it'd be OK to mug passers by as long as the money was
intended only for your ailing granny and the St Botolph's poor-box.

Maybe on yours, but not on mine.
We are talking about CPS Charging Guidelines for impersonating a police
officer, not the guidelines for robbery.
They are very specific for each offence.

So contrary to your assertion, the motive of the defendant is an
important consideration in whether they will be charged or not with
this
offence.

Had anyone denied that?

I thought you did.

Not at all. Once his motive - wishing to deceive a third party into
believing that he (the offender) is a police officer - that's the motive
done and dusted.

So far, yes.

When he is riding his bike on the highway, deceiving other members of
the public, with whom he has no possible contractual relationship, is
his *clear* intention.

It is his clear intention to make motorists slow down and avoid
colliding with a cyclist, nothing else.

IOW, he's committing a criminal offence.

But the likelihood is that he would not be charged.

A cyclist committing a criminal offence but unlikely to be charged,
tried or punished?

Shirley Knott.


Do you have something against cyclists?

Against dishonest cyclists who use deceit in order to gain advantage
over others?

Of course.

Don''t you?

On 24/04/2013 01:20, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 22:19, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 21:23, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 15:01, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:14:03 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

You are missing the point and you haven't given the matter enough
thought.
The legislation does not specify what constitutes an intent to deceive
in these matters- it is still open for precedence.

Rubbish. It is perfectly obvious that the "intent to decieve" means
that a person who is not a police officer is intending another party
to think that he *is* a police officer.

Yet the CPS charging standards appear to indicate that the motive of the
defendant should be considered before charging.

I cannot see any possible scope for a different interpretation.

Well, that is how the CPS interpret it.
Before charging anyone with this offence, they will first examine their
motive, and determine whether it was likely that the act could cause
harm or loss to another, or is done for financial gain.

What a load of nonsense.

You should tell that to the CPS- it is their guidelines, not mine.
Besides, what's nonsensical about it?
It makes perfect sense to exclude people from conviction who are not
intending or are not likely to cause any harm or loss.
Why should they be prosecuted if that is the case?

What if the perp was impersonating an officer with a view to committing
rape, but didn't manage to get that far (and didn't admit his ulterior
motive)?

Then it would be the task of the police to provide evidence of that motive.

However, if someone was planning to facilitate a rape by dressing as a
police officer, don't you think it would be more likely that they were
bearing the word "Police" and not "Polite"?

That is one end of a continuum. Seeking to disadvantage others in
traffic in order to gain advantage for oneself is not at the same end of
the scale, but neither is it at the opposite end.

You'd be for letting him off, I expect, whereas the case would
illustrate the very reason why there should be a no-tolerance approach
to the law against impersonating a police officer.

Not all law is black and white.
In fact, there are far more grey areas than there is clarity.

If anyone could impersonate a police officer at any time to their
heart's content *unless* the CPS or the police could actively
demonstrate intention to facilitate the commission of crime, there'd be
no point in having a law against the impersonation of a police officer.

Out of interest, why do you think we have such a law?

On 24/04/2013 07:48, AndyW wrote:
On 23/04/2013 08:32, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2013 22:24, Max Demian wrote:

What if it said, "Police notice no parking," and looked just like an
official sign?

Is there an Act which makes that an offence?

Is it an offence? Did the police notice that there was no parking?
It is a matter of symantics.

interpretation 1 "No Parking by order of the Police"

....which is meaningless. Except in a temporary emergency, the police
have no such powers.

interpretation 2 "The policed have noticed that there is no parking here"

Which is equally meaningless and poi9ntless.

There is a little wiggle room that a good lawyer may argue his way clear.

Andy

Steve O put finger to keyboard:

On 24/04/2013 12:35, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:41 +0100, Steve O wrote:

Really?
Maybe you didn't read the source I quoted.
Here is are the charging standards which the CPS use when considering
prosecution under s.90 Police Act (Impersonating an Officer)

"You should consider the motive of the defendant. Where the
impersonation involves a threat to the safety of any person, or to
property, or is done with a view to financial gain, then a prosecution
should follow."

Which states when a prosecution should *always* follow. That in no way
implies that a prosecution should never follow in any other
circumstance.

Consider the statement:

"You should consider the condition of the accident victim. If the
victim is unconcious, an ambulance should be called."

Would that statement imply that you should never call an ambulance if
the accident victim is conscious?



Not the same thing.
There are more parameters in your example- the patient can be
unconscious and injured, conscious and injured or unconscious and
uninjured.
In the latter parameter, there would be no requirement for an ambulance,
just as there would be no requirement for a prosecution for
impersonating a police officer if there was no evidence of harm or loss.
I accept that the CPS charging guidline is not definitive, but it is
fairly clear what is meant in the normal sense of any statement- ie
-prosecute if there is evidence of harm or loss/do not prosecute if
evidence of harm or loss is absent.

I have to agree with Cynic here.
As an example, I would expect someone impersonating a police officer who
was stopping and "cautioning" people for speeding to be prosecuted, even
though they could argue they have not caused harm or loss, and were in
fact acting that way on safety grounds.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:45:54 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

Or at least one person's view on them. Did you specifically ask about
the case in question and were told that the cyclists would definitely
not be prosecuted?

That was the discussion, and it was with the senior solicitor at the CPS.
She was quite interested in the subject as she is a cyclist herself.
I explained the situation, that a cyclist was dressing up in clothing
quite similar to a police officer, with the word "Polite" substituted
for police and that it was the intention of the cyclist to cause drivers
to slow down and adhere to traffic speeds by making them believe he was
a police officer.
She reread the guidelines in relation to the offence, and agreed that
although the guidelines did not specifically state "No prosecution
should follow if there is no likelihood of harm or loss" that she would
not put forward a prosecution where someone was dressed like that in
order to make a point about traffic speeds and not for any other illicit
purpose, as that is how she interpreted the guidelines.

The thing about deciding not to prosecute an obvious lawbreaker on the
grounds that it is not in the public interst to do so is that it is
usually a very individual and subjective decision. Another CPS lawyer
who hates cyclists may take a quite different view.

AFAIAA it is completely
futile for a defence lawyer to tell the court that the CPS guidelines
state that his client should not have been prosecuted.

Why not?

Because it is *not a defence to the charge". I suppose it might be
worth mentioning in a jury trial though.

If the guidelines are unclear

Firstly the guidline you quoted was *not* unclear, and secondly
guidelines are not the law and so would not constitute a point of law
to be argued over.

It could help the court to set a precedent.

You keep using that word. You should learn what it means and where it
could apply. No court below an appeal court can set a precedent, and
there are limited grounds on which a convicted person can appeal.
"The CPS ignored their own guidelines in prosecuting," is not a valid
point on which to appeal, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether the person did or did not break the law.

If a person has committed a crime *in fact*, and has also behaved in
ways that are legal but the police think are "just not right" or the
person is "making a nuisance of himself", then the probability of a
prosecution for a technical offence is very high regardless of what
guidelines may exist.

But not in this particular case, if you go by what the CPS are saying.
Why not contact your local office, and see what they have to say?
They are very happy to help.

I might do that just to see whether they say anything different - but
it would not prove your point in any case.

If, for example, the police started getting complaints from motorists,
and told the cyclists to stop weaing their uniform, and the cyclists
refused, I suggest that prosecutions would follow PDQ guidelines or
not.

--
Cynic

Steve O wrote:
|| On 24/04/2013 12:37, Cynic wrote:
||| On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:26:20 +0100, Steve O
||| wrote:
|||
|||||| Because of the CPS charging standards mentioned in my previous
|||||| post which would appear to show that the CPS would not prosecute
|||||| in the circumstances given, as it cannot be demonstrated that
|||||| the wearer was likely to cause harm by his actions.
|||
||||| Where in the law does it say that harm must be caused?
|||
|||| It doesn't.
|||| Read my last paragraph above again.
|||
||| In which you misinterpreted what the CPS guidelines actually mean.
|||
|| That was your misinterpretation, not mine.
|| In fact, as a result of this discussion I spoke to a Crown Prosecutor
|| yesterday, and raised this issue.
|| She was in agreement and confirmed that the meaning of the guideline
|| is- prosecute where there is evidence of an intent or likelihood to
|| cause harm or loss and do not prosecute if it is absent.

Then either she's talking complete cobblers or you are. If that really were
the case then anyone could, with impunity, dress up as a copper and interact
with the public provided their intentions were honest and not to cause
harm - for example stopping traffic to allow a child/pensioner to cross the
road, slowing down traffic generally for everyone's safety, standing around
school gates to 'ward off child-snatchers' etc. etc. - it would be
ridiculous.

--
Rob

On 24/04/2013 15:12, Scion wrote:
Steve O put finger to keyboard:

On 24/04/2013 12:35, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:10:41 +0100, Steve O wrote:

Really?
Maybe you didn't read the source I quoted.
Here is are the charging standards which the CPS use when considering
prosecution under s.90 Police Act (Impersonating an Officer)

"You should consider the motive of the defendant. Where the
impersonation involves a threat to the safety of any person, or to
property, or is done with a view to financial gain, then a prosecution
should follow."

Which states when a prosecution should *always* follow. That in no way
implies that a prosecution should never follow in any other
circumstance.

Consider the statement:

"You should consider the condition of the accident victim. If the
victim is unconcious, an ambulance should be called."

Would that statement imply that you should never call an ambulance if
the accident victim is conscious?



Not the same thing.
There are more parameters in your example- the patient can be
unconscious and injured, conscious and injured or unconscious and
uninjured.
In the latter parameter, there would be no requirement for an ambulance,
just as there would be no requirement for a prosecution for
impersonating a police officer if there was no evidence of harm or loss.
I accept that the CPS charging guidline is not definitive, but it is
fairly clear what is meant in the normal sense of any statement- ie
-prosecute if there is evidence of harm or loss/do not prosecute if
evidence of harm or loss is absent.

I have to agree with Cynic here.
As an example, I would expect someone impersonating a police officer who
was stopping and "cautioning" people for speeding to be prosecuted, even
though they could argue they have not caused harm or loss, and were in
fact acting that way on safety grounds.

It would probably be easy to demonstrate the harm or loss. The loss
would be of time. Unlawful detention facilitated by deceit.