So the government always finds a way to get the result they want.
The people allowed it to come to this.
"Handsome Jack" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:***@none.demon.co.uk...
: JNugent <***@fastmail.fm> posted
: >On 10/07/2018 13:55, Handsome Jack wrote:
: >> What offence has been committed here?
: >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-44771402
: >> "Sheffield tree protester guilty of obstructing PC
: >> 9 July 2018
: >> An anti-tree felling campaigner has been convicted of obstructing
: >> for failing to give his name and address when he was being arrested.
: >> Robert Pearson was asked for details after being held over an alleged
: >> public order offence in Sheffield.
: >> He said he was "confused" about his rights but ultimately gave his
: >> details. But, city magistrates ruled this was not a "reasonable
: >> Pearson, aged 48, of Sheffield, was given a 12 month conditional
: >> discharge."
: >> Is there case law stating that refusing to give your name and address
: >> the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is
: >> case law stating that it isn't (Rice v Connolly).
: >> I suppose it is just a magistrates court, so their knowledge of the law
: >> may be sketchy. Or perhaps this is the first case ever brought under
: >> Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for
: >> name and address if they reasonably believe you to be engaged in
: >> anti-social behaviour, and makes it an offence to decline.
: >Why would case-law be important if the provision is made by statute?
: Partly because (according to the BBC) the charges were not brought under
: this statute, but for obstructing the police. And the Rice v Connolly
: judgement states unambiguously that refusal to give your name and
: address cannot amount to obstructing the police in the course of their
: As Jethro says, it may be that the reporting is wrong and the charges
: really were brought under s.50 PRA. If so, it may have an interesting
: sequel, as many people argue that that offence is not compatible with
: privacy rights under ECHR Article 8.
: And, of course, the defendant was acquitted of the alleged act of
: anti-social behaviour, so was it really reasonable to convict on the
: s.50 charge? It sound like "Well if we can't get him for this then we'll
: get him for that", which is hardly the way to run a criminal justice