Discussion:
Prosecution for not giving name and address
(too old to reply)
Handsome Jack
2018-07-10 12:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
name and address if they reasonably believe you to be engaged in
anti-social behaviour, and makes it an offence to decline.
--
Jack
Jethro_uk
2018-07-10 13:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your starting point is probably shit reporting.
Jethro_uk
2018-07-10 13:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your starting point is probably shit reporting.
Jethro_uk
2018-07-10 13:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your starting point is probably shit reporting.
JNugent
2018-07-10 13:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
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?
Handsome Jack
2018-07-10 14:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Handsome Jack
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
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
duty.

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
system
--
Jack
BurfordTJustice
2018-07-10 14:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So the government always finds a way to get the result they want.


Normal.


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
police
: >> 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
excuse".
: >> 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
to
: >> the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is
certainly
: >> 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
s50
: >> Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for
your
: >> 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
: duty.
:
: 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
: system
:
: --
: Jack
Jethro_uk
2018-07-10 14:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
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
system
Says who ?
JNugent
2018-07-11 12:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by JNugent
Post by Handsome Jack
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
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
duty.
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 system
Being acquitted does not mean that he was not reasonably suspected in
the first place.

And as the law is quoted above, if he was reasonably suspected, he was
under a duty to provide his name and address.
Pelican
2018-07-11 12:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by JNugent
Post by Handsome Jack
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
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
duty.
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 system
Being acquitted does not mean that he was not reasonably suspected in
the first place.
And as the law is quoted above, if he was reasonably suspected, he was
under a duty to provide his name and address.
If.
JNugent
2018-07-11 14:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by JNugent
Post by Handsome Jack
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
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
duty.
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 system
Being acquitted does not mean that he was not reasonably suspected in
the first place.
And as the law is quoted above, if he was reasonably suspected, he was
under a duty to provide his name and address.
If.
Being acquitted does not mean that he was not reasonably suspected in
the first place.
BurfordTJustice
2018-07-10 14:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Laws to not aply to any level of government.

They can do as they wish...just watch the daily news.




"Handsome Jack" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:q+***@none.demon.co.uk...
: 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 police
: 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 excuse".
: 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 to
: the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
: 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 s50
: Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
: name and address if they reasonably believe you to be engaged in
: anti-social behaviour, and makes it an offence to decline.
:
: --
: Jack
Jeff
2018-07-10 16:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
name and address if they reasonably believe you to be engaged in
anti-social behaviour, and makes it an offence to decline.
Police Reform Act 2002 S50

Jeff
R. Mark Clayton
2018-07-11 13:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
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 police
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 excuse".
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 to
the police when being arrested is a criminal offence? There is certainly
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 s50
Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to ask for your
name and address if they reasonably believe you to be engaged in
anti-social behaviour, and makes it an offence to decline.
--
Jack
Not sure that "while being arrested" is required, but see

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24
Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
2018-07-12 19:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
What offence has been committed here?
"Don't tell him, Pike!"
The Peeler
2018-07-12 21:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:23:45 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
Post by Shitsack Moishe Goldberg
Post by Handsome Jack
What offence has been committed here?
"Don't tell him, Pike!"
How's your psychosis these days, dreckserb Razovic? Going stronger than
usual? LMAO!
--
Dumb anal Razovic admitting about his nazi kind:
"We've Been Counting jew ani and sucking them dry!!"
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Loading...