Devon van stopped on route to Windermere

[Amarillo]

You are quite right Tom that magistrates and judges can and must only make judgements according to law. In a criminal trial they need to determine whether or not the prosecution has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the particular offence as charged. As simple as that.

The offences in discussion here are 'summary-only' which means they can only be heard in a magistrates court, not in a Crown court, and therefore without a jury. In a magistrates court the magistrates themselves are the judges of fact, ie whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

In making that judgement of fact the magistrates must take into account all the evidence that has been presented in open court by both the parties - the prosecution and the defence. But they must not bring into their decision any factors not relevant to the charge and the evidence.

With terms like "reasonable", which is an element of quite a range of criminal charges, a principle often adopted in deliberation is to contemplate what the hypothetical "man on the Clapham omnibus" would deem to be reasonable - of course in practice using a more modern and less sexist framing of the same question .

You can draw your own conclusions about how likely this hypothetical average citizen would be to deem, or not, that driving xxx miles to go fishing was a reasonable excuse under the relevant law. But the court will only make that deliberation after hearing all the evidence.

Of course, none of the above is legal advice.

Very informative.

So based on that, the magistrate would decide if they believed the primary purpose of the trip was to obtain food, or if the primary purpose of the trip was to have a fun day out?

 

[Velma's Dad]

Very informative.

So based on that, the magistrate would decide if they believed the primary purpose of the trip was to obtain food, or if the primary purpose of the trip was to have a fun day out?

All I could say is that the bench would look carefully at what the law said and take it from there based on the evidence in the case. As the new offences were only created a few weeks ago there will be few or no prior case judgements to refer to.

I'm not aware that the law in question says anything about "primary purpose" but in any case it would be wrong for me to speculate on how any case might be decided. As I said it really does depend on the totality of the evidence brought by both parties. Where that evidence is contradictory, the justices then have to decide what weight they give to each element of what's been said by both sides.

 

[Amarillo]

Agreed - which is why I said I wouldn't rate the chances of the "London to Devon for fishing" lot if they tried to argue they were obtaining basic necessities.

What about a London based fisherman, who weekly drove to Devon to fish, returning to his home in London to sell his catch?

Would it be different for a Devon based fisherman, who routinely drove to London to sell his catch, before returning to Devon?

Then, what about a hobbiest fisherman, who routinely drove from London to Devon to fish to feed his family?

 

[Amarillo]

I'm not aware that the law in question says anything about "primary purpose" but in any case it would be wrong for me to speculate on how any case might be decided. As I said it really does depend on the totality of the evidence brought by both parties. Where that evidence is contradictory, the justices then have to decide what weight they give to each element of what's been said by both sides.

I made the "primary purpose" bit up. I was just running through my head how a "commuter on the Gatwick Express" might reasonably view the matter. Is is sufficient for a consequence of a trip be to obtain food, or does it necessarily have to be the purpose of the trip.

 

[Joker 1299]

I made the "primary purpose" bit up. I was just running through my head how a "commuter on the Gatwick Express" might reasonably view the matter. Is is sufficient for a consequence of a trip be to obtain food, or does it necessarily have to be the purpose of the trip.

What I’d like to know is why is the man on the omnibus going to Clapham - is his journey necessary?

 

[Amarillo]

What I’d like to know is why is the man on the omnibus going to Clapham - is his journey necessary?

Maybe it stops at Billingsgate Market where fresh Devon fish is sold.

 

[andyinluton]

What about a London based fisherman, who weekly drove to Devon to fish, returning to his home in London to sell his catch?

Would it be different for a Devon based fisherman, who routinely drove to London to sell his catch, before returning to Devon?

Then, what about a hobbiest fisherman, who routinely drove from London to Devon to fish to feed his family?

The fishermen doing it as a business is allowed - he is going to work & cannot work from home. The hobby fisherman should be going to the fishmonger to buy it.

 

[BeagleMum]

London family drive through night to go fishing in Devon

Police escorted them back out of the county and issued them with fines

www.devonlive.com

We have a family member a doctor who is working in the thick of this in the south of the country.
He and hundreds of others in the UK are risking their lives daily to protect us and the people we care for. Regardless of whether anyone feels it is right for these restrictions to be in place, it is imo selfish arrogant and simply wrong to ignore the advice to #StayHome. We should be in Scotland for the next 3 weeks, naturally we are disappointed but missing this is nothing in comparison to the suffering of many. 10000 people have died in the U.K. and sadly we know that number will rise. Do you want to be responsible for someone falling victim to COVID19, we don’t.
Stay Home it’s a temporary situation it’s not a lot to ask.

 

[Vagophile]

All of the above posts remind me of attending a course on certain aspects of law given by an eminent lawyer. He asked the thirty participants about the interpretation of a particular clause and all were agreed in their response. He also agreed, then said "On the other hand you could argue, and I have, that ...." Lawyers! It must be very difficult to draft a law which is not open to an interpretation it's authors did not intend (or maybe that was the intention?)

 

[ArunAlec]

All of the above posts remind me of attending a course on certain aspects of law given by an eminent lawyer. He asked the thirty participants about the interpretation of a particular clause and all were agreed in their response. He also agreed, then said "On the other hand you could argue, and I have, that ...." Lawyers! It must be very difficult to draft a law which is not open to an interpretation it's authors did not intend (or maybe that was the intention?)

I guess that’s why legal documents tend to be long winded and lawyers highly rewarded!

 

[T6 CFO]

As a full timer, it’s normally best to move on after a couple of nights so you don’t draw adverse attention to yourself.
As a member of the community, the right idea is to leave the police to do their job and mind your own business.

This is probably fairly representative of the issues.

Article about a full timer, problems he’s had and how the police have dealt with it.


New Age traveller waits out pandemic at Devon beauty spot https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/new-age-traveller-waits-out-4052806


Mike

 

[Bellcrew]

A lot of criminal law requires careful interpretation at the case level, so in that sense you might describe much of it as "ambiguous" definitionally. Public order offences are one big example category: particularly those around threats and harassment, which create offences which are impossible to pre-define with precision in statute for every situation in the real world. A lot therefore has to be established in the courts, creating case precedent, including challenges at appeal to judgements of the lower courts.

But again, the "reasonable person's" view of what the law was intended to mean is often the principle of reference.

The recently issued National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) guidance goes into great detail regarding what is and is not a reasonable excuse to leave home during the current emergency.
Still seems to be fairly arbitrary but gives greater confidence should you be stopped by the police that what you are doing is by the guidance is reasonable.
The section that states "Likely to be reasonable". "Driving to the countryside and walking (where far more time is spent walking than driving" "It is lawful to drive for exercise". "Police should not ask for ID documents or any other kind of documents".

 

[Amarillo]

This is probably fairly representative of the issues.

Article about a full timer, problems he’s had and how the police have dealt with it.


New Age traveller waits out pandemic at Devon beauty spot https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/new-age-traveller-waits-out-4052806

I thought councils had been told by government to home the homeless.

Oh - it's only rough sleepers.

All rough sleepers in England should be housed by the weekend, government says

Announcement described as ‘landmark moment’ by homelessness charity Crisis

www.independent.co.uk

Still, local authorities could rent otherwise unrentable holiday homes and use them to shelter people like this New Age Traveller.

Landlords should be happy - at least they'll get some income and the homeless will be housed.

Win - win.

 

[T6 CFO]

I thought councils had been told by government to home the homeless.

Oh - it's only rough sleepers.

All rough sleepers in England should be housed by the weekend, government says

Announcement described as ‘landmark moment’ by homelessness charity Crisis

www.independent.co.uk

Still, local authorities could rent otherwise unrentable holiday homes and use them to shelter people like this New Age Traveller.

Landlords should be happy - at least they'll get some income and the homeless will be housed.

Win - win.

You manage to turn any positive into a negative in a rant to show you care more than anybody else.

Unnecessarily traveling has alarmed more people and caused this bloke more trouble than he would have had. He has no choice you do.

Aren’t you supposed to be getting your hens.

Mike

 

[Jodalo]

I thought councils had been told by government to home the homeless.

Oh - it's only rough sleepers.

All rough sleepers in England should be housed by the weekend, government says

Announcement described as ‘landmark moment’ by homelessness charity Crisis

www.independent.co.uk

Still, local authorities could rent otherwise unrentable holiday homes and use them to shelter people like this New Age Traveller.

Landlords should be happy - at least they'll get some income and the homeless will be housed.

Win - win.

It’s a pity the Government didn’t urge, with support, local councils to house the rough sleepers before the Covid 19 issues.

 

[T6 CFO]

It’s a pity the Government didn’t urge, with support, local councils to house the rough sleepers before the Covid 19 issues.

Yes it is. But at least they are now which is a positive.


Mike

 

[Velma's Dad]

We get into a muddle if we characterise travelling people as 'homeless'. They aren't, they have chosen a lifestyle where their home is on the road, in a van or whatever. Either permanently or for large parts of the year.

Unfortunately many of us in the settled population don't recognise that as a valid lifestyle so see it as a problem to be fixed (or at least moved on somewhere else).

 

[Jodalo]

Yes it is. But at least they are now which is a positive.


Mike

Thanks Mike, I’m pleased you agree with me. That’s very positive.

 

[T6 CFO]

Thanks Mike, I’m pleased you agree with me. That’s very positive.

I certainly am. I’m most alarmed by the amount of young men on the streets, many of them ex service men who have fallen through the cracks. It’s a very complicated area. For a while Bristol was getting bad press for the number but when you stop and talk to the homeless I found that many had come to Bristol because of the help they got.

Hopefully this will be one of the positive outcomes.


Mike

 

[Lightning]

We get into a muddle if we characterise travelling people as 'homeless'. They aren't, they have chosen a lifestyle where their home is on the road, in a van or whatever. Either permanently or for large parts of the year.

Unfortunately many of us in the settled population don't recognise that as a valid lifestyle so see it as a problem to be fixed (or at least moved on somewhere else).

It is a mixture I think. I think Van dwellers are a separate entity from traditional travelling communities. Many of them I meet are just working people who cannot afford to buy or rent traditional flats or houses in the area they want to live, work or study. Others just have problems dealing with the modern world, in terms of mental health, or financial problems, post divorce etc.
A much smaller number like me make the conscious decision to choose it as alternative way of life. Most have no choice.

 

[Velma's Dad]

It is a mixture I think. I think Van dwellers are a separate entity from traditional travelling communities. Many of them I meet are just working people who cannot afford to buy or rent traditional flats or houses in the area they want to live, work or study. Others just have problems dealing with the modern world, in terms of mental health, or financial problems, post divorce etc.
A much smaller number like me make the conscious decision to choose it as alternative way of life. Most have no choice.

I'm sure that's right. I shouldn't have implied that it's always a choice. But in any case hostility to anyone not living a 'settled' lifestyle is possibly a particular risk at the moment - I say that because people living marginal lifestyles in any community typically become even more marginalised and vulnerable in an emergency situation. Refugees and undocumented migrants are likely to be another of those groups, IMO.

On the plus side, I think it's remarkable how street homelessness has reportedly been virtually 'fixed' (at least for the time being) in British cities, which shows what can be done when it's given real political priority.

 

[Amarillo]

I'm sure that's right. I shouldn't have implied that it's always a choice. But in any case hostility to anyone not living a 'settled' lifestyle is possibly a particular risk at the moment - I say that because people living marginal lifestyles in any community typically become even more marginalised and vulnerable in an emergency situation. Refugees and undocumented migrants are likely to be another of those groups, IMO.

On the plus side, I think it's remarkable how street homelessness has reportedly been virtually 'fixed' (at least for the time being) in British cities, which shows what can be done when it's given real political priority.

It is not a fix. In London, at least, the homeless have been stuffed into dingy hotel rooms to sit out the virus. As soon as restrictions are lifted I expect many will be turfed out. And it is estimated that there are still about 900 homeless remaining on the streets of London.

Given a choice between a tent on scrubland with freedom of movement or a pokey hotel room with limited freedom, I think I may well choose the tent.

I suppose I may well be slated as being negative, but I'm trying to put a perspective on the reality.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Given a choice between a tent on scrubland with freedom of movement or a pokey hotel room with limited freedom, I think I may well choose the tent.

Well I guess I might also, although on the other hand running water and somewhere to sleep without being in fear of being attacked seems nice to me. But as neither of us has (I'm assuming) ever been street homeless, our views on that are a bit irrelevant, aren't they?

 

[T6 CFO]

I certainly am. I’m most alarmed by the amount of young men on the streets, many of them ex service men who have fallen through the cracks. It’s a very complicated area. For a while Bristol was getting bad press for the number but when you stop and talk to the homeless I found that many had come to Bristol because of the help they got.

Hopefully this will be one of the positive outcomes.


Mike

St.Mungo’s see some positives which is good news.


Hotel scheme 'will cut rough sleeping after virus' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52332453


Mike