Discussion:
More criminal damage in pursuant of a protest
(too old to reply)
The Todal
2024-10-18 15:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Another interesting judgment.

This time, suspended sentences. I wonder if that was because our gaols
are currently too full, or whether there is a reasonable chance that
these protesters won't misbehave again. Or maybe both factors. I have no
sympathy for these defendants but maybe others think the protests can be
justified.

One factor that I find interesting is that several of the defendants
plead mental health problems as mitigation. Is it possible that people
who enjoy excellent mental health do not participate in these examples
of criminal damage?

quotes

You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.

Shortly before 2.00 pm you all entered the fountain surrounding the
memorial. You were each then a party to red dye being poured into the
water from multiple containers. You each then helped disperse the dye so
that it changed the colour of the water in the fountain to a deep red.
Not content with simply changing the colour of the water some of you
then poured the dyed water over the marble stone work and marked it with
your dye stained hands while others stood posing for photographs with
home-made placards protesting your cause. Not only did you change the
colour of the water you also stained the stonework a deep red. This was
your intention. The police were on the scene quickly but you refused to
leave the fountain.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-Ings-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
Jethro_uk
2024-10-18 16:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
One factor that I find interesting is that several of the defendants
plead mental health problems as mitigation.
If it achieves a lighter sentence and requires no substantial proof, then
you'd be mad not to use it.
Spike
2024-10-20 13:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by The Todal
One factor that I find interesting is that several of the defendants
plead mental health problems as mitigation.
If it achieves a lighter sentence and requires no substantial proof, then
you'd be mad not to use it.
LOL

If not using mental health as a mitigator is ‘mad’, then surely a sufferer
not taking that action is the very one who should use it! So sentences
should be more severe for those who do advance it as they are not so much
mad as playing the system…
--
Spike
Jethro_uk
2024-10-21 08:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spike
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
LOL
If not using mental health as a mitigator is ‘mad’, then surely a
sufferer not taking that action is the very one who should use it!
You should write a book around that theme :)
Fredxx
2024-10-19 22:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by The Todal
One factor that I find interesting is that several of the defendants
plead mental health problems as mitigation.
If it achieves a lighter sentence and requires no substantial proof, then
you'd be mad not to use it.
If someone uses mental health as an excuse or justification for criminal
behaviour I would give a longer sentence.

I have learnt to associate poor behaviour with mental health from a
number of personal experiences.
Dave
2024-10-20 10:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Another interesting judgment.
This time, suspended sentences. I wonder if that was because our gaols
are currently too full, or whether there is a reasonable chance that
these protesters won't misbehave again. Or maybe both factors. I have no
sympathy for these defendants but maybe others think the protests can be
justified.
One factor that I find interesting is that several of the defendants
plead mental health problems as mitigation. Is it possible that people
who enjoy excellent mental health do not participate in these examples
of criminal damage?
quotes
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Shortly before 2.00 pm you all entered the fountain surrounding the
memorial. You were each then a party to red dye being poured into the
water from multiple containers. You each then helped disperse the dye so
that it changed the colour of the water in the fountain to a deep red.
Not content with simply changing the colour of the water some of you
then poured the dyed water over the marble stone work and marked it with
your dye stained hands while others stood posing for photographs with
home-made placards protesting your cause. Not only did you change the
colour of the water you also stained the stonework a deep red. This was
your intention. The police were on the scene quickly but you refused to
leave the fountain.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-Ings-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
In recent cases, there was widespread surprise about imprisonment being
imposed. I wonder if those cases have had the effect of reducing the
likelihood of reoffending.

It is interesting in these cases that keeping your nose clean for a couple
of years is a ‘good enough’ societal standard to aim for with crimes of
choice. Most of us go our entire lives without committing these sorts of
premeditated crimes.

Maybe we’re all trying too hard to be good?
--
Dr Dave
Max Demian
2024-10-20 11:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by The Todal
Another interesting judgment.
This time, suspended sentences. I wonder if that was because our gaols
are currently too full, or whether there is a reasonable chance that
these protesters won't misbehave again. Or maybe both factors. I have no
sympathy for these defendants but maybe others think the protests can be
justified.
One factor that I find interesting is that several of the defendants
plead mental health problems as mitigation. Is it possible that people
who enjoy excellent mental health do not participate in these examples
of criminal damage?
quotes
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Shortly before 2.00 pm you all entered the fountain surrounding the
memorial. You were each then a party to red dye being poured into the
water from multiple containers. You each then helped disperse the dye so
that it changed the colour of the water in the fountain to a deep red.
Not content with simply changing the colour of the water some of you
then poured the dyed water over the marble stone work and marked it with
your dye stained hands while others stood posing for photographs with
home-made placards protesting your cause. Not only did you change the
colour of the water you also stained the stonework a deep red. This was
your intention. The police were on the scene quickly but you refused to
leave the fountain.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-Ings-and-others-sentencing-remarks.pdf
In recent cases, there was widespread surprise about imprisonment being
imposed. I wonder if those cases have had the effect of reducing the
likelihood of reoffending.
It is interesting in these cases that keeping your nose clean for a couple
of years is a ‘good enough’ societal standard to aim for with crimes of
choice. Most of us go our entire lives without committing these sorts of
premeditated crimes.
Maybe we’re all trying too hard to be good?
Yeah that's what ruined my childhood.
--
Max Demian
GB
2024-10-20 20:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Dave
2024-10-21 08:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.

Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).

Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).

Public order offences.
--
Dr Dave
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-21 08:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by GB
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.
What enjoyment of rights have the public been obstructed from?
I'm not sure "looking at people-free fountains" counts.
Post by Dave
Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).
What activity being carried out by whom has been obstructed or
disrupted?
Post by Dave
Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
Post by Dave
Public order offences.
Well, yes. Almost anything done in public can come under those ;-)
Dave
2024-10-21 16:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by GB
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.
What enjoyment of rights have the public been obstructed from?
I'm not sure "looking at people-free fountains" counts.
Bet it does.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).
What activity being carried out by whom has been obstructed or
disrupted?
See above. The fountain has a certain design and standing in it spoils its
utility for that purpose.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
No, standing in it stops it being viewed as it is meant to be viewed. They
have degraded its intended function.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Public order offences.
Well, yes. Almost anything done in public can come under those ;-)
--
Dr Dave
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-21 18:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by GB
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.
What enjoyment of rights have the public been obstructed from?
I'm not sure "looking at people-free fountains" counts.
Bet it does.
You're wrong. You don't even have a "right to a view" if you own the
land you're doing the viewing from (Aldred's Case (1610)), let alone
if you're a random member of the public.
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).
What activity being carried out by whom has been obstructed or
disrupted?
See above. The fountain has a certain design and standing in it spoils its
utility for that purpose.
No judge is going to decide that people have gathered in order to
engage in the little-known activity of "regarding people-free
fountains", and even if they did, the prosecution is not going to be
able to prove that the defendants were there with the specific intent
of preventing that activity, not least because they weren't.
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
No, standing in it stops it being viewed as it is meant to be viewed. They
have degraded its intended function.
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
Dave
2024-10-22 01:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by GB
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.
What enjoyment of rights have the public been obstructed from?
I'm not sure "looking at people-free fountains" counts.
Bet it does.
You're wrong. You don't even have a "right to a view" if you own the
land you're doing the viewing from (Aldred's Case (1610)), let alone
if you're a random member of the public.
The owner has a right to present it as they wish. It is that which has been
damaged.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).
What activity being carried out by whom has been obstructed or
disrupted?
See above. The fountain has a certain design and standing in it spoils its
utility for that purpose.
No judge is going to decide that people have gathered in order to
engage in the little-known activity of "regarding people-free
fountains", and even if they did, the prosecution is not going to be
able to prove that the defendants were there with the specific intent
of preventing that activity, not least because they weren't.
They demonstrably have gathered to see the fountains in their ‘as designed’
status.

The defendants weren’t there ‘for that’ but by ‘doing that’ they would …
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
No, standing in it stops it being viewed as it is meant to be viewed. They
have degraded its intended function.
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
Clearly so because standing ‘in’ is interference with different in terms of
active interference to standing ‘in front of’. Akin to playing pacing
leaflets under car windscreen wipers.
--
Dr Dave
Pancho
2024-10-22 07:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by GB
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.
What enjoyment of rights have the public been obstructed from?
I'm not sure "looking at people-free fountains" counts.
Bet it does.
You're wrong. You don't even have a "right to a view" if you own the
land you're doing the viewing from (Aldred's Case (1610)), let alone
if you're a random member of the public.
The owner has a right to present it as they wish. It is that which has been
damaged.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).
What activity being carried out by whom has been obstructed or
disrupted?
See above. The fountain has a certain design and standing in it spoils its
utility for that purpose.
No judge is going to decide that people have gathered in order to
engage in the little-known activity of "regarding people-free
fountains", and even if they did, the prosecution is not going to be
able to prove that the defendants were there with the specific intent
of preventing that activity, not least because they weren't.
They demonstrably have gathered to see the fountains in their ‘as designed’
status.
The defendants weren’t there ‘for that’ but by ‘doing that’ they would …
Where is the fountain's designed purpose specified? The ones at the
other end of the road, in Trafalgar Square, were traditionally used for
paddling, at least until Ken banned it.

It seems that as people stopped revering churches and religious places,
they try to find alternatives. Try to find alternative places to ban
having fun.
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
No, standing in it stops it being viewed as it is meant to be viewed. They
have degraded its intended function.
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
Clearly so because standing ‘in’ is interference with different in terms of
active interference to standing ‘in front of’. Akin to playing pacing
leaflets under car windscreen wipers.
This is not at all clear, standing on one leg is different to standing
on two legs, but I can't see why that would affect the law, or what it
has to do with placing leaflets on car windscreens.
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-22 09:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by GB
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.
What enjoyment of rights have the public been obstructed from?
I'm not sure "looking at people-free fountains" counts.
Bet it does.
You're wrong. You don't even have a "right to a view" if you own the
land you're doing the viewing from (Aldred's Case (1610)), let alone
if you're a random member of the public.
The owner has a right to present it as they wish. It is that which has been
damaged.
Ok, but you realise that you are now arguing that it *wasn't* a public
nuisance, right? If it is private rights of an individual that have
been infringed then it is a tort against them, and not public nuisance.
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).
What activity being carried out by whom has been obstructed or
disrupted?
See above. The fountain has a certain design and standing in it spoils its
utility for that purpose.
No judge is going to decide that people have gathered in order to
engage in the little-known activity of "regarding people-free
fountains", and even if they did, the prosecution is not going to be
able to prove that the defendants were there with the specific intent
of preventing that activity, not least because they weren't.
They demonstrably have gathered to see the fountains in their ‘as
designed’ status.
I mean, no they haven't, but nonetheless...
Post by Dave
The defendants weren’t there ‘for that’ but by ‘doing that’ they would …
That's not the test. The law says that the defendant must *intend* to
have the effect of obstructing or disrupting the activity, not that this
disruption can be a side-effect of whatever the defendant did intend.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68

The law was designed to criminalise hunt saboteurs whose specific intent
was to disrupt hunting, not to prosecute random picnickers who might be
inadvertently in the way of a hunt, even if their picnick was a trespass.
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
No, standing in it stops it being viewed as it is meant to be viewed. They
have degraded its intended function.
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
Clearly so because standing ‘in’ is interference with different in terms of
active interference to standing ‘in front of’. Akin to playing pacing
leaflets under car windscreen wipers.
You're just making up rules now. A person standing in or on something
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
Jethro_uk
2024-10-22 09:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
You're just making up rules now. A person standing in or on something
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
I thought that wasn't how it works ? The "damage" does not need to be
permanent - or indeed detectable. Hence it is criminal damage to put a
bin bag over a speed camera.
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-22 10:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
You're just making up rules now. A person standing in or on something
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
I thought that wasn't how it works ? The "damage" does not need to be
permanent - or indeed detectable. Hence it is criminal damage to put a
bin bag over a speed camera.
Yes, but in that scenario the camera is impaired until its owner comes
along and does work to fix it, i.e. remove the bin bag. It is stretching
this concept way beyond breaking point to suggest that "the existence of
the defendant" is in itself damage, especially given the alleged damage
here is to something completely intangible, i.e. the "visual amenity"
of the surrounding area.

Let's suppose there's a doorway, and you stand in the doorway, thus
preventing anyone else from passing. There may well be legal remedies
available to the door's owner and/or other people who wish to pass,
but does anyone seriously think that "prosecution for criminal damage
to the door" would be one of them, in the absence of any actual physical
damage having been done?
Jethro_uk
2024-10-22 10:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Let's suppose there's a doorway, and you stand in the doorway, thus
preventing anyone else from passing. There may well be legal remedies
available to the door's owner and/or other people who wish to pass,
but does anyone seriously think that "prosecution for criminal damage to
the door" would be one of them, in the absence of any actual physical
damage having been done?
Isn't one of the marvels of common law that it can "discover" criminal
acts as yet unknown ?

Would *you* wager that were such a case bought to court, the court would
find as you suggest ? Or might they take a view that the act was indeed
criminal damage. Especially if the defendant admitted their actions were
deliberately meant to prevent the doorway being used as a doorway ?
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-22 13:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
Let's suppose there's a doorway, and you stand in the doorway, thus
preventing anyone else from passing. There may well be legal remedies
available to the door's owner and/or other people who wish to pass,
but does anyone seriously think that "prosecution for criminal damage to
the door" would be one of them, in the absence of any actual physical
damage having been done?
Isn't one of the marvels of common law that it can "discover" criminal
acts as yet unknown ?
Not really, and even if it were, it's not just making it up as it goes
along willy nilly.
Post by Jethro_uk
Would *you* wager that were such a case bought to court, the court would
find as you suggest ? Or might they take a view that the act was indeed
criminal damage. Especially if the defendant admitted their actions were
deliberately meant to prevent the doorway being used as a doorway ?
Yes I would wager that. There's no way a court would convict someone of
criminal damage for merely standing in a doorway, unless some actual
real damage were caused thereby.
Dave
2024-10-22 17:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
Let's suppose there's a doorway, and you stand in the doorway, thus
preventing anyone else from passing. There may well be legal remedies
available to the door's owner and/or other people who wish to pass,
but does anyone seriously think that "prosecution for criminal damage to
the door" would be one of them, in the absence of any actual physical
damage having been done?
Isn't one of the marvels of common law that it can "discover" criminal
acts as yet unknown ?
Not really, and even if it were, it's not just making it up as it goes
along willy nilly.
Post by Jethro_uk
Would *you* wager that were such a case bought to court, the court would
find as you suggest ? Or might they take a view that the act was indeed
criminal damage. Especially if the defendant admitted their actions were
deliberately meant to prevent the doorway being used as a doorway ?
Yes I would wager that. There's no way a court would convict someone of
criminal damage for merely standing in a doorway, unless some actual
real damage were caused thereby.
You’re making it up. They’d be convicted of aggravated trespass.
--
Dr Dave
Norman Wells
2024-10-22 17:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
Let's suppose there's a doorway, and you stand in the doorway, thus
preventing anyone else from passing. There may well be legal remedies
available to the door's owner and/or other people who wish to pass,
but does anyone seriously think that "prosecution for criminal damage to
the door" would be one of them, in the absence of any actual physical
damage having been done?
Isn't one of the marvels of common law that it can "discover" criminal
acts as yet unknown ?
Not really, and even if it were, it's not just making it up as it goes
along willy nilly.
Post by Jethro_uk
Would *you* wager that were such a case bought to court, the court would
find as you suggest ? Or might they take a view that the act was indeed
criminal damage. Especially if the defendant admitted their actions were
deliberately meant to prevent the doorway being used as a doorway ?
Yes I would wager that. There's no way a court would convict someone of
criminal damage for merely standing in a doorway, unless some actual
real damage were caused thereby.
You’re making it up. They’d be convicted of aggravated trespass.
Which is a totally different offence.

For criminal damage you have to destroy or damage property belonging to
another.

Hard to see how that applies.

For aggravated trespass you have to trespass on land in the open air
and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or
are about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air, do
something which is intended to have the effect—

(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or
any of them from engaging in that activity,

(b) of obstructing that activity, or

(c) of disrupting that activity.

So, it depends whether there is trespass, whether its in the open air,
and all the other factors mentioned.
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-23 09:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
Let's suppose there's a doorway, and you stand in the doorway, thus
preventing anyone else from passing. There may well be legal remedies
available to the door's owner and/or other people who wish to pass,
but does anyone seriously think that "prosecution for criminal damage to
the door" would be one of them, in the absence of any actual physical
damage having been done?
Isn't one of the marvels of common law that it can "discover" criminal
acts as yet unknown ?
Not really, and even if it were, it's not just making it up as it goes
along willy nilly.
Post by Jethro_uk
Would *you* wager that were such a case bought to court, the court would
find as you suggest ? Or might they take a view that the act was indeed
criminal damage. Especially if the defendant admitted their actions were
deliberately meant to prevent the doorway being used as a doorway ?
Yes I would wager that. There's no way a court would convict someone of
criminal damage for merely standing in a doorway, unless some actual
real damage were caused thereby.
You’re making it up. They’d be convicted of aggravated trespass.
Well, I made up:

* this hypothetical scenario

And you made up:

* that I said anything about whether they'd be convicted of anything
other than criminal damage, which I didn't
* that they would be convicted of aggravated trespass, which I didn't
provide enough information in my hypothetical scenario for anyone
to know either way
Roger Hayter
2024-10-22 10:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
You're just making up rules now. A person standing in or on something
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
I thought that wasn't how it works ? The "damage" does not need to be
permanent - or indeed detectable. Hence it is criminal damage to put a
bin bag over a speed camera.
Removing a bin bag involves parking by a busy road, getting a ladder and
taking it off. So there is a significant cost to repairing the damage.
--
Roger Hayter
Jethro_uk
2024-10-22 17:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
You're just making up rules now. A person standing in or on something
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are
standing in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is
returned to its original state simply by them leaving then a "damage"
argument hasn't got a hope.
I thought that wasn't how it works ? The "damage" does not need to be
permanent - or indeed detectable. Hence it is criminal damage to put a
bin bag over a speed camera.
Removing a bin bag involves parking by a busy road, getting a ladder and
taking it off. So there is a significant cost to repairing the damage.
Not if the person who put it there is doing the taking off ...
Dave
2024-10-22 11:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Jon Ribbens
You're just making up rules now. A person standing in or on something
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
I thought that wasn't how it works ? The "damage" does not need to be
permanent - or indeed detectable. Hence it is criminal damage to put a
bin bag over a speed camera.
You are of course correct.
--
Dr Dave
Dave
2024-10-22 11:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by GB
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public nuisance.
What enjoyment of rights have the public been obstructed from?
I'm not sure "looking at people-free fountains" counts.
Bet it does.
You're wrong. You don't even have a "right to a view" if you own the
land you're doing the viewing from (Aldred's Case (1610)), let alone
if you're a random member of the public.
The owner has a right to present it as they wish. It is that which has been
damaged.
Ok, but you realise that you are now arguing that it *wasn't* a public
nuisance, right? If it is private rights of an individual that have
been infringed then it is a tort against them, and not public nuisance.
I’m not. People can gather to enjoy the sight of a private object. People
frustrating that could be held to be causing a public nuisance. They
additionally may be committing a tort against the owner but that wasn’t
your question.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Aggravated trespass (if they refused to leave).
What activity being carried out by whom has been obstructed or
disrupted?
See above. The fountain has a certain design and standing in it spoils its
utility for that purpose.
No judge is going to decide that people have gathered in order to
engage in the little-known activity of "regarding people-free
fountains", and even if they did, the prosecution is not going to be
able to prove that the defendants were there with the specific intent
of preventing that activity, not least because they weren't.
They demonstrably have gathered to see the fountains in their ‘as
designed’ status.
I mean, no they haven't, but nonetheless...
Well they have but nonetheless …
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
The defendants weren’t there ‘for that’ but by ‘doing that’ they would …
That's not the test. The law says that the defendant must *intend* to
have the effect of obstructing or disrupting the activity, not that this
disruption can be a side-effect of whatever the defendant did intend.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68
The law was designed to criminalise hunt saboteurs whose specific intent
was to disrupt hunting, not to prosecute random picnickers who might be
inadvertently in the way of a hunt, even if their picnick was a trespass.
They did intend that.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Criminal damage (for reducing its utility as a visual amenity).
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
No, standing in it stops it being viewed as it is meant to be viewed. They
have degraded its intended function.
Clearly not - otherwise merely standing in front of anything worth
looking at would be "damage" to it.
Clearly so because standing ‘in’ is interference with different in terms of
active interference to standing ‘in front of’. Akin to playing pacing
leaflets under car windscreen wipers.
You're just making up rules now. A person standing in or on something
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
Settled cases say different.
--
Dr Dave
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-22 13:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
You're wrong. You don't even have a "right to a view" if you own the
land you're doing the viewing from (Aldred's Case (1610)), let alone
if you're a random member of the public.
The owner has a right to present it as they wish. It is that which
has been damaged.
Ok, but you realise that you are now arguing that it *wasn't* a public
nuisance, right? If it is private rights of an individual that have
been infringed then it is a tort against them, and not public nuisance.
I’m not.
You may not have intended to, but it's what you did.
Post by Dave
People can gather to enjoy the sight of a private object. People
frustrating that could be held to be causing a public nuisance. They
additionally may be committing a tort against the owner but that wasn’t
your question.
You don't appear to have an answer to my question, since you're now
denying that your response to it had anything to do with it.
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
That's not the test. The law says that the defendant must *intend* to
have the effect of obstructing or disrupting the activity, not that this
disruption can be a side-effect of whatever the defendant did intend.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68
The law was designed to criminalise hunt saboteurs whose specific intent
was to disrupt hunting, not to prosecute random picnickers who might be
inadvertently in the way of a hunt, even if their picnick was a trespass.
They did intend that.
Now you're just making stuff up.
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
Settled cases say different.
... but sadly you can't find any to cite?
Dave
2024-10-22 17:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
You're wrong. You don't even have a "right to a view" if you own the
land you're doing the viewing from (Aldred's Case (1610)), let alone
if you're a random member of the public.
The owner has a right to present it as they wish. It is that which
has been damaged.
Ok, but you realise that you are now arguing that it *wasn't* a public
nuisance, right? If it is private rights of an individual that have
been infringed then it is a tort against them, and not public nuisance.
I’m not.
You may not have intended to, but it's what you did.
It clearly isn’t.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
People can gather to enjoy the sight of a private object. People
frustrating that could be held to be causing a public nuisance. They
additionally may be committing a tort against the owner but that wasn’t
your question.
You don't appear to have an answer to my question, since you're now
denying that your response to it had anything to do with it.
I’ve answered your question correctly.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
That's not the test. The law says that the defendant must *intend* to
have the effect of obstructing or disrupting the activity, not that this
disruption can be a side-effect of whatever the defendant did intend.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68
The law was designed to criminalise hunt saboteurs whose specific intent
was to disrupt hunting, not to prosecute random picnickers who might be
inadvertently in the way of a hunt, even if their picnick was a trespass.
They did intend that.
Now you're just making stuff up.
No, I’m stating fact.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
Settled cases say different.
... but sadly you can't find any to cite?
Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SASR 200

The appellant trampled on a policeman's cap. The cap could easily be pushed
back into place.

Held:

The actions did constitute damage.

Walters J:

"Damage is sufficiently wide in its meaning to embrace injury, mischief or
harm done to property and in order to constitute damage it is unnecessary
to establish such definite or actual damage as renders the property useless
or prevents it from serving its normal function."

In rather ‘quaint’ language it includes mischief. There are other classic
cases covering what amounts to trivial damage. Loss of utility is one of
the pillars of the offence.
--
Dr Dave
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-23 09:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
Settled cases say different.
... but sadly you can't find any to cite?
Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SASR 200
The appellant trampled on a policeman's cap. The cap could easily be pushed
back into place.
Unlike the fountain scenario, something had to be done to the cap to
repair the damage. So you can't conclude from that case what would
happen in this case.
Post by Dave
The actions did constitute damage.
"Damage is sufficiently wide in its meaning to embrace injury, mischief or
harm done to property and in order to constitute damage it is unnecessary
to establish such definite or actual damage as renders the property useless
or prevents it from serving its normal function."
In rather ‘quaint’ language it includes mischief. There are other classic
cases covering what amounts to trivial damage. Loss of utility is one of
the pillars of the offence.
You're still making an absolutely enormous leap that the mere presence
of a person, who is not impeding the operation of the fountain in any
way despite your attempts to claim otherwise, means the fountain is
"damaged", and furthermore that this damage, which is so temporary
that it literally *cannot* be remedied by the property owner because
by that point the person will have got out of the fountain and the
"damage" is thereby already completely negated, is sufficient to
support a criminal charge.

You can try and find a better cite if you like.
Dave
2024-10-23 17:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
Post by Jon Ribbens
does not constitute "criminal damage" unless the thing they are standing
in or on is actually damaged by them doing so. If it is returned to its
original state simply by them leaving then a "damage" argument hasn't
got a hope.
Settled cases say different.
... but sadly you can't find any to cite?
Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SASR 200
The appellant trampled on a policeman's cap. The cap could easily be pushed
back into place.
Unlike the fountain scenario, something had to be done to the cap to
repair the damage. So you can't conclude from that case what would
happen in this case.
On the contrary. The cap was damaged during the period of its deformation
so criminal damage took place and would have taken place had the trampler
restored its intended shape.

The utility of the fountain was damaged whilst people were in it. That is
the case irrespective of whether they remove themselves or if they were
removed.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Dave
The actions did constitute damage.
"Damage is sufficiently wide in its meaning to embrace injury, mischief or
harm done to property and in order to constitute damage it is unnecessary
to establish such definite or actual damage as renders the property useless
or prevents it from serving its normal function."
In rather ‘quaint’ language it includes mischief. There are other classic
cases covering what amounts to trivial damage. Loss of utility is one of
the pillars of the offence.
You're still making an absolutely enormous leap that the mere presence
of a person, who is not impeding the operation of the fountain in any
way despite your attempts to claim otherwise, means the fountain is
"damaged", and furthermore that this damage, which is so temporary
that it literally *cannot* be remedied by the property owner because
by that point the person will have got out of the fountain and the
"damage" is thereby already completely negated, is sufficient to
support a criminal charge.
You can try and find a better cite if you like.
The one I have is an almost ideal fit.
--
Dr Dave
Pancho
2024-10-21 08:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Paddling.
Max Demian
2024-10-21 10:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Paddling.
Yeah, Red Ken banned paddling in the Trafalgar Square fountains for no
good reason.
--
Max Demian
JNugent
2024-10-21 14:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Public Order offences?
Norman Wells
2024-10-22 10:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by The Todal
You have each been convicted of damaging the Queen Victoria Memorial
which stands in front of Buckingham Palace.
Out of interest, had they simply climbed in and not damaged the
fountain, what (if anything) could they have been charged with?
Breach of Section 4(22) of The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces
Regulations 1997:

"4. Unless the Secretary of State’s written permission has first been
obtained, no person using a Park shall—...

(22) boat or bathe or otherwise enter any fountain, lake, pond or river,
unless—

(a) in a place for the time being marked by buoys or other means as
appointed for that purpose, and

(b) in accordance with any direction for the control of such activities
given by a constable, or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary
of State;"
Loading...