Police caution for using a tripod on Hampstead Heath

There is some confusion about what has actually happened here. Some people are saying that these are not really police, others that they are. Some say that it's not really a caution but more of a fixed penalty fine. Others say that it is a proper police caution.

If it's a proper caution then it shows up, I believe, on an enhanced DBS check. Alan Rusbridger won't be worried about that but it could have quite serious ramifications for others should they find themselves in a similar position. What conclusions could a potential employer at a school draw from the fact you have a police caution for using a tripod on Hampstead Heath of all places?

It also irritates me that the speck on the horizon came out on top.

Does anyone know if there are any other places that you can get a police caution for using a tripod? I use a tripod or, more often, a monopod in public spaces and never dreamt that it could land me in trouble with the criminal law.
 
Paul Griffin said:
There is some confusion about what has actually happened here. Some people are saying that these are not really police, others that they are. Some say that it's not really a caution but more of a fixed penalty fine. Others say that it is a proper police caution.

If it's a proper caution then it shows up, I believe, on an enhanced DBS check. Alan Rusbridger won't be worried about that but it could have quite serious ramifications for others should they find themselves in a similar position. What conclusions could a potential employer at a school draw from the fact you have a police caution for using a tripod on Hampstead Heath of all places?

It also irritates me that the speck on the horizon came out on top.

Does anyone know if there are any other places that you can get a police caution for using a tripod? I use a tripod or, more often, a monopod in public spaces and never dreamt that it could land me in trouble with the criminal law.
Click to expand...

Their are some other places,they are usually well signed about tripod use :)
 
Paul Griffin said:
Lots of places you can't use tripods, but places where it is criminal to do so? Specifically the use of a tripod, not a related offence, i.e. but for the use of a tripod no offence would have been committed?



True.
Click to expand...

Not sure about it being an criminal act :)
 
andyscott said:
Stupid mistake number one was accepting the caution never ever accept a caution, ever.
Click to expand...

I'm glad he did accept it in this case as means nothing to him and resulted in a light hearted story. Had he refused or become arsey then it could have escalated and he would then be accused of 'typical leftie guardianistas provoking police'
 
I remember taking many shots on Hampstead heath back in the Fifties. They had park rangers in those days. The police never came near.

Although it must have been against the law then to use a "Stand Camera" with or with out legs no one ever said any thing.

However Music was most definitely banned. I remember one weekend Ken Colyer and Christ Barber were chased off the heath by Rangers but were invited to play on the roof of a garage overlooking the heath. There were hundreds of young people dancing on the heath well into the evening. I took a number of shots But I have not found them to scan in recent times.
 
Last edited:
andyscott said:
Stupid mistake number one was accepting the caution never ever accept a caution, ever.
Click to expand...
Why?

For some it a very good alternative to being charged and sent to court.

Although in this case, it's not clear what they actually mean by the term 'caution' as to accept a formal police caution it requires the person to have been arrested and interviewed.

Reading this, it's seems he got a £60 fixed penalty. This isn't a police caution, and doesn't form part of any 'criminal' record.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Why?

For some it a very good alternative to being charged and sent to court.

Although in this case, it's not clear what they actually mean by the term 'caution' as to accept a formal police caution it requires the person to have been arrested and interviewed.

Reading this, it's seems he got a £60 fixed penalty. This isn't a police caution, and doesn't form part of any 'criminal' record.
Click to expand...

This is the most important point for me. If he has got a fixed penalty, as you say it seems, I think it is harsh. If he has got a formal caution I think it is downright worrying!

Anyway, this is the image that started the whole thing off: https://instagram.com/p/0IEOZ4PKV0/?taken-by=arusbridger
 
odd jim said:
Why?

For some it a very good alternative to being charged and sent to court.

Although in this case, it's not clear what they actually mean by the term 'caution' as to accept a formal police caution it requires the person to have been arrested and interviewed.

Reading this, it's seems he got a £60 fixed penalty. This isn't a police caution, and doesn't form part of any 'criminal' record.
Click to expand...
no not any more you can be given a caution on the street for certain offences, the most common is possestion of cannabis.

Because there are lots of cases, where the police offer you the caution as a good deal, but if you stood your ground and said no, the CPS (criminal protection service ;) ) would never ever proceed with the case and would be dropped. In this case they would have to prove which one of the group used the tripod.
 
andyscott said:
no not any more you can be given a caution on the street for certain offences, the most common is possestion of cannabis.

Because there are lots of cases, where the police offer you the caution as a good deal, but if you stood your ground and said no, the CPS (criminal protection service ;) ) would never ever proceed with the case and would be dropped. In this case they would have to prove which one of the group used the tripod.
Click to expand...
No, a Cannabis "caution" isn't the same as the normal police caution. It doesn't form part of a criminal record and it's issue is only recorded on the forces local system. It's not a formal police caution in the true sense.

It's actually called a 'street warning'.

In the England and Wales, you HAVE to have been arrested, interviewed and have to have admitted the offence to receive a formal police caution (if they get caught again for cannabis posession, using this example, it's a £90 fixed penalty, and if they get caught a third time it's arrest and subsequently cautioned or charged in custody).

Cautions aren't issued on the streets although in certain exceptional circumstances it can be done in the offenders home by a suitable officer (such as elderly or disabled offenders, though this hardly ever happens).

What you say about cautions isn't correct. A caution is issued when there is enough evidence for a charge, and as I stated, the offence has been admitted and they don't have previous convictions for the offence. Pretty easy for the CPS to go ahead in those circumstances if they refuse the caution ;)
 
Last edited:
Not a chance not in the force I used to work for ;). The cps would never proceed with most stuff that cautions were issued for.

As far as I know now some crimes be arrested for and dealt with by caution at the road side then de arrested
 
andyscott said:
Not a chance not in the force I used to work for ;). The cps would never proceed with most stuff that cautions were issued for.

As far as I know now some crimes be arrested for and dealt with by caution at the road side then de arrested
Click to expand...
No, they can't, not by formal caution.

A caution has to be administered by an Inspector (usually) in custody.

Some lovely bedtime reading in this PDF https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/simple-cautions-guidance-for-police-and-prosecutors

And if your force is issuing cautions without firm evidence and admissions they are guilty of abuse of process!

What did you do in the force out of interest?

Either way, the chap in this article wasn't issued a formal caution, just a fine!
 
Last edited:
from the bylaws...

"Any person (not being an officer of the Council acting in execution of his duty or other person acting in lawful exercise of any authority) committing any breach of these by-laws shall be subject to a penalty not exceeding pounds, and to a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings for each day on which such offence shall continue after written notice of the offence shall have been given by the Council. (Now level 2 fines.) "

level 2 is apparently upto £500 from what I can find

Also, the offending bylaw

"11. No person shall in any open space, without first obtaining or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a permit from the Council, erect or place or retain any post, rail, fence, photographic stand apparatus, tent, booth, screen, stand, swing or other building,, erection or structure or any obstruction of any kind whatever. "

All taken from the full pdf version HERE

Constabulary Info

More Constabulary Info

Filming Permission - I am guessing with permission, you can use a tripod, even if for personal use.
 
Last edited:
I think I shall emigrate to Russia, they seem to have more freedom than us..................:)
 
sbowler579 said:
I think I shall emigrate to Russia, they seem to have more freedom than us..................:)
Click to expand...

While I understand and even partially agree agree, you must remember this is privately owned land across which people are permitted to travel. It isn't a public park.
 
Yv said:
erection or structure or any obstruction of any kind whatever.
Click to expand...
So you not allowed an "erection" on the heath ?
Thats kinda messed up a few people peoples evenings :D
 
I'd have taken the joggers photo once he started getting aggressive. Surely he's committed an offence for his aggressive behaviour.
The trouble is, he's now thinking he's in the right.
 
ancient_mariner said:
While I understand and even partially agree agree, you must remember this is privately owned land across which people are permitted to travel. It isn't a public park.
Click to expand...

If I am right, it is owned by the City of London Corporation in their role as a local authority. In this sense it is a public space, in the same way as the park at the end of my road in Hillingdon is owned by the council and is a public space. Hillingdon council could decide that they don't want anyone to use a tripod in the park and put signs up to say so. Their land, their rules. It would then be a condition of entry that you do not use a tripod. I suppose they could even put signs up to say that there is a £60 fine if you use a tripod and send enforcement officers to issue them (this is the way that private car parks operate isn't it?).

What they could not do, as far as I am aware, is call the police and have you prosecuted for a criminal offence.
 
Paul Griffin said:
If I am right, it is owned by the City of London Corporation in their role as a local authority. In this sense it is a public space, in the same way as the park at the end of my road in Hillingdon is owned by the council and is a public space. Hillingdon council could decide that they don't want anyone to use a tripod in the park and put signs up to say so. Their land, their rules. It would then be a condition of entry that you do not use a tripod. I suppose they could even put signs up to say that there is a £60 fine if you use a tripod and send enforcement officers to issue them (this is the way that private car parks operate isn't it?).

What they could not do, as far as I am aware, is call the police and have you prosecuted for a criminal offence.
Click to expand...
You're getting mixed up between simple rules and bye-laws, breaking one would be considered trespass, breaking the other is a criminal offence.
 
Phil V said:
You're getting mixed up between simple rules and bye-laws, breaking one would be considered trespass, breaking the other is a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

I should have added another couple of lines to clarify because it is the difference between rules and bylaws I am trying to highlight. I think it is acceptable to have rules along those lines, albeit I would think that they are silly and disagree with them. But I think it is troubling to have a bylaw that criminalises something so trivial as using a tripod.
 
In summary, it looks like the outcome was.......

Using a tripod in a park = £60 fine

Alleged threatening/abusive behaviour = No charge


Doesn't seem quite right to me.


Chris
 
four of whom are dog handlers. Each dog handler is assigned a dog and they then become a working team
Click to expand...

Is this for the dogging offences?:exit:
 
Paul Griffin said:
I should have added another couple of lines to clarify because it is the difference between rules and bylaws I am trying to highlight. I think it is acceptable to have rules along those lines, albeit I would think that they are silly and disagree with them. But I think it is troubling to have a bylaw that criminalises something so trivial as using a tripod.
Click to expand...
Bylaws are still (sometimes criminal) laws enacted by acts of Parliament so can still be tried in magistrates courts. They are as good and enforceable as any normal statute. All towns and cities have them, you'd be surprised how many obscure and ridiculous (and out of date) some of these are, but even the very old ones are still enforceable.

Rules are obviously something anyone can make up, but are not enforceable by law.

As This is a bylaw so if the fixed penalty isn't paid it would proceed to magistrates court as per any FPN.
 
Last edited:
I feel sorry for the council - they must be short of cash to enforce a 1932 law
 
There are many laws which are older than 1932 and are in everyday use.
 
shreds said:
There are many laws which are older than 1932 and are in everyday use.
Click to expand...
Try this for size, the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (still active) which has this gem;

"It is an offence to beat or shake any carpet rug or mat in any street in the Metropolitan Police District, although you are allowed to shake a doormat before 8am."
 
odd jim said:
Bylaws are still (sometimes criminal) laws enacted by acts of Parliament so can still be tried in magistrates courts. They are as good and enforceable as any normal statute. All towns and cities have them, you'd be surprised how many obscure and ridiculous (and out of date) some of these are, but even the very old ones are still enforceable.

Rules are obviously something anyone can make up, but are not enforceable by law.

As This is a bylaw so if the fixed penalty isn't paid it would proceed to magistrates court as per any FPN.
Click to expand...

'Rules' displayed prominently on signs by entrances would indeed be enforceable by law. By continuing into the park you would be forming a contract and if you broke the rules you would be trespassing. Any legal proceedings would take place in the civil courts and you would not end up with a criminal record. If a local authority really thinks it is so terrible that people use tripods, it seems silly to me but that's their call. However, in my opinion such a trifling 'offence' should not be criminal.
 
Paul Griffin said:
'Rules' displayed prominently on signs by entrances would indeed be enforceable by law. By continuing into the park you would be forming a contract and if you broke the rules you would be trespassing. Any legal proceedings would take place in the civil courts and you would not end up with a criminal record. If a local authority really thinks it is so terrible that people use tripods, it seems silly to me but that's their call. However, in my opinion such a trifling 'offence' should not be criminal.
Click to expand...
But you've said it yourself - rules (and the offence of trespass) are civil matters. Bylaws are not civil laws.

By entering a venue which has rules, you agree to the terms of their contract, and they can take civil remedies against you if you breach them but they are very costly and never achieve much!

A park (or any area covered by bylaws such as town centres and airports) is a wholly different kettle of fish.
 
Last edited:
st599 said:
No. But then the police are entitled to arrest you and hold you in the cells until they can work out your identity.
Click to expand...
Yes you are, you need to provide full name and address details that are suitable for service of summons, hense why there's a power of arrest if you don't provide these details.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
But you've said it yourself - rules (and the offence of trespass) are civil matters. Bylaws are not civil laws.

By entering a venue which has rules, you agree to the terms of their contract, and they can take civil remedies against you if you breach them but they are very costly and never achieve much!

A park (or any area covered by bylaws) is a wholly different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know I said it, that's the point I am making! Something should not be criminal unless there is very good reason for it to be criminal. Don't you think it's silly that someone can take photos on Hampstead Heath, all perfectly legally, but if they use a tripod all of a sudden they are a criminal?
 
Paul Griffin said:
Yes, I know I said it, that's the point I am making! Something should not be criminal unless there is very good reason for it to be criminal. Don't you think it's silly that someone can take photos on Hampstead Heath, all perfectly legally, but if they use a tripod all of a sudden they are a criminal?
Click to expand...
But it's not necessarily a criminal offence, just because it comes under legal statute. Just like speeding (for example) isn't a criminal offence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top