Police caution for using a tripod on Hampstead Heath

An officer might decide that a person’s name cannot be readily
ascertained if they fail or refuse to give it when asked, particularly
after being warned that failure or refusal is likely to make their arrest
necessary (see
Note 2D)
. Grounds to doubt a name given may arise if
the person appears reluctant or hesita
nt when asked to give their name
or to verify the name they have given.


From https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...achment_data/file/117583/pace-code-g-2012.pdf
 
Keith W said:
I don't think so
Click to expand...
If it's an offence that ultimately, they could be summon'd for, then yes. But the offence would be a breach of whatever act and section applies for a bylaw like this, not necessarily "using a tripod".

Otherwise the law would be unenforceable and simply wouldn't exist!

You can be arrested for any offence in England and Wales as long as an arrest necessity is met, one being "in order to ascertain the identity of the offender", it doesn't matter what the offence is anymore.
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
This is a screwed up legal system when using a tripod is a more serious offence than speeding :mad:
Click to expand...
No one said it was more serious?

Neither are criminal and speeding actually carries a higher fine (FPN £100 for speeding, £60 for this onerous tripod offence).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
No one said it was more serious?

Neither are criminal and speeding actually carries a higher fine (FPN £100 for speeding, £60 for this onerous tripod offence).
Click to expand...
So if using a tripod is not a criminal offence why do you have to give your name and address? (I understand that you have to give name and address when driving a motor vehicle even if no offence whatsoever is committed, but the tripod user was not driving a motor vehicle)
 
boliston said:
So if using a tripod is not a criminal offence why do you have to give your name and address? (I understand that you have to give name and address when driving a motor vehicle even if no offence whatsoever is committed, but the tripod user was not driving a motor vehicle)
Click to expand...
Because it's an offence that if you don't pay the fixed penalty, you'd go to court for (or if you refused the fixed penalty). To go to court they need to serve a summons, so they need to know a) who to write the FPN to and b) who to send the summons to and where to send it if the FPN isn't complied with.

If people didn't know who hey were reporting it won't really work!
 
I know Jim says otherwise but I think speeding and using a tripod on Hampstead Heath are in fact criminal offences. If they are not, then what are they?
 
odd jim said:
Because it's an offence that if you don't pay the fixed penalty, you'd go to court for (or if you refused the fixed penalty). To go to court they need to serve a summons, so they need to know a) who to write the FPN to and b) who to send the summons to and where to send it if the FPN isn't complied with.

If people didn't know who hey were reporting it won't really work!
Click to expand...

Presumably if you are summonsed to the criminal courts you are then convicted. But how can you be convicted if you haven't committed a criminal offence?
 
It was in relation to the question: are you obliged to give you name and details?

No your not obliged

You would only be obligated to give your details if you are suspected of committing an offence for which you can be arrested

This was a civil matter, not a criminal one
 
Keith W said:
It was in relation to the question: are you obliged to give you name and details?

No your not obliged

You would only be obligated to give your details if you are suspected of committing an offence for which you can be arrested

This was a civil matter, not a criminal one
Click to expand...
So you can only be fined if you VOLUNTARILY give your name and address?
 
Paul Griffin said:
I know Jim says otherwise but I think speeding and using a tripod on Hampstead Heath are in fact criminal offences. If they are not, then what are they?
Click to expand...
Speeding definitely isn't a criminal offence, it's a traffic offence. Which is why you don't have to disclose it when asked for any criminal history.

Traffic offences don't become "criminal offences" until you get to drink driving, dangerous driving and above (death by etc).

As for the tripod breach, I can't actually see the specific offence but my gut tells me it's very unlikely!

Edit - actually, having checked it appears that all bylaws are in effect criminal offences, but most aren't recorded by the Home Office as crimes so would not be disclosable or recorded on an individual's criminal history!
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
So you can only be fined if you VOLUNTARILY give your name and address?
Click to expand...
No, you'll be fined anyway. If you give your name and address, you'll be fined. If you don't, you'll be arrested, then fined!

If we didn't have to give our details, how would any offences be dealt with or enforced, people would just walk away?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I guess it depends on the offence itself but as above, I can't find this tripod offence as one listed by the Home Office.
Click to expand...

Isnt the 'any erection ' (fnar fnar) bye law offence usually used to deal with camping and or fishing(with shelters) - thats how we use ours (and not being constables the dealing is more 'you're breaking x byelaw so do yourself a favour and go gorth and multiply theres a good lad'). It wouldnt occur to me to invoke it for a tripod or even a hide so long as the photographer wasnt a bell end about it
 
big soft moose said:
Isnt the 'any erection ' (fnar fnar) bye law offence usually used to deal with camping and or fishing(with shelters) - thats how we use ours (and not being constables the dealing is more 'you're breaking x byelaw so do yourself a favour and go gorth and multiply theres a good lad'). It wouldnt occur to me to invoke it for a tripod or even a hide so long as the photographer wasnt a bell end about it
Click to expand...
Yes I'd think so, but was this a specific offence?
 
Keith W said:
It was in relation to the question: are you obliged to give you name and details?

No your not obliged

You would only be obligated to give your details if you are suspected of committing an offence for which you can be arrested

This was a civil matter, not a criminal one
Click to expand...
No, it's not civil, bylaws aren't civil, they are enacted by parliament. It's as enforceable as any offence, and you can be arrested (as with any offence) if arrest criteria are met, as per a previous post.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Yes I'd think so, but was this a specific offence?
Click to expand...

according to the granuaid article its a specific cluse under the LCC byelaws 1932 section 11 baning photographic stand aparatus - I'd assume originally intended to stop photographic fly trading on the heath of the 'take your picture guvnor' type belonging to an earlier age.

our byelaws don't have that clause - but do have the standard 'any errection' clause
 
Paul Griffin said:
Presumably if you are summonsed to the criminal courts you are then convicted. But how can you be convicted if you haven't committed a criminal offence?
Click to expand...
You can be 'convicted' of any offence even non criminal ones, hense the traffic offence example. A conviction is simply a finding of guilt.

Though I do now agree that it would appear this bylaw does come under the auspices of a criminal offence by virtue its a bylaw and they are ALL criminal offences!

But I don't think this is one recorded by the Home Office so I maintain that this doesn't form a, or part of a criminal record.
 
big soft moose said:
according to the granuaid article its a specific cluse under the LCC byelaws 1932 section 11 baning photographic stand aparatus - I'd assume originally intended to stop photographic fly trading on the heath of the 'take your picture guvnor' type belonging to an earlier age.

our byelaws don't have that clause - but do have the standard 'any errection' clause
Click to expand...
This is the problem with bylaws. Any authority can make up their own, so there is no consistancy at all. What might be lawful in one area might not be in another!
 
I thought we'd established ages ago that breaking a bye law is a crime.

:thinking:
 
Phil V said:
I thought we'd established ages ago that breaking a bye law is a crime.

:thinking:
Click to expand...


Yes indeed we did Phil but I confused things when I questioned if this actual offence was criminal!

But, backing up what I said about non recordable offences, it appears no bylaw offences are recordable by the Home Office (which makes sense as it would be an endless list of minor rubbish!). The legislation list of recordable crime is listed here under their respective acts;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1139/made

So whilst breaching a bylaw is a "criminal" offence, it's not a recordable offence thus won't give you a criminal record (though they **might** show up on an enhanced CRB check but let's not go there...)

Phew.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I thought we'd established ages ago that breaking a bye law is a crime.

:thinking:
Click to expand...


we did - but not everyone reads the whole thread

Also the not giving your details thing is bad advice even in a purely civil matter like say trespass , it falls under the 'acting like an obstreperous cock' criteria , and will just exarcerbate the situation.

I remember one bloke (back when i was working in MK) who started off with realtively minor a flytipping offence (which had he put it back in his car and f***ed off I wouldnt have taken further) , refused to identify himself to me (which was pretty pointless given I had his car reg), became abusive , at which point I called the police , he was abusive to them as well, eventually pushed an officer in the chest, at which point they attempted to arrest him , so he punched one of them.... and long story short what could have been resolved with a "sorry mate, won't happen again" became assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest and generally acting like an all round cocksocket ... well done. :shake:
 
odd jim said:
So whilst breaching a bylaw is a "criminal" offence, it's not a recordable offence thus won't give you a criminal record (though they **might** show up on an enhanced CRB check but let's not go there...)

Phew.
Click to expand...

Thing is - CRB, or DBS as it is now, in most cases is about checking that your prospective employye isnt a nonce , or a serial killer, or a fraudster etc.. so yes it might come back as 'this guy once used a tripod on hampstead heath' , but it would yake a seriously paranoid employer to withdraw an offer of employment based on that (especially if it was declared on the form)
 
big soft moose said:
Thing is - CRB, or DBS as it is now, in most cases is about checking that your prospective employye isnt a nonce , or a serial killer, or a fraudster etc.. so yes it might come back as 'this guy once used a tripod on hampstead heath' , but it would yake a seriously paranoid employer to withdraw an offer of employment based on that (especially if it was declared on the form)
Click to expand...
Exactly, it might show but won't mean anything as it's not what they're really checking for, so will immediately be discounted.
 
odd jim said:
Exactly, it might show but won't mean anything as it's not what they're really checking for, so will immediately be discounted.
Click to expand...

(y) a lot of preople see DBS as a pass/fail but its not that simple ( I say with some authority as a manager who regularly as DBS checks done on prospective employees)
 
big soft moose said:
we did - but not everyone reads the whole thread

Also the not giving your details thing is bad advice even in a purely civil matter like say trespass , it falls under the 'acting like an obstreperous cock' criteria , and will just exarcerbate the situation.....
Click to expand...

"trespass" could be something as innocuous as taking a photo somewhere where it is against the rules such as a shopping centre - this is VERY different from the flytipping scenario that you describe, where actual harm is caused to the land owner (it would cost them money to have the rubbish removed).
 
boliston said:
"trespass" could be something as innocuous as taking a photo somewhere where it is against the rules such as a shopping centre - this is VERY different from the flytipping scenario that you describe, where actual harm is caused to the land owner (it would cost them money to have the rubbish removed).
Click to expand...
The shopping centre example wouldn't be trespass as they entered with permission. Breaking the rules once in doesn't constitute trespass, more of a breach of agreement between the photographer and the shopping centre. I guess it's like entering a car park but then not buying a ticket. You're not trespassing but likely to get a civil invoice dressed up as a fine!
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
"trespass" could be something as innocuous as taking a photo somewhere where it is against the rules such as a shopping centre - this is VERY different from the flytipping scenario that you describe, where actual harm is caused to the land owner (it would cost them money to have the rubbish removed).
Click to expand...

yeah but the same applies - if you are stopped while taking a photo on private land theres nothing to be gained by acting like an obstreperous hard on, refusing to identify yoiurself and generally being a cock ... that will just end in them calling the police. (yes trespass is a civil matter unless its agravated, but if someone refuses to leave/desist when asked to by agents of the landowner they are within their rights to call for police asistance to remove the trespasser - and refusal to cooperate with the police will end in arrest (If a cop wants to arrest you he can find a way) )

Being politely cooperative (so long as they arent majorly out of line like trying to confiscate gear or insisting you delete images etc) will lead to a far less painful experience allround, and the chances of them actually taking a court case are minimal. Come to that even if you are too paranoid to give them your real details, politely telling them that you are bob smith of 8 acacia avenue will still be less aggro than getting arsey and standing on your rights
 
odd jim said:
The shopping centre example wouldn't be trespass as they entered with permission. Breaking the rules once in doesn't constitute trespass, more of a breach of agreement between the photographer and the shopping centre. I guess it's like entering a car park but then not buying a ticket. You're not trespassing but likely to get a civil invoice dressed up as a fine!
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree, imo strictly speaking it is trespass if you refuse to stop/leave - because the permissive access has conditions , once you've broken those conditions you no longer have permission to be there (I dealt with this a lot while working as a PRoW offiucer - clasic case being cycling on a footpath.... the footpath gives you permission to pass and freely repass on foot (or in a wheel chair or class one mobility scooter) it doesnt give you permission to cycle and therefore someone doing so is guilty of trespass , if the landowner wants to sue them for it )
 
big soft moose said:
I don't entirely agree, imo strictly speaking it is trespass if you refuse to stop/leave - because the permissive access has conditions , once you've broken those conditions you no longer have permission to be there (I dealt with this a lot while working as a PRoW offiucer - clasic case being cycling on a footpath.... the footpath gives you permission to pass and freely repass on foot (or in a wheel chair or class one mobility scooter) it doesnt give you permission to cycle and therefore someone doing so is guilty of trespass , if the landowner wants to sue them for it )
Click to expand...
You're probably right, the only reason I thought it might not be is I thought there was a stating "having entered as a trespasser" but realised I was thinking of something else!
 
odd jim said:
You're probably right, the only reason I thought it might not be is I thought there was a stating "having entered as a trespasser" but realised I was thinking of something else!
Click to expand...

isnt that for squatting - "having entered as trespasser , knows or ought to know that he/she is a trespasser and lives or intends to live there"
 
Returning to my point about not acting like a cock , having checked my bible aka the big blue book (the PRoW handbook), it appears that a police officer can ask a civil trespasser to leave if they do any of the following (S61 of CJPOA)

  • they have damaged the land/premises; or
  • they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents; or
  • between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land

acting like a cock is very easy to construe as threatening ,abusive or insulting behaviour - refusing to leave , or returning within 3 months is an arrestable offence (police can also seize vehicles if relevant)

Also S68 of CJPOA provides that agravated trespass (a criminal offence) occurs when a trespasser does anything (with reference to any lawful activity on the land) which has the effect of

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

(this is inaddition to the more traditional agravations of commiting another offence while you are there)

Although that is meant to deal more with things like hunt sab it could be held that a photographer setting up a tripod so that it obstructs a path , or repeatedly firing a flash in a distracting manner was guilty of these - especially if hes a complete cockend when challenged about his behaviour

(it used to be that S68 only applied in the open air, but that was changed by S59 of the ASB act 2003 )
 
big soft moose said:
Returning to my point about not acting like a cock , having checked my bible aka the big blue book (the PRoW handbook), it appears that a police officer can ask a civil trespasser to leave if they do any of the following (S61 of CJPOA)

  • they have damaged the land/premises; or
  • they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents; or
  • between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land

acting like a cock is very easy to construe as threatening ,abusive or insulting behaviour - refusing to leave , or returning within 3 months is an arrestable offence (police can also seize vehicles if relevant)

Also S68 of CJPOA provides that agravated trespass (a criminal offence) occurs when a trespasser does anything (with reference to any lawful activity on the land) which has the effect of

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

(this is inaddition to the more traditional agravations of commiting another offence while you are there)

Although that is meant to deal more with things like hunt sab it could be held that a photographer setting up a tripod so that it obstructs a path , or repeatedly firing a flash in a distracting manner was guilty of these - especially if hes a complete cockend when challenged about his behaviour

(it used to be that S68 only applied in the open air, but that was changed by S59 of the ASB act 2003 )
Click to expand...
Hmm 6 or more vehicles between them? Why is this law never used when the gypsys come to town, break down gates and set up camp in the local field's?
 
big soft moose said:
I don't entirely agree, imo strictly speaking it is trespass if you refuse to stop/leave - because the permissive access has conditions , once you've broken those conditions you no longer have permission to be there (I dealt with this a lot while working as a PRoW offiucer - clasic case being cycling on a footpath.... the footpath gives you permission to pass and freely repass on foot (or in a wheel chair or class one mobility scooter) it doesnt give you permission to cycle and therefore someone doing so is guilty of trespass , if the landowner wants to sue them for it )
Click to expand...

I'm having some difficulty understanding what you would sue for. Doesn't the landowner have to prove damage, or that the trespasser obtained some benefit from his actions, which can be translated into financial terms?
 
big soft moose said:
yeah but the same applies - if you are stopped while taking a photo on private land theres nothing to be gained by acting like an obstreperous hard on, refusing to identify yoiurself and generally being a cock ....
Click to expand...

As long as you POLITELY decline to provide personal details then there is no harm done as long as you don't aggravate the situation by refusing to leave. I would certainly not have any inclination to LIE about my details as hinted at in a later post.
 
lie this comment from the replies to the Guardian article

I had the same treatment wandering around the fair on Hampstead Heath a couple of years ago! The police approached me and said someone had complained that I'd been taking photos of kids. I hadn't, at least not individual ones, but it was busy in the fair! I let them ramble on and eventually they gave me a similar warning note, after which I told them I was chairman of the Hampstead Photographic Society. 'You should have said earlier,' one commented! But the Heath is no longer open land, sold off by Thatcher like the rest of Britain, and now run by the Corporation of London, with all sorts of restrictions such as the use of tripods. Of course the Royal Parks and most of the rest of public open spaces operate under similar authoritarian rules, and just try taking a camera into Brent Cross, Westfield or any of the other privatised places ...
 
MartynK said:
I'm having some difficulty understanding what you would sue for. Doesn't the landowner have to prove damage, or that the trespasser obtained some benefit from his actions, which can be translated into financial terms?
Click to expand...

You sue for the act of trespass - in the case of cyclists generally because they are causing a nuisance to other legitimate users ... the desired result is not compensation to the landowner (although that can happen if there is damage to the path surface) but a court order not to do it again...
 
ljphil78 said:
Hmm 6 or more vehicles between them? Why is this law never used when the gypsys come to town, break down gates and set up camp in the local field's?
Click to expand...

Because left wing political correctness - if they break down gates they are also guilty of criminal damage and can be evicted by the police with 48 hours... - the law is there its the will to use it when bleeding heart social workers get involved and the left wing press starts saying oh but you is racists

(in actual fract the 6 vehicles provision in CJPOA is more intended for dealing with demonstrations and raves, its not needed for traveller incursions because laws already exist for that)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top