Imitating a Police man

On 23/04/2013 17:08, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:15:52 +0100, Steve O wrote:

On 22/04/2013 22:47, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:27:55 +0100, Steve O wrote:

snip

I'll try and see if there are any stated cases on it.
In the strictest sense of the legislation, there is an offence, I just
don't know if there are any previous exemptions to it which would
exclude this cyclist from prosecution.

Why on earth do you think that an offence has not been committed?

Because of the CPS charging standards mentioned in my previous post
which would appear to show that the CPS would not prosecute in the
circumstances given, as it cannot be demonstrated that the wearer was
likely to cause harm by his actions.


Where in the law does it say that harm must be caused?



It doesn't.
Read my last paragraph above again.

In message , Steve O
writes
On 23/04/2013 12:31, AlanG wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:27:55 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

On 22/04/2013 19:16, Nightjar wrote:
On 22/04/2013 18:58, Steve O wrote:
...
You have to ask, what is the intent of the person wearing the clothing?
Does he intend to deceive?
It is clear the intent of the cyclist is to reduce traffic speed and
make the road safer for cyclists, so the question really hinges on
whether or not he is trying to deceive someone into believing he was a
police officer for a dishonest purpose.
But you could also argue that he is intending to deceive motorists into
thinking he is a police officer in order to make them slow down.
The problem lies in the fact that the legislation doesn't specify
whether the specific intent has to be for a dishonest or an honest
purpose.
It's debatable, and I personally think that as his intentions are
honest, (ie, he wishes to improve road safety rather than cheat anyone)
it would be difficult to prove an offence had taken place.
As this is such a new concept, there aren't any stated cases to assist.

The reason behind the intent might be a factor in sentencing. It won't
be a factor in deciding guilt.

Colin Bignell

I'll try and see if there are any stated cases on it.
In the strictest sense of the legislation, there is an offence, I just
don't know if there are any previous excemptions to it which would
exclude this cyclist from prosecution.
Would require further research.



There have been a couple of prosecutions for fancy dress police
uniforms. The last I recall was in scotland where the accused was a
strippogram. I don't know how it turned out.


With regards to the Scottish Police Strippogram, he was arrested 22
times and spent almost 140 hrs in custody.
Grampian Police have been criticised for the arrests as none of them
resulted in a prosecution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...04955/Police-a
rrest-stripper-22-times-for-impersonating-an-officer.html

Constable McSavage at it again?
--
Ian

On 23/04/2013 17:09, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:20:02 +0100, Steve O wrote:

snip


I can't find a stated case, but I did find the CPS charging standards
which states that before charging for this particular offence, it must
be shown that the impersonation involves a threat to the safety of any
person, or to property, or is done with a view to financial gain.



And where did you "find" this statement?


On the CPS's own guidelines for charging standards
I've posted it once already, you may have missed it.
It is an extract from the CPS charging standards which is what the CPS
use in deciding whether a person should be charged with impersonating a
police officer or not.
Look under the section entitled "Impersonating a Police Officer"


"You should consider the motive of the defendant. Where the
impersonation involves a threat to the safety of any person, or to
property, or is done with a view to financial gain, then a prosecution
should follow."


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p..._standard/#a29

On 23/04/2013 16:59, Steve O wrote:

On 23/04/2013 08:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 06:14, Steve O wrote:
On 22/04/2013 22:45, Judith wrote:

snip

It is obvious it is the intent to deceive and make people believe
that the person is a police officer.
Therefore an offence has been committed - no ifs buts or maybes.
It matters not one jot whether it is an " honest" or "dishonest"
purpose.

Incorrect- see below.

I really cannot believe that some people cannot understand
something which is very straight forward. (OK there are the
usual ****wits - but they don't count)

You are missing the point and you haven't given the matter enough
thought.
The legislation does not specify what constitutes an intent to
deceive in these matters- it is still open for precedence.
Under normal circumstances for a prosecution for this offence to be
effective the prosecutor should be able to demonstrate that some
harm is likely to result as a consequence of the defendant's actions.

Which bit of the Act provides that?

The act doesn't, but the CPS charging guidelines are very clear and they
do provide for it.

Are CPS "charging guidelines" the same as an Act of Parliament which
creates a criminal offence?

This means the issue is open for precedence.

???

Unfortunately, there is no current precedence to go by which would
indicate that there would be a defence to someone who imitates a police
officer for an honest intention.

Since no such defence is provided by the Act, that would hardly matter.

Obviously, the circumstances do not arise so much, which is why the
particular circumstances given here are so interesting.

Could you really say in this instance that harm will result from a
cyclist dressing as a police officer on the road unless he is doing so
for a criminal purpose?

Does that matter?

Yes it does, according to CPS charging guidelines.

But not according to Parliament's "guidelines", which we usually call
"the law".

Now, I appreciate that the guidelines are not law,, but they do have a
an effect on whether someone could be prosecuted for doing this, which
is the original question.

Do they?

They only have an effect on whether the CPS can be bothered to charge
someone who has been caught impersonating a police officer with intent
to deceive.

Of course not, most likely what will happen is the opposite- the roads
would be safer, which is the intention of the cyclist.

His intention is to deceive other members of the public so that they
will do something nearer to what he wants them to do rather than what
they wanted to do.

Yes of course.

Deceit.

Intent.

Impersonation.

All the elements of the offence.

There is no "I was doing it for what I consider to be a good reason"
defence.

But the CPS, before deciding to charge or not, will consider whether or
not his actions and behaviour are likely to cause harm or loss to
someone.
I do not think we could say it would under the circumstances described.

Harm or loss do not need to be demonstrated.

That intention sits squarely within the wording of the Act and the
behaviour, taken together with the easily-inferred intention, is a
criminal offence.

Of course.

Here us some information from the CPS charging standards relating
to the
offence under section 90 which might help to clarify matters.-

"Section 90 Police Act 1996 creates...

...hardly... the offence already existed under the legislation replaced
by the 1996 Act... the provision merely re-provides existing law...

Well, if you disagree with the CPS'S oewn wording, take it up with them,
not me

It has LONG been an offence to impersonate a police officer. That the
CPS appear not to know that is not a good sign, is it?

...several offences relating to the
impersonation of police officers or the possession of articles of
police
uniform, namely:

Impersonating a police officer (including a special constable);
making a statement or doing any act calculated falsely to suggest
membership of a police force;
wearing a police uniform calculated to deceive;
possessing an article of police uniform.
The circumstances of the case may disclose more than one of these
offences. It will seldom be necessary to charge more than one offence.
You should select the most appropriate.

(Note the following)
You should consider the motive of the defendant. Where the
impersonation
involves a threat to the safety of any person, or to property, or is
done with a view to financial gain, then a prosecution should follow."

"You should consider the motive of the defendant".

That is what it says.

His motive is patently to deceive other members of the public.

Into doing what?

Into doing what the cyclist offender wants.

And is his deception likely to cause harm or loss to someone?

That does not matter in the slightest.

If it isn't, he would not be charged and would not get to court.

That is
the only possible sane reading of the situation.

But you haven't examined his motive, you have dismissed it as
irrelevant, and it clearly isn't.

His motive only needs to be established.

On your basis, it'd be OK to mug passers by as long as the money was
intended only for your ailing granny and the St Botolph's poor-box.

So contrary to your assertion, the motive of the defendant is an
important consideration in whether they will be charged or not with
this
offence.

Had anyone denied that?

I thought you did.

Not at all. Once his motive - wishing to deceive a third party into
believing that he (the offender) is a police officer - that's the motive
done and dusted.

When he is riding his bike on the highway, deceiving other members of
the public, with whom he has no possible contractual relationship, is
his *clear* intention.

IOW, he's committing a criminal offence.

But the likelihood is that he would not be charged.

A cyclist committing a criminal offence but unlikely to be charged,
tried or punished?

Shirley Knott.

On 23/04/2013 21:10, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 08:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 06:15, Steve O wrote:
On 22/04/2013 22:47, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:27:55 +0100, Steve O wrote:

snip

I'll try and see if there are any stated cases on it.
In the strictest sense of the legislation, there is an offence, I just
don't know if there are any previous exemptions to it which would
exclude this cyclist from prosecution.

Why on earth do you think that an offence has not been committed?

Because of the CPS charging standards mentioned in my previous post
which would appear to show that the CPS would not prosecute in the
circumstances given,

They show nothing of the sort.


Really?
Maybe you didn't read the source I quoted.
Here is are the charging standards which the CPS use when considering
prosecution under s.90 Police Act (Impersonating an Officer)


"You should consider the motive of the defendant. Where the
impersonation involves a threat to the safety of any person, or to
property, or is done with a view to financial gain, then a prosecution
should follow."

source -
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p..._standard/#a29


So please explain how a cyclist, who dresses in police type style with
the word "Polite" on the back, with a view to making cars slow down and
be more aware of cyclists, could be said to be engaged in an activity
which involves a threat to the safety of a person or property, or with a
view to financial gain?

He doesn't need to be.

The elements of the offence are adequately covered by the impersonation
and the intent to deceive.

His reasons for doing it are as immaterial as my reasons for needing the
money if I nicked your wallet.

On 23/04/2013 21:12, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 08:42, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2013 06:20, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 00:59, Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:48:57 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

You misunderstand me.
In respect of the legislation, if the cyclist is intending to deceive
people he is a police officer, (which he obviously is, for the purpose
of making them slow down) then the offence would appear complete.
What I was suggesting that there might be some stated case or
precedent
somewhere which specifically states that the dishonest intention
has to
be for an illegal purpose or not.

There surely cannot be such a case, because whilst some legislation
may be open to interpretation, a judge cannot decide to add caveats or
permitted defences to legislation that is perfectly clear without
them.

It could however be used in mitigation, and would probably serve to
reduce the sentence.

I can't find a stated case, but I did find the CPS charging standards
which states that before charging for this particular offence, it must
be shown that the impersonation involves a threat to the safety of any
person, or to property, or is done with a view to financial gain.

That was one possible theoretical pathway to a charge. It was not
claimed to be exclusive.

Er, no, it was actually a practical pathway used by the CPS to decide
whether to charge or not.

That does not militate against what I wrote.

On 23/04/2013 22:12, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nightjar considered Tue, 23 Apr
2013 01:49:52 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On 22/04/2013 21:27, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nightjar considered Mon, 22 Apr
2013 16:54:20 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On 22/04/2013 15:14, Keith wrote:
On 22/04/2013 14:15, Nightjar wrote:


The reasonable person is a red herring anyway. It is an offence to wear
anything that has the appearance of an article of Police uniform with
intent to deceive, whether anybody believes it or not.

Colin Bignell

I always wear a yellow reflecting jacket and a white helmet when on my
motorbike. You are saying that is illegal?

I am saying that wearing anything that has the appearance of being an
article of Police uniform with intent to deceive is an offence under
Section 90 of the Police Act 1996. Do you think that a high visibility
jacket or a white helmet, by themselves, look like part of a Police
uniform, or do you think that they might need chequer tape and a word
that looks like Police to gain that appearance?

Well, it seems to be accepted by the powers that be that PCSOs are
legal, so you'd have to be looking more like a PC than a PCSO does for
it to be illegal.
That's quite a high bar they've set, particularly as a PCSOs behaviour
is far more likely to give the impression of their being an actual
police officer than anyone else's is.

IMO, the defence for a PCSO would be that there is no intent to deceive.

The Man On The Clapham Omnibus would probably say that the entire
purpose of a PCSO is to deceive.

The Man On The Clapham Omnibus would probably say that you are an idiot.

Large latte please.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £45 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Only £8 billion of this is spent on roads.

On 23/04/2013 21:23, Steve O wrote:
On 23/04/2013 15:01, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:14:03 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

You are missing the point and you haven't given the matter enough
thought.
The legislation does not specify what constitutes an intent to deceive
in these matters- it is still open for precedence.

Rubbish. It is perfectly obvious that the "intent to decieve" means
that a person who is not a police officer is intending another party
to think that he *is* a police officer.

Yet the CPS charging standards appear to indicate that the motive of the
defendant should be considered before charging.

I cannot see any possible scope for a different interpretation.

Well, that is how the CPS interpret it.
Before charging anyone with this offence, they will first examine their
motive, and determine whether it was likely that the act could cause
harm or loss to another, or is done for financial gain.

What a load of nonsense.

What if the perp was impersonating an officer with a view to committing
rape, but didn't manage to get that far (and didn't admit his ulterior
motive)?

You'd be for letting him off, I expect, whereas the case would
illustrate the very reason why there should be a no-tolerance approach
to the law against impersonating a police officer.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:18:04 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

On 23/04/2013 12:31, AlanG wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:27:55 +0100, Steve O
wrote:

On 22/04/2013 19:16, Nightjar wrote:
On 22/04/2013 18:58, Steve O wrote:
...
You have to ask, what is the intent of the person wearing the clothing?
Does he intend to deceive?
It is clear the intent of the cyclist is to reduce traffic speed and
make the road safer for cyclists, so the question really hinges on
whether or not he is trying to deceive someone into believing he was a
police officer for a dishonest purpose.
But you could also argue that he is intending to deceive motorists into
thinking he is a police officer in order to make them slow down.
The problem lies in the fact that the legislation doesn't specify
whether the specific intent has to be for a dishonest or an honest
purpose.
It's debatable, and I personally think that as his intentions are
honest, (ie, he wishes to improve road safety rather than cheat anyone)
it would be difficult to prove an offence had taken place.
As this is such a new concept, there aren't any stated cases to assist.

The reason behind the intent might be a factor in sentencing. It won't
be a factor in deciding guilt.

Colin Bignell

I'll try and see if there are any stated cases on it.
In the strictest sense of the legislation, there is an offence, I just
don't know if there are any previous excemptions to it which would
exclude this cyclist from prosecution.
Would require further research.



There have been a couple of prosecutions for fancy dress police
uniforms. The last I recall was in scotland where the accused was a
strippogram. I don't know how it turned out.


With regards to the Scottish Police Strippogram, he was arrested 22
times and spent almost 140 hrs in custody.
Grampian Police have been criticised for the arrests as none of them
resulted in a prosecution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...n-officer.html

Yes. The Scotch plod are a peculiar lot. I recall when it was illegal
to take alcohol on trains the plod were patrolling the railway
stations and nicking whisky from tourists who were on their way home.

On 23/04/2013 08:32, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2013 22:24, Max Demian wrote:

What if it said, "Police notice no parking," and looked just like an
official sign?

Is there an Act which makes that an offence?

Is it an offence? Did the police notice that there was no parking?
It is a matter of symantics.

interpretation 1 "No Parking by order of the Police"
interpretation 2 "The policed have noticed that there is no parking here"

There is a little wiggle room that a good lawyer may argue his way clear.

Andy