Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

8 posts
GuyD73
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:59 am
Options:
Share this post on:

Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby GuyD73 » Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:16 pm

So, some of you might remember a post a while back about dog fouling between the commons. Large numbers of us are utterly sick of it and feel more needs to be done to reduce it. Well, a lady posted some video from her home CCTV of a man allowing his dog to foul on Mallinson Road (incidentally, the same camera caught the same man repeating this a fortnight later). I put an image of the man on local forums to see if anyone recognised him and knew where he lived – someone did and got in touch anonymously. The evidence and this information were then passed onto the council enforcement team who subsequently decided to bring a prosecution.Here’s the result and an explanation of the legal process from the council. The fine was £40.00 per offence, a contribution towards costs of £100.00 (which equates to about 20% of the actual costs), and a victim surcharge of £30.00.Some civil enforcement cases (all of ours) are now being heard through a Single Justice Procedure (SJP) at the court.  This means that the cases are not listed for hearing at court, but looked at in a private sitting of the Justice (JP or DJ), who will determine if the guilty plea is accepted, or if the case warrants a full hearing, particularly If the defendant pleads not guilty.  There is not a set date for SJP hearings, and they are not open to the public.  Legal services have advised me though that the sentence is public knowledge and can be advised post-conviction.Now I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this. I’m pleased that a repeat offender has been punished and hopeful that he might now mend his ways, which might mean as many as 365 piles of poo NOT on the streets btc from now on. However, I do find it a bit disappointing that the procedure is private because I think proven repeat offenders ought to be publicly shamed, as a deterrent to others not to offend. I’m also not terribly happy with the level of the fine. The max is £100 I understand but I’m not sure if that is in total or per offence, either way, I don’t think it’s commensurate for this repellent action – this man’s two fines amount to less than a parking ticket FGS!  Even worse, a contribution of £100 to costs of approx. £500? So a net £400 cost to the taxpayer presumably, splendid (not)! While I’m glad the council can be seen to be enforcing this by-law, I don’t think the fine is enough and won’t serve to meaningfully deter others. Even if this chap has to pay £5/week from his pension for a year or two, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable price to pay for this minging behaviour.I think there are a number of difficulties the council faces with prosecutions, not least that you need very strong video evidence and to know where the culprit lives. However, one of the main issues is that the enforcement team only work til 9pm (and this may perhaps be only two of the team of four for the whole borough), and all the evidence, both anecdotally from residents and more robustly from research from Keep Britain tidy, suggests that most offending occurs under cover of darkness and when dog owners are taking them out for their evening poo before turning in (9-12pm). Does anyone think the answer might be changing the teams hours so they can work when most of the offending is happening? Just a thought…Also interested as to what people think generally about how best to change people’s behaviour and make our streets cleaner. Anyway, I would urge any of you who have CCTV or a motion activated doorbell video thing and find dog mess outside your house, please do check your footage and report it. If they possibly can, the council WILL take action. If an area near you is particularly bad, then please let them know and they can target it with enforcement personnel. Mark CallisAnimal Welfare Service ManagerTel: 020 8871 7132E Mail: mark.callis@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk
windmill26
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:04 pm
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby windmill26 » Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:45 pm

Thank you for posting .I agree that the fine is not big enough and I don't think that the cost should be passed to the taxpayers.At this point I would prefer something like community service to be implemented.If caught ,send them around for a week of two for a couple of hours a day to pick up dog poo,litter etc. (with a member of the enforcement team supervising).You will find that will be more a deterrent for this kind of behaviour than a £100 fine!
juliantenniscoach
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:39 pm
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby juliantenniscoach » Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:06 pm

@Windmill26 Great idea.
the parsley song
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:48 pm
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby the parsley song » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:25 pm

If you could get to the nub of the issue without the loooooong post and waffle, that would be great. Only skimmed through but I agree that the fine is ridiculous. Similar to this fine that was reported in the Wandsworth Guardian recently: A guy called Tauqir Butt was caught flytipping and only got an £80 fine when it got to court - far less than what it cost (us) to investigate and bring him to court and probably less or only the same as what it would have cost him to get rid of it legally. Equally completely ridiculous.  http://www.putneysw15.com/default.asp?s ... tip006.htm
GuyD73
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:59 am
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby GuyD73 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:37 am

Yes, thanks @Windmill26, it is a great idea, though sadly I have a feeling it isn't one which can be decided at borough level, though I'll enquire. On this occasion, the offender in question being somewhat elderly and frail-looking, I doubt it would have been an appropriate solution but for others, I'm sure losing 4 weekends to picking up litter and dog mess might represent a far better deterrent than a small fine. Parsley song, you again manage to be objectionable for no reason, reinforcing the negative opinion many on this site already have of you. Well done  😉   
somemum
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:27 pm
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby somemum » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:28 am

Well done GuyD73 for doing something about it! I agree, at the very least the offender should be charged the full legal costs, otherwise, as you say, we are all paying for them to be prosecuted. Making them pick up dog poo for a whole day would also be brilliant! 
the parsley song
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:48 pm
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby the parsley song » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:56 pm

Guy Dorrell

It is the magistrates you need to go after, not me - why are they are giving out such tiny sentences compared to the offence - dog poo and flytipping. I was agreeing with you (idiot).
GuyD73
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:59 am
Options:
Share this post on:

Re: Successful prosecution of local man for repeated dog fouling between the commons - hurrah! but is the fine enough?

Postby GuyD73 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:07 am

Oh PS, it seems you've edited your post and removed the assertion that 'only 5 people will read' my post, well here's some news for you. It was (as of now), viewed 1030 times and I've been thanked by two people, so I'm quite happy with that  😃 
Added to which, I'm perfectly aware that it's the choice of magistrates as to how they apply the fines and that they take the means of the offender into account, so you're not adding anything to the discussion, other than compounding your earlier offensiveness with another insult. This forum would be a far more pleasant place without your toxic presence and many other users of this forum would agree. Your life must be really quite awful for you to be so angry, bitter and unpleasant the entire time, so you have my deepest sympathy, and please don't comment on my posts unless you have anything constructive to contribute, rather than pathetic name calling...