Due to working in a rural area 'Gretna' it's pretty obvious that at one point or another we are going to come across rural crimes and disturbances, today it was "sheep worrying" After lots of digging I found out what the crack was.. Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this and see if any of you guys knew what the definition of sheep worrying was.. As it's pretty obvious that it's not going to be able to tell us for it's self
Sheep worrying
Started by
AidenLove
, Dec 18 2010 06:49 PM
19 replies to this topic
#4
AidenLove
- Topic Starter
-
- Members
-
- 3 posts
I'm new!
Posted 18 December 2010 - 08:33 PM
Sorry for building your hopes up..ha! Cheers folks
#5
Marty4
-
- Members
-
- 172 posts
Learning the Ropes
Posted 18 December 2010 - 10:23 PM
Due to working in a rural area 'Gretna' it's pretty obvious that at one point or another we are going to come across rural crimes and disturbances, today it was "sheep worrying" After lots of digging I found out what the crack was.. Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this and see if any of you guys knew what the definition of sheep worrying was.. As it's pretty obvious that it's not going to be able to tell us for it's self
The new version of the Scottish Beat Officers Companion has a nice section on animals that has a lot of 'rural' type of offences. I bought a copy after completing training just to have as a reference and it's actually coming in quite handy, also has the recent sexual offences changes in it too which is good.
Would really recommend it, it's a good book.
Edited by Marty4, 18 December 2010 - 10:24 PM.
#6
Posted 18 December 2010 - 10:41 PM
Were you thinking of Bestiality CD?Ah... I thought this was going to be about something else...
I second that. I bought it for my studies and it has really helped me.Would really recommend it, it's a good book.
Edited by Snow-copter, 19 December 2010 - 02:27 PM.
#7
AidenLove
- Topic Starter
-
- Members
-
- 3 posts
I'm new!
Posted 19 December 2010 - 07:16 AM
Will have a little browse on patrolstore, eBay and the likes.. Thanks for your recommendation 
#8
Posted 19 December 2010 - 02:01 PM
Don't buy it second hand - get it from Amazon or Waterstones (if you want to have a leaf through first). There are several different additions and there have been several major changes to legislation in recent years. I presume there will be a new one soon with the changes to detention and solicitor access and the new statutory breach.
#9
Posted 24 December 2010 - 01:47 AM
Are we getting a stat. BoP? I don't really keep up to date with criminal development as much as I should!
#10
Posted 24 December 2010 - 09:50 AM
Umm, yes... Did you not get told of the requirement of the breach to have a public element and that family members no longer counted as that public element?! That was a major change basically borking using a breach at domestics. They rushed through legislation to fill this gap in Sec 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 - basically making the threatening and abusive part of a breach statutory. You should have been informed as in many instances when you would charge with a breach you now have this. It carries up to 5 years to is still detainable - although I'm going to assume you at least picked up on the changes to detention 
#11
Posted 24 December 2010 - 11:09 AM
If you're a police officer in Scotland "I don't really keep up to date with criminal development as much as I should!" is totally unacceptable to be frank.Are we getting a stat. BoP? I don't really keep up to date with criminal development as much as I should!
#13
Posted 24 December 2010 - 04:24 PM
My badI'm not
, sure you can appreciate my point! The legislation is here: Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010Section 38 will create a new statutory offence of threatening or alarming behaviour. A person will be guilty of the offence if they behave in a threatening or abusive manner which would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm and intend by their behaviour to cause fear or alarm or are reckless as to whether their behaviour would cause fear or alarm. The behaviour involved can either be a single occurrence or form part of a course of conduct and can be behaviour of any kind i.e. verbal abuse, physical abuse etc. The offence can be committed in public or in private.
Edited by stir_student, 24 December 2010 - 04:25 PM.
#14
Posted 24 December 2010 - 04:43 PM
Ah I see, it basically fills the gap left by a decision (not sure what case) that public doesn't include families. Whats good about that is it will probably mean that swearing at a cop becomes easier to arrest for, since the public element has been removed.
I'm not totally clear on the current set up for swearing at a cop though. I seem to remember that the swearing has to be likely to cause alarm/distress to people arround at the time or a hypothetical person of reasonable firmness. So swearing at a cop in a quiet street wouldn't qualify?
Also, I seem to recall a decision which meant that it the bar was set slightly higher when it was a police officer who was being sworn at.
In any case since it is now "abusive manner which would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm " and in public or private, just about any aggressive swearing would seem to qualify. (After all the kind of abuse the police really would cause alarm/fear to most reasonable people). We will have to wait and see what the courts say!
I'm not totally clear on the current set up for swearing at a cop though. I seem to remember that the swearing has to be likely to cause alarm/distress to people arround at the time or a hypothetical person of reasonable firmness. So swearing at a cop in a quiet street wouldn't qualify?
Also, I seem to recall a decision which meant that it the bar was set slightly higher when it was a police officer who was being sworn at.
In any case since it is now "abusive manner which would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm " and in public or private, just about any aggressive swearing would seem to qualify. (After all the kind of abuse the police really would cause alarm/fear to most reasonable people). We will have to wait and see what the courts say!
#15
Posted 24 December 2010 - 07:35 PM
Two cop breach's are no longer accepted me thinks. Someone somewhere obviously thinks that cops in uniform aren't people and can't be alarmed/annoyed/disturbed by a persons conduct (I personally disagree). Also, I read a BBC news article sometime ago and a Sheriff somewhere was ranting and raving about breach's should have a fear element as well.Ah I see, it basically fills the gap left by a decision (not sure what case) that public doesn't include families. Whats good about that is it will probably mean that swearing at a cop becomes easier to arrest for, since the public element has been removed.
I'm not totally clear on the current set up for swearing at a cop though. I seem to remember that the swearing has to be likely to cause alarm/distress to people arround at the time or a hypothetical person of reasonable firmness. So swearing at a cop in a quiet street wouldn't qualify?
Anyway, this new 'statute breach' may be signalling the end of common law. Expect every other one to be in a statute in the future...
Edited by Snow-copter, 24 December 2010 - 07:44 PM.
#16
Posted 24 December 2010 - 07:54 PM
It'll be the judiciary that brings in the end of common law if it does happen. It was their rulings that brought in things like family not counting as public that led to the current problems. Hopefully that lesson has been learnt and they will be slightly more circumspect about issuing rulings about what constitutes a breach or not.
As for 2 cop breaches, whilst technically legal again I can see a swift pen in the future of anything that didn't meet the old standard, and if it did make it all the way a very swift ruling that the rules for the old breach applied...
But it is possible to have a 2 cop breach, just under very specific circumstances. Basically really outrageous language, threats or racist language. Because those in authority can't be seen to condone any form of racist behaviour so they can't tell us we shouldn't be offended by that
LL Christmas J - swearing at a cop in a quiet street could still be a breach - if it were a residential street in the middle of the night and the swearing was of sufficient volume to be audible to residents it qualifies. Though the powers that be would like some form of either statement from a witness or mention in the police report as to why no statement was taken (anonymous phone call - witness not wanting to make statement cause it is 3am and they are tired...)
As for 2 cop breaches, whilst technically legal again I can see a swift pen in the future of anything that didn't meet the old standard, and if it did make it all the way a very swift ruling that the rules for the old breach applied...
But it is possible to have a 2 cop breach, just under very specific circumstances. Basically really outrageous language, threats or racist language. Because those in authority can't be seen to condone any form of racist behaviour so they can't tell us we shouldn't be offended by that
LL Christmas J - swearing at a cop in a quiet street could still be a breach - if it were a residential street in the middle of the night and the swearing was of sufficient volume to be audible to residents it qualifies. Though the powers that be would like some form of either statement from a witness or mention in the police report as to why no statement was taken (anonymous phone call - witness not wanting to make statement cause it is 3am and they are tired...)
#17
Posted 27 December 2010 - 01:14 AM
I have to agree with you. It seems completely illogical why family wouldn't count as lieges and I do hope they learn a lesson and I hope common law will be left alone.It'll be the judiciary that brings in the end of common law if it does happen. It was their rulings that brought in things like family not counting as public that led to the current problems. Hopefully that lesson has been learnt and they will be slightly more circumspect about issuing rulings about what constitutes a breach or not.
I didn't mean it to sound like cops shouldn't be alarmed/annoyed/disturbed by some of the obscenities that people come out with because I am sure they get annoyed (at least!) when people do, but I thought two cop breach's were no longer acceptable because a) it was used very often b) cops should get use to people using vulgar language towards them, as unfortunately it's part of the job. It seems that they're now allowed but only when extreme language.But it is possible to have a 2 cop breach, just under very specific circumstances. Basically really outrageous language, threats or racist language. Because those in authority can't be seen to condone any form of racist behaviour so they can't tell us we shouldn't be offended by that
#18
Posted 27 December 2010 - 10:38 AM
Snowcopter it is the courts and the fiscals that have decided to get rid of the 2 cop breach - I wasn't criticising anything you said, just letting you know that occasionally it is still possible for 2 cops by themselves to life someone who is being offensive to them!
As with almost everything there were occasions in the dim and distant past in which the 2 cop breach was abused, mainly by winding up someone who frankly was going to be lifted at some point anyway to the point at which they breached earlier on. Yes it was wrong, but not on a beating suspects with hoses level, and the older cops who remember such days know that they are gone.
The thing that annoys me about the arguments for not allowing 2 cop breaches for behaviour that if there was a member of the public present would lead to an arrest is that it allows the individual to see police authority massively undermined. These days buses, trains and hospitals are adorned with posters saying "our staff have the right not to be abused we support prosecution of anyone who does" - that the police don't get that protection sends a strong message.
It is also self reinforcing, as soon as someone says "the police should be able to put up with it" it lowers the bar to saying we must be able to put up with it, you shouldn't join the police unless you can. This just leads to a spiral downwards where what we can be expected to put up with with is never going to be lessened, but ever more instances are going to be viewed as "just part of the job". Witness the willingness for police assaults to be traded away by prosecutors or weakly dealt with by the courts.
As with all things it is about discretion, there are times at which people can swear and be abusive to the police and we'll take it - grief being the key example, if someone was to verbally harangue me when being told their child was dead they wouldn't be getting lifted. Apart from that I fail to see how anyone has a right to treat me differently in terms of what they say to me. Let alone that I am acting on behalf of the populace as a whole to keep the peace - in which case challenging my authority is more than just abusing me as a person it is refusing to accept the societal norms that policing involves.
As with almost everything there were occasions in the dim and distant past in which the 2 cop breach was abused, mainly by winding up someone who frankly was going to be lifted at some point anyway to the point at which they breached earlier on. Yes it was wrong, but not on a beating suspects with hoses level, and the older cops who remember such days know that they are gone.
The thing that annoys me about the arguments for not allowing 2 cop breaches for behaviour that if there was a member of the public present would lead to an arrest is that it allows the individual to see police authority massively undermined. These days buses, trains and hospitals are adorned with posters saying "our staff have the right not to be abused we support prosecution of anyone who does" - that the police don't get that protection sends a strong message.
It is also self reinforcing, as soon as someone says "the police should be able to put up with it" it lowers the bar to saying we must be able to put up with it, you shouldn't join the police unless you can. This just leads to a spiral downwards where what we can be expected to put up with with is never going to be lessened, but ever more instances are going to be viewed as "just part of the job". Witness the willingness for police assaults to be traded away by prosecutors or weakly dealt with by the courts.
As with all things it is about discretion, there are times at which people can swear and be abusive to the police and we'll take it - grief being the key example, if someone was to verbally harangue me when being told their child was dead they wouldn't be getting lifted. Apart from that I fail to see how anyone has a right to treat me differently in terms of what they say to me. Let alone that I am acting on behalf of the populace as a whole to keep the peace - in which case challenging my authority is more than just abusing me as a person it is refusing to accept the societal norms that policing involves.
#19
Posted 02 January 2011 - 06:50 PM
Two cop breach's are no longer accepted me thinks. Someone somewhere obviously thinks that cops in uniform aren't people and can't be alarmed/annoyed/disturbed by a persons conduct (I personally disagree). Also, I read a BBC news article sometime ago and a Sheriff somewhere was ranting and raving about breach's should have a fear element as well.
Anyway, this new 'statute breach' may be signalling the end of common law. Expect every other one to be in a statute in the future...
What I have said is that the new statute may reintroduce it. There is no way that courts can decide that this law doesn't somehow apply to cops, it would be very very difficult for them to read that in to the legislation. With the previous common law the courts could change it as they liked, however they are bound by the words of the parliament.
It'll be the judiciary that brings in the end of common law if it does happen. It was their rulings that brought in things like family not counting as public that led to the current problems. Hopefully that lesson has been learnt and they will be slightly more circumspect about issuing rulings about what constitutes a breach or not.
You are correct, since I don't think there is any executive appetite for a new statutory BoP, however if the judiciary did decide that BoP was no longer to be a crime then we would be left with a gap in the law. It is therefore unlikely to come to an end without the Scottish Govt. enacting some new statute. If this doesn't happen then the only way it will fade away is if it becomes disused by the PF in favour of this new law and fade out that way.
#20
Posted 03 January 2011 - 10:25 PM
Well the breach is fading away in part D-J in that if there is a statutory offence that takes precedence over a common law offence for charging - so the number of breaches is going to drop massively now that the absusive language offence is statutory. It won't take them much effort to make the rest of a breach statutory - basically just copying the definition and updating the odd word!
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
