18 replies to this topic

[D-J]

An under-18 tries to purchase alcohol using either a fake ID, or dishonestly passing off someone else's. The door staff presented with the ID keep hold of it. I've never come across such a complaint (given the situation of the complainer themselves), but how would an offence like this be dealt with up here? Either the young person from whom it was taken, or the real 'owner' of the ID.

One of these things which seems to pose an ethical issue!

Cheers
DJ

[Mayday]

From experience* - the youth is hastily removed from the club/premises, and the real ID was handed to the Police officer just outside of the club.


*Experience meaning watching it happen to someone at a club. In regards to dealing with the offence, I guess that would go down the officer who got given the "Loaned" licence at the time, not sure what happened then, but as far as i'm aware no Police were involved/contacted the youth who tried to enter underage.

[smt]

Most forces were told about this some time ago, see one of the Home Office posters (attached).

EDIT: I've just found a link to an official source;

http://www.sia.homeo...aspx?newsid=215

Attached Files

•  using-fake-id-people.pdf   481.21K   58 downloads

[Nelson]

The Home Office guidance doesn't apply in Scotland smt.

Offences by the Underager? Depending on the type of ID presented -

• Possession of a false Identity document (S6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 - (http://www.legislati...10/40/section/6). Check S7 for list of relevant documents.
  
• Purchase of alcohol by or for a child or young person (S105 Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 - (http://www.legislati.../16/section/105)

Be aware that only the ID Document offence is punishable by imprisonment, and therefore a detainable offence. I can't think of any offences by the owner of the ID Card, unless he or she allowed the underager to use it to buy alcohol on his or her behalf.

In terms of the Doorstaff keeping hold of the ID, I can't see a huge problem with this provided it's done with the right intentions and it's reported accordingly - just in the same way a shopkeeper would keep a hold of a counterfeit note presented to him.

I would imagine that most doorstaff would just refuse entry or remove the person from the premises without taking the ID Card though - they want an easy life too! Either that or the right owner goes to the premises another day to reclaim it. I doubt they'd contact the Police anyway. Failing that then it might become 'found property' and handed to the Police later.

[smt]

The Home Office guidance doesn't apply in Scotland smt.

Sorry, I didn't see the Scotland bit at the top of the page.

Do you have an equivalent for preparation (e.g. assisting in the commission of an offence)? This might cover the owner of the ID card knowingly giving it to another for an illegal purpose.

Failing that how about an equivalent/similar provision to sending a child to obtain alcohol?

[Nelson]

Yes, as I mentioned there would be offences in that case.

There are common law provisions which state that if the owner is complicit in the offence then they are guilty of the same offence, but unless the owner was to confess to it (unlikely) then there's little evidence, and I doubt the Fiscal would even be interested in running with it. It'd be one of those frustrating 'not guilty plea accepted' cases. If that wasn't the case, has the underager then stolen the card? Perhaps, but I would have thought any charge libelled would have the not guilty accepted as well. Seems a bit like having two bites at the cherry to me.

There is an offence under the Licensing (Scotland) Act as well for sending a child or young person to obtain alcohol, but it refers to the child being sent to purchase alcohol for consumption off the premises. I dare say that the older person can be complicit in the S105 offence, but again, proving it is unlikely.

Edited by Nelson, 31 March 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[D-J]

Yes, as I mentioned there would be offences in that case.

There are common law provisions which state that if the owner is complicit in the offence then they are guilty of the same offence, but unless the owner was to confess to it (unlikely) then there's little evidence, and I doubt the Fiscal would even be interested in running with it. It'd be one of those frustrating 'not guilty plea accepted' cases. If that wasn't the case, has the underager then stolen the card? Perhaps, but I would have thought any charge libelled would have the not guilty accepted as well. Seems a bit like having two bites at the cherry to me.

There is an offence under the Licensing (Scotland) Act as well for sending a child or young person to obtain alcohol, but it refers to the child being sent to purchase alcohol for consumption off the premises. I dare say that the older person can be complicit in the S105 offence, but again, proving it is unlikely.

Cracking. Cheers.
Any offences on the door staffs side?

[Nelson]

I wouldn't have thought so. They'd most likely be treated as witnesses in the case if they'd discovered and reported it.

If they kept it and took it home with them, failing to report or hand it in, I'd look at it differently though.

Each case on its merits...

[Lucozade]

Do you have an equivalent for preparation (e.g. assisting in the commission of an offence)? This might cover the owner of the ID card knowingly giving it to another for an illegal purpose.

http://www.legislati...art-and-attempt

293 Statutory offences: art and part and aiding and abetting.

(1) A person may be convicted of, and punished for, a contravention of any enactment, notwithstanding that he was guilty of such contravention as art and part only.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above or to any express provision in any enactment having the like effect to this subsection, any person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites any other person to commit an offence against the provisions of any enactment shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction, unless the enactment otherwise requires, to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first-mentioned offence.

[Nelson]

I obviously need to brush up on my college notes - it's a shame I ceremoniously burned them a few years ago. For some reason I thought those were common law provisions! Cheers Luco.

[JimmyTwoOne]

In Grampian it works as follows;

 

Young Person using the ID is detained regarding ID Offences, taken doon the road for interview, if they stole the card, charged with theft and ID offence.  If they claim they were allowed to borrow the card off big brother or whatever, then the owner of the card gets taken in also, interviewed, and either done with being an accomplice of sorts, or they provide a statement saying the ID was stolen.

 

Either way, someones getting charged with something.

 

Quite a bit of debate among cops about this, many feel its a misuse of the legislation which was brought into protect regarding fake ID's in the world of serious crime, not the world of 17 year old timmy trying to get boozy.

 

We even have a formal agreement with door staff that this is what we'll do, so if cops try to use discretion, they'll be challeneged / reported by door staff. 

[Better than Jeebs]

Surely you don't need to detain them? Just caution and charge? Thats what I've done anyway.

[Shogy1]

Surely you don't need to detain them? Just caution and charge? Thats what I've done anyway.

That would depend on their age though wouldn't it?

[scottyboy]

That would depend on their age though wouldn't it?

 

You can't 14 someone just because their under 16 .... that's not a legitimate reasons.  All that would happen in that case is you run them home and charge in front of parents.  No requirement to detain in this instance.

[JimmyTwoOne]

You can't 14 someone just because their under 16 .... that's not a legitimate reasons.  All that would happen in that case is you run them home and charge in front of parents.  No requirement to detain in this instance.

 

Thankfully I rarely land with these type of enquiries, but I think the theory is, you have to detain them so that you can question them, since we can't do that at home or the locus nowadays thanks to SARF.  There are ways around it for those willing to try, but many play it safe and just take them down the road.

[scottyboy]

Thankfully I rarely land with these type of enquiries, but I think the theory is, you have to detain them so that you can question them, since we can't do that at home or the locus nowadays thanks to SARF.  There are ways around it for those willing to try, but many play it safe and just take them down the road.

 

You can .... you only have to SARF to interview them if they have been detained under any statute (e.g. s23 MDA, s48 / s50 CL©(S)A 95, s60 CG(S)A 82 .....).  It's still perfectly admissable to question at locus / at home etc for offences provided you haven't detained them under a statute for a search or similar (which in this case you haven't). 

 

Furthermore, why do you need to question? the offence is complete - the door staff ID the person as handing over the fake docs and they've retained them as evidence: you've got ur sufficiency right there. If the person 'no commented' on your interview are you saying you release on 'grounds no longer'?  If you'd charge anyway despite the 'no comment' then you should have gone straight to arrest / report.  We can't detain in Scotland just to interview to see if someone has any defences .... that's for their day in court.

[Better than Jeebs]

If you only have to SARF for interview under a statute detention, why is there an option on the SARF for a volly?

[scottyboy]

If you only have to SARF for interview under a statute detention, why is there an option on the SARF for a volly?

 

Because they've attended at a Police office!  The SARF requirements are as follows:

 

1) Attended (volly) at a Police office and require interview

2) Arrested and conveyed to a Police Office and require interview

3) Detained (s14), conveyed to a Police Office and require interview

 

and the new one:

 

4) Have been detained under any other statute at any place and require to be interviewed.

 

Number 4 means that if you 23 someone at locus and find something you can no longer ask the relevant questions (what is this? who's is it?) and therefore require to 14 them, SARF at office and interview.

 

Provided you haven't detained under any form of statute you can still interview at locus .....

[Warrior87]

I used to snap it infront of their underage faces...or was that a dream