george b

use and misuse of S50 PRA

Recommended Posts

you tube has a fair number of vids of the police and pcso using S50 in rather dubious circumstances. In the last couple of weeks I have witnessed it twice in person and thought I would raise them for comment on here.

firstly I was down by the canal doing some exercises. ( sit ups with a feet on a concrete bench) when two chaps arrived and sat on the adjoining bench. They were clearly a bit sozzled, as they were slurring their words and both had a half empty  two litre bottle of strong cider . They were however good natured and were chatting to me, when a pcso rolled up. He told them that drinking in public was against the law, there are drinking control orders on the parks bit not on public spaces in general. When they declined to hand over their cider, he told them that drinking in public was anti social and he wanted their n& a under S50. They again declined and things got a bit heated , until they picked up their bottles and walked off.

the second was a short distance away, I was standing outside the supermarket, in a select area of town. Sitting on the pavement with his back proped against the shop wall, was a homeless guy, he was clearly homeless by hos general appearance and the fact he had his legs in a cardboard box. A pcso arrived on a bike and told him that sitting there was antisocial and he wanted his n&a under s50.He collected his name, but when told he had no address, told the guy he couldn't be homeless here as it was a resident area and threatened him with a S35 if he didn't remove him self to a less residential (ie posh) part of the city.

both of those appear to be misuse of S50 with a misuse of a S35 thrown in for good measure, to me.

what's the opinion on here ?

Edited by george b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im watching this for opinons, as I've had a disagreement with a PCSO recently where I was fairly certain I was right, but he was a bit of a tool (and I don't want any problems when I'm in training).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 50's are a good tool in your kit. However, they are very much determined by what local orders are in place eg. Public Spaces Protection - to prevent antisocial behaviour.. whatever that is.

If there was an order against drinking along the canal, then alcohol can't be consumed there, simple as. It becomes an offence so they are required to provide name and address if the PCSO requests it, or they can just leave (having surrendered their alcohol - though I think may be a point stipulated in local orders). As for the homeless individual, the PCSO could have construed this to be begging, which, again may have a local order to prevent it. As such, the above applies again, minus the alcohol of course.

Personally, I've not used a section 50 - ever - and I know that many colleagues are the same. To be honest, in both scenarios I would have just left the men alone, rather than antagonising them. Of course, if they were doing anything particularly out of order, then that may change things. My opinion is that section 50s are very much a PCSO 'power' to give them some kind of authority to request details from a person.

Please feel free to correct me if anything is wrong, I'm not best clued up about section 50s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sat on a park eating my lunch.  He told me I had to move on, or he'd need to take my name and address etc.  It's a bit 'posh' round where I was, and I'm guessing a dude with a Staffie doesn't fit the area.  I couldn't be arsed arguing with him to be fair.  Wouldn't mind except our local PCSO likes my dog, and Fatboy has stopped the local kids doing the back garden grand national when being chased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stripe said:

Section 50's are a good tool in your kit. However, they are very much determined by what local orders are in place eg. Public Spaces Protection - to prevent antisocial behaviour.. whatever that is.

If there was an order against drinking along the canal, then alcohol can't be consumed there, simple as. It becomes an offence so they are required to provide name and address if the PCSO requests it, or they can just leave (having surrendered their alcohol - though I think may be a point stipulated in local orders). As for the homeless individual, the PCSO could have construed this to be begging, which, again may have a local order to prevent it. As such, the above applies again, minus the alcohol of course.

Personally, I've not used a section 50 - ever - and I know that many colleagues are the same. To be honest, in both scenarios I would have just left the men alone, rather than antagonising them. Of course, if they were doing anything particularly out of order, then that may change things. My opinion is that section 50s are very much a PCSO 'power' to give them some kind of authority to request details from a person.

Please feel free to correct me if anything is wrong, I'm not best clued up about section 50s.

, but there is not a restriction on drinking on the canal. So he was trying to confiscate their cider with out lawful cause, if there was a restriction ,its not an offence to drink there, only to to refuse to hand it over. At which point there is no legal requirement to provide your details,. As it is no offence had been committed, so he elected to deem  drinking an antisocial act and invoke S50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you tube has a fair number of vids of the police and pcso using S50 in rather dubious circumstances. In the last couple of weeks I have witnessed it twice in person and thought I would raise them for comment on here.
firstly I was down by the canal doing some exercises. ( sit ups with a feet on a concrete bench) when two chaps arrived and sat on the adjoining bench. They were clearly a bit sozzled, as they were slurring their words and both had a half empty  two litre bottle of strong cider . They were however good natured and were chatting to me, when a pcso rolled up. He told them that drinking in public was against the law, there are drinking control orders on the parks bit not on public spaces in general. When they declined to hand over their cider, he told them that drinking in public was anti social and he wanted their n& a under S50. They again declined and things got a bit heated , until they picked up their bottles and walked off.
the second was a short distance away, I was standing outside the supermarket, in a select area of town. Sitting on the pavement with his back proped against the shop wall, was a homeless guy, he was clearly homeless by hos general appearance and the fact he had his legs in a cardboard box. A pcso arrived on a bike and told him that sitting there was antisocial and he wanted his n&a under s50.He collected his name, but when told he had no address, told the guy he couldn't be homeless here as it was a resident area and threatened him with a S35 if he didn't remove him self to a less residential (ie posh) part of the city.
both of those appear to be misuse of S50 with a misuse of a S35 thrown in for good measure, to me.
what's the opinion on here ?


Arguably both ultra vires.

S50 PRA 2002 reads into it S1 CDA 1998 and effectively sets out that "anti-social behaviour" is threshold for A/H/D, person of reasonable firmless, a la S5 POA. This is a fairly high threshold as it would be (without looking at any cases/stare decisis/ratio) the stuff subject to ASBOs.

Drinking in public is, on its own, not anti-social, per se. (Other offences may apply)

Being homeless is not anti-social.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that both cases were an inappropriate use of section 50. If the PCSO thought that a crime had been committed, they have a different power to require name and address which should have been used, not section! If refused the PCSO may be able to detain and use force to prevent the detained person making off, depending on force area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MPotter said:

I do think that both cases were an inappropriate use of section 50. If the PCSO thought that a crime had been committed, they have a different power to require name and address which should have been used, not section! If refused the PCSO may be able to detain and use force to prevent the detained person making off, depending on force area.

they, pcso or the police do not have a general power to require n&a if they suspect you of an offence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 20:08, Beaker said:

I was sat on a park eating my lunch.  He told me I had to move on, or he'd need to take my name and address etc.  It's a bit 'posh' round where I was, and I'm guessing a dude with a Staffie doesn't fit the area.  I couldn't be arsed arguing with him to be fair.  Wouldn't mind except our local PCSO likes my dog, and Fatboy has stopped the local kids doing the back garden grand national when being chased.

that's a worse abuse than either of the examples I gave, but seemingly the same social apartheid of keeping the ' riff raff out of well to do areas? I'm sure that's not what they are told to do, but seemingly what they think their job is. If they were tp take the n&a of any scruffy bloke with a bull terrier round here they would be writing all day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, george b said:

that's a worse abuse than either of the examples I gave, but seemingly the same social apartheid of keeping the ' riff raff out of well to do areas? I'm sure that's not what they are told to do, but seemingly what they think their job is. If they were tp take the n&a of any scruffy bloke with a bull terrier round here they would be writing all day

I wasn't 100% on the legsl points at the time, and having to report something to PSD before I've even finished training wasn't an attractive option. If it happens again he'll get his arse torn out verbally. He behaved exactly the same way we've been warned about.  I know there is an there are some bylaws there about dogs and booze, but he was on the lead and I wasn't boozing. So no case to answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2017 at 23:04, mla said:

 


Arguably both ultra vires.

S50 PRA 2002 reads into it S1 CDA 1998 and effectively sets out that "anti-social behaviour" is threshold for A/H/D, person of reasonable firmless, a la S5 POA. This is a fairly high threshold as it would be (without looking at any cases/stare decisis/ratio) the stuff subject to ASBOs.

Drinking in public is, on its own, not anti-social, per se. (Other offences may apply)

Being homeless is not anti-social.

 

s1 CDA 1998 is no longer in use, that has been replaced by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Policing and Crime Act 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now