SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF MAN FOR REPEATED DOG FOULING BTC - is the fine an adequate deterrent?
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 Callis
Animal Welfare Service Manager
Tel: 020 8871 7132
E Mail: mark.callis@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk
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 Callis
Animal Welfare Service Manager
Tel: 020 8871 7132
E Mail: mark.callis@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk
