A Day in the Litter Court

I recently had a full day sitting in the private prosecutions court.

The work of the court can be a varied affair, but it tends to involve prosecutions brought by one of the local authorities in relation to school non-attendance, waste disposal and littering - hence the often used colloquialism of "litter court".

I do not like littering and it is not something I do. I'm the sort of person that if a gust of wind snatched a shop receipt from my hand, I'd be chasing it down the road in an effort to catch it. Not only is littering unsightly, but it is also unhygienic and a drain on valuable public resources.

Littering is an offence under section 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which states: "A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it."

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500).

Section 88(1) of the Act allows an authorised officer - e.g. someone specifically authorised by the council - to issue a fixed penalty notice as an alternative to prosecution under section 87(1). In those circumstances, the authorised officer can require the person being issued the notice to provide their name and address.

The maximum fixed penalty value is currently £100 in England or £75 in Wales.

If the fixed penalty is paid then that is the end of the matter. If, however, the penalty goes unpaid, then the council will typically commence proceedings in the Magistrates' Court.

It is an offence under section 88(8B) of the Act for the person being issued a fixed penalty to refuse to provide their name or address, or to provide a false or inaccurate name or address. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000).

On this occasion there were several alleged litterbugs on our list, but as is often the case none of them actually attended. I am going to describe the outcome of the cases against two defendants. The first buried her head in the sand and tried to wriggle out of her responsibilities; the second was a bit more cooperative with both the council and the court.

The first defendant had failed to respond to the summons or provide any information about her personal circumstances.

She had been observed by an authorised officer stubbing out her cigarette on a wall, dropping the butt onto the ground and then walking away. She was stopped by the officer, cautioned for the offence, and asked to provide some identification to confirm her details. She presented a provisional driving licence displaying her correct name and date of birth, but an incorrect address. The council had to make further enquiries to confirm her current address.

Both offences proved. Considering the offences in totality, we decided to impose a Band B fine on an assumed weekly income of £440. We also ordered the defendant to pay the council's prosecution and investigation costs.

Sentence: Fine = £440; Prosecution costs = £85; Investigation costs = £200; Surcharge = £176. Total payable to the court = £901, full payment within 28 days, collection order made.

The second defendant pleaded guilty by post. She provided some information about her personal circumstances and offered some mitigation.

She was an older lady, mid-60s, who was out of work and claiming benefits due to ill health. She had also been observed by an authorised officer stubbing out her cigarette, depositing the butt onto the ground and then walking away. This was outside the town's railway station, with the woman about to board a train for the 100 mile journey home. She was stopped by the officer, cautioned for the offence, and asked to provide some identification to confirm her details. She presented a bus pass with her correct name, but provided an incorrect address. The council had to make further enquiries to confirm her current address.

In mitigation she said that she had been in a hurry to catch her train. When the officers approached she wanted the matter dealt with as quickly as possible. She also thought the encounter might be some sort of scam to get her bank details.

Both offences admitted. Considering the offences in totality, we decided to impose a Band A fine on an assumed weekly income of £120. Given her early guilty plea, she also received 1/3 off. We also ordered the defendant to pay a contribution towards the council's prosecution and investigation costs.

Sentence: Fine = £40; Prosecution costs = £85; Investigation costs = £100; Surcharge = £16. Total payable to the court = £241, deduction from benefits order made, collection order made.

I think those two cases illustrate why it is so important for a defendant to respond to any summons issued by the court and provide as much information as possible.

I think they also illustrate that not only can smoking be very bad for your health, it can also be very costly on your finances.