Powers of the Litter Police

Littering is unsightly and unhygienic.

People who litter are lazy and inconsiderate.

Littering is also costly. According to campaign group Keep Britain Tidy, the cost to the public purse of cleaning up litter is almost £1 billion a year. That's £1 billion that could be far better spent on fixing potholes and unblocking drains.

Today's article is inspired by one of those social media muppets with a camera. On this occasion the aforementioned muppet was generating content by hassling a council enforcement officer who was dealing with someone for dropping litter. Clearly another graduate of the University of Temu School of Law, they thought it would be funny to undermine the officer and (incorrectly) tell the suspected litter-dropper that they had no powers.

It is an offence under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for a person to throw down, drop or otherwise deposit any litter on public land. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 (£2,500).

What tends to happen is that anyone observed dropping litter is given the opportunity of accepting a fixed penalty notice as an alternative to prosecution. For that reason the only people we see before the court are those that wish to deny littering, or those that have refused or somehow defaulted on the fixed penalty.

Fixed penalties, which are typically £150, are issued under section 88(1) of the Act. A fixed penalty must be issued by an authorised officer of a litter authority - e.g. a council employee authorised for that purpose.

Under section 88(8A) an authorised officer may require the name and address of a person to whom they intend to issue a fixed penalty notice. It is an offence under section 88(8B) for a person to refuse to provide their details, or to give false details. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

As some lazy litterers are prone to giving false details, an authorised officer will normally try to confirm their identity at the time of issuing the fixed penalty. They do this by asking for identification documents, using council systems (council tax, electoral register, business rates etc) or a combination of the two.

You might be wondering how an authorised officer can possibly establish the identity of an uncooperative person on the street. The first thing they will attempt to do is get the assistance of either a PCSO or police officer.

If a PCSO attends, they can detain the person for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a police officer. If a police officer attends, they can require the person to provide their details for the purpose of being reported for an offence (e.g. the littering and/or refusal to give details). If the person still refuses, then that is sufficient grounds for the officer to arrest them in order to establish their identity.

If there is no PCSO or police officer available, which will often be the case, then the council will probably try to establish their identity from any body worn video footage, CCTV footage, details on a dropped receipt/ticket etc. It's amazing how many people give the details of a friend, relative, housemate etc, so the council will often investigate that possibility too.

So, in short, if you're suspected of dropping litter and an authorised officer asks for your name and address, you are legally obliged to provide those details and can be prosecuted if you do not. If you refuse to give your details it is probably not the end of the matter.

Take it from me that the court is likely to be unimpressed by anyone caught dropping litter who gives an authorised officer the run around.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Lancashire Funeral Assistant Stole Ring from Body of Priest

A Lancashire funeral assistant stole an expensive gold ring from the finger of a deceased priest entrusted to his care.

Nicholas Mather, 34, of Willow Close, Chorley, admitted two offences of theft when he recently appeared at Preston Magistrates' Court.

He was sentenced by the same court on Friday, 16th October 2026.

Theft is an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum sentence for theft is 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. We have previously written an article on the legalities surrounding theft.

Mather was previously in the employment of B Livesey Limited Funeral Directors in Chorley, although it must be said that the company is aghast at his dishonesty and in no way culpable for his crimes.

In the course of that employment Mather was entrusted with the care of the deceaseds' bodies and their personal effects. Father Peter Crowther, a Roman Catholic priest, died on 1st March 2026 and the company was entrusted with his funeral arrangements.

On 8th March, as Father Peter's body lay at the business premises, Mather removed an 18-carat ring from his finger. The 34-year-old was working out his notice at the time, with concerns having already been raised about his attitude to work.

The ring had high sentimental value, having been given to Father Peter by his parents as an ordination present. It was inscribed with the words "TU ES SAC ERDOS IN AETERNUM", which translates to "I AM A PRIEST FOREVER", and it was his dying wish to be buried with it on his finger.

Having swiped the ring, which was valued between £3,000 and £3,500, Mather sold it to a pawnbroker for less than half its true value. He then used the proceeds to fund drugs. The ring was later melted down, so could not be recovered for Father Peter's family.

An investigation into Mather's conduct revealed that he had also stolen a Rolls Royce key box ring from the company (although I haven't the faintest idea what one of those is).

Father Peter's next of kin Kinga Gray-Grzecynska said: "This behaviour is utterly despicable, disgraceful and morally wrong.

"The theft was clearly premeditated and demonstrates a complete lack of compassion, respect and remorse, not only towards the deceased but also towards his family, friends, colleagues and all those affected by his actions."

Magistrates, who commented on "the worst case of theft they had heard", were of the view that Mather's crimes were serious enough to merit a community order.

The duration of the order has not been reported, but it included the requirement to complete 300 hours' unpaid work.

Mather was also ordered to pay £6,500 in compensation.

This is a horrendous crime. It represents the most gratuitous, evil breach of trust I have heard in a long time. There will be a lot of bereaved families in Chorley now worried, justifiably so, that Mather scavenged belongings from the coffins of their loved ones.

I have to say, on the basis of what I have read I am struggling to see how this can be anything other than a custody case (high culpability, at least category 3 harm). I take on trust that the bench concerned are aware of factors we aren't. However, even if the court had imposed a custodial sentence, I am sure that knight in shining armour, section 1 of the Sentencing Act 2026, would have come galloping to Mather's rescue.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

"Gender-Fluid" Southampton Man in Court for Wearing Burqa

A man who attended an anti-immigration protest wearing a burqa has appeared in court accused of concealing his identity.

Timothy Justin Miller, 76, of Sherwood Avenue, Hedge End, Southampton, denied an offence of concealing his identity at a protest when he appeared at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 14th October 2026.

This is an offence under section 157 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which has a maximum sentence on summary conviction of one months' custody and/or a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

Miller set tongues wagging when he was spotted attending the 12th September's protest in Portsmouth city centre wearing a niqab, which is a veil worn by some Muslim women that covers almost the entirety of the face.

Hampshire Constabulary had previously warned that anyone concealing their identity at the protest would be liable to arrest under section 157.

Miller was overheard explaining his choice of attire to an officer.

"I'm converting to Islam and I'm gender-fluid and I feel very comfortable in this here and I like mixing with people," the 76-year-old told a bemused looking sergeant.

Miller donned the same religious attire to attend court this morning. He was unrepresented, but explained that he was crowdfunding to raise funds to cover representation at the trial.

Holding a black handbag throughout the hearing, he briefly lifted his veil when asked to confirm his identity by District Judge Stephen Apted.

When asked to enter a plea, Miller replied: "As I am in every police camera, I am not guilty."

Asked about the basis of his defence, he replied that he was relying on the same religious exemption that would be afforded to Islamic women.

He added: "The issue quite simply is we should be all living under one law of which I think everybody is under agreement."

When asked by DJ Apted if he was a practising Muslim, Miller said: "I do not feel I should answer these questions, as nobody else is asked to answer them."

He later clarified that he was studying the Islamic faith "as it seems to be the most beneficial religion to be noticed in this climate today". 

The recently introduced section 157 powers can only be used in a designated place with the pre-requisite authority and notice, as outlined in section 158.

They allow officers to arrest anyone in that locality wearing or otherwise using any item to conceal their identity or that of any other person.

The legislation does not mention anything in relation to intent, so it is assumed that the mere act of a person concealing their identity, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is enough to constitute an offence.

Section 157(2) states that a person charged with an offence has a defence if they can prove that the item concealing their identity was used for the purposes of health, religious observance or employment.

In my view, the way the legislation is drafted is a potential minefield of unenforceability.

Given sensitivities around religion and gender identity, the court might have some difficulty rejecting a defence on either of these grounds.

Miller was granted unconditional bail until his trial at the same court on Tuesday, 16th February 2027. He had requested the trial to take place before a jury at the Crown Court, but was informed that this option was unavailable given the nature of the (summary) offence.

This certainly will be an interesting case to follow.

For what it's worth, I really can't see the trial proceeding.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Suffolk Man With Samurai Sword Smashed Police Car Window

A Suffolk man smashed a police car window before officers found a samurai sword in the boot of his own vehicle.

Jano Akkuratov, 42, an Estonian national, of Huntingfield, Halesworth, admitted offences of criminal damage and possession of a bladed article when he appeared at Ipswich Magistrates' Court on Monday, 14th September 2026.

He was sentenced by the same court on Wednesday, 7th October 2026.

Possession of a bladed article is an offence under section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offence, which is triable either way, has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody on summary conviction; 4 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that police had cause to attend Akkuratov's property on Friday, 26th September 2025.

Whilst there he became aggressive and launched himself forward with such force that his head went through the rear window of a police car. The 42-year-old is then said to have momentarily lost consciousness before suffering from a seizure.

Officers then turned their attention to his car, which was parked nearby. On searching the boot of the vehicle they discovered a samurai sword, which is a prohibited item even in a private place.

Akkuratov was fined £307 and ordered to pay £100 in compensation, £123 surcharge and £85 towards costs.

Magistrates also ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the sword.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.