Wrexham Council delete all trace of Kingdom Zero Tolerance Meeting

Home Forums Wrexham.com Forums Wrexham Forum Wrexham Council delete all trace of Kingdom Zero Tolerance Meeting

  • Author
    Posts
  • #151450

    Matt
    Participant

    You are correct. If I accidentally dropped litter and was approached by Kingdom and informed I was being offered a FPN, I would refuse it and defend in Magistrates Court. They have to produce video evidence of the alleged offence, which will of course show it as an accident.

    “enforcement action is inappropriate or would be disproportionate for the offence”

    If someone intentionally drops litter then an offer of a FPN to avoid prosecution is appropriate IMO.

    This line of action took place by someone on the North Wales Against Kingdom Security – they defended the ticket in court and their taped admission that they dropped the litter even though they said it was by accident was enough for the judge to find them guilty and slap them with an increased fine and costs as a result – ending up costing them hundreds of pounds. There was conveniently no taped evidence of the actual litter dropping to ascertain if it was accidental or not. They only start filming once they speak to you.

    So the actual court route for this favours Kingdom and unfairly penalises those who defend.

    #151454

    Wrexham1
    Participant

    That’s why it’s best not to.say anything to them, as posted above, even if you politely say I’m sorry I’ll pick it up, that can be used against you.

    As also posted above, by law Kingdom are supposed to offer people the chance to pick up the litter before issuing a fine, but they do not do this.

    #151468

    Andy
    Participant

    Please provide links to the case you refer to.

    Kingdom are supposed to offer people the chance to pick up the litter before issuing a fine, but they do not do this.

    Please provide a link to this law. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not mention this.
    From where have you got this?

    #151508

    Matt
    Participant

    Andy, if you go on the North Wales Against Kingdom Security Group and search within the Group Audrey Young –

    https://m.facebook.com/groups/535768270110715/?ref=group_header&view=group

    She and others discuss her case there.

    An audio recording of her discussion with the enforcement officer after the alleged littering was played in court but was largely inaudible so offered no conclusive evidence either way.

    The basis of being found guilty was based on the witness testimony of a Kingdom Enforcement Officer.

    It was claimed by the defence that he had claimed at the time he had filmed her dropping a cigarette butt in order to try and secure a verbal admission of guilt, even though he had not done any filming. Something which he later denied saying when questioned in court – effectively saying there was no video evidence of the littering available just him witnessing it and that he did not state that he was filming the person in order to get them to admit to dropping litter.

    So it was basically a her word against the enforcement officer’s word. So Audrey was subsequently found guilty with zero physical evidence that any littering actually took place.

    Defence actually wanted to provide apparent video evidence of The officer in question lying on camera in the past – but of course in this case would have been circumstantial as 1) was not directly related to the case itself and in any case 2) no jury present to assess credibility of a witness’ truthfulness or not.

    So basically in the end in total her FPN cost would have been £70 but her actual final costs after trying to defend something she honestly believed she was not guilty of ended up costing her £370.

    Which is why people end up paying up in the first place even if they don’t think they have done anything wrong as the court route is too expensive for most – especially if they lose.

    This is not a fair justice system for these cases.

    Another background bit of information the attending magistrate who found her guilty that day was actually a sitting councillor in the council area that the fine would have benefitted – so a clear conflict of interest.

    You will have to read the rest of the stuff yourself.

    #151678

    Wrexham1
    Participant

    The sooner Kingdom Security and Councillor Bithell are gone, the better

    #155383
    Rob
    Rob
    Keymaster

    Re: the reply that told us “there is no facility to view webcasts after this six month period” I have enquired if we can pay the £75 to get a copy as that seems to be new information for councillors/officers

    Councillors to make more informed decision on future of webcasting meetings after previous annoyances

    (Wrexham.com'er - email us on news@wrexham.com)

Content is user generated and is not moderated before posting. All content is viewed and used by you at your own risk and Wrexham.com does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information displayed. The views expressed on these Forums and social media are those of the individual contributors.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.