Film maker taken to court over 0.003p
Discussion
Daily Wail link
Daily Mail said:
A documentary film-maker was hauled into court on a charge of stealing electricity worth 0.003p.
But by the time the ludicrous case was dropped, the bill to taxpayers was more than £5,000.
Mark Guard, 44, had to appear at two separate hearings before the Crown Prosecution Service finally saw sense.
Mr Guard, who makes documentaries about crime and the homeless, was filming squatters entering a disused building through an open window at 10pm on August 1.
A security sensor inside detected the movement and the alarm was triggered.
The squatters fled but Mr Guard, a former electrician, decided to stay behind and turn off the alarm to save neighbouring families from the noise.
To do so he had to turn on the electricity in the building for a few seconds, to give him light, and then turn it off.
But by the time the ludicrous case was dropped, the bill to taxpayers was more than £5,000.
Mark Guard, 44, had to appear at two separate hearings before the Crown Prosecution Service finally saw sense.
Mr Guard, who makes documentaries about crime and the homeless, was filming squatters entering a disused building through an open window at 10pm on August 1.
A security sensor inside detected the movement and the alarm was triggered.
The squatters fled but Mr Guard, a former electrician, decided to stay behind and turn off the alarm to save neighbouring families from the noise.
To do so he had to turn on the electricity in the building for a few seconds, to give him light, and then turn it off.
Edited for stupid formatting
Edited by Puggit on Wednesday 19th August 10:22
Seriously - this country actually IS f**cked when it gets to this level of mindlessness and complete vacuum of common sense. The people doing these jobs MUST be on some form of "not my problem" autopilot.
I wonder if such stupid cases are brought to court in other EU countries? (I.e. is our CPS dumber than other EU countries, or are there these anomolies all over the place?)
I wonder if such stupid cases are brought to court in other EU countries? (I.e. is our CPS dumber than other EU countries, or are there these anomolies all over the place?)
Umm, I can't help wondering if there is another side to this story?
E.G. alarm gets set off in building, police turn up to find lights on and random bloke fiddling with alarm system. He says, honest guv I was just filming squatters who have all disappaeared. I turned on all the lights but only to 'fix' this alarm. Police arrest him on breaking or entering or some-such. Turns out there's only evidence to charge him with something minor.
I just think we should never trust that rag to give a balanced view.
E.G. alarm gets set off in building, police turn up to find lights on and random bloke fiddling with alarm system. He says, honest guv I was just filming squatters who have all disappaeared. I turned on all the lights but only to 'fix' this alarm. Police arrest him on breaking or entering or some-such. Turns out there's only evidence to charge him with something minor.
I just think we should never trust that rag to give a balanced view.
Puggit said:
Eric Mc said:
Are criminal cases supposed to be decided on a "Return on Investment" basis?
How about a common sense basis?There was no point in charging this man - it was only brought about to provide an easy result for the stats.
Subsequent investigation seemed to indicate that nothing of major import occured - but the police weren't to know this at first. Hindsight is wonderful.
If we just task the authorities to chase "big" cases, then all the small and petty crime will not get chased - and nearly all big ctriminals start out as petty ones.
You canot apply accounting criteria to crime prevention.
FPC said:
Eric Mc said:
Are criminal cases supposed to be decided on a "Return on Investment" basis?
How about I burgle your house for £10k of valuables but the trial will cost £50k. No point charging me really, is there?As a society, we have become fixated with this notion of applying a "return on investment" approach to virtually EVERY human activity. This is nonsense. What works for business isn't necessarilly the best way of approaching other areas.
In your example, if the criminal case is dropped because there is no "profit" in it, then the individual will probably be encouraged to continue in his criminal career - especially if he is "starting out".
In fact, in the longer view, the cost/benefit approach might be more viable. Nipping a petty crook in the bud might ensure that much bigger crimes are NEVER committed - by him.
But that type of equation is much harder to assess and/or measure.
Eric Mc said:
Why?
Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
If they were, as appears, stupid enough to proscecute someone for the theft of .003 of the electricity, and in the process make the CPS look less than competant.Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
Unless, of course they have no responsibility for their decisions.
FPC said:
Umm, I can't help wondering if there is another side to this story?
E.G. alarm gets set off in building, police turn up to find lights on and random bloke fiddling with alarm system. He says, honest guv I was just filming squatters who have all disappaeared. I turned on all the lights but only to 'fix' this alarm. Police arrest him on breaking or entering or some-such. Turns out there's only evidence to charge him with something minor.
I just think we should never trust that rag to give a balanced view.
So alarm does it's job and triggers because of intruders, then this pratt apparently is able to turn it off in seconds somehow E.G. alarm gets set off in building, police turn up to find lights on and random bloke fiddling with alarm system. He says, honest guv I was just filming squatters who have all disappaeared. I turned on all the lights but only to 'fix' this alarm. Police arrest him on breaking or entering or some-such. Turns out there's only evidence to charge him with something minor.
I just think we should never trust that rag to give a balanced view.
( am guessing the owner doesn't have it serviced 
). In doing so now allowing any intruders free access. But apprently alarm deactivated to not pee of the neighbours LOL. Personally, head line should have read 'Film maker arrested for helping squatters and accused of breaking and entering' 
Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Wednesday 19th August 12:26
eldar said:
Eric Mc said:
Why?
Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
If they were, as appears, stupid enough to proscecute someone for the theft of .003 of the electricity, and in the process make the CPS look less than competant.Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
Unless, of course they have no responsibility for their decisions.
They don't know the future outcome of cases they instigate. They aren't psychic.
The guy was apprehended breaking and entering and fiddling with an electricity meter. That would normally constitute valid grounds for a prosecution. The fact that he only managed to "steal" a small amount is neither here nor there.
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 19th August 12:34
Eric Mc said:
Why?
Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
Exactly what Eldar said. We're not talking about every failed prosecution (I thought my post was specifically about the example in the OP hence "wrong-brained") but stupid things. If you wasted company money, would you not expect some kind of disciplinary procedure to be started?Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
So, it is a shame that I am not allowed near the reins of power.
Note: There is the assumption he was taking to court over 0.003p and not breaking and entering... it doesn't actually specify in the article.
Edited by ShadownINja on Wednesday 19th August 12:38
ShadownINja said:
Eric Mc said:
Why?
Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
Exactly what Eldar said. We're not talking about every failed prosecution (I thought my post was specifically about the example in the OP) but stupid things. If you wasted company money, would you not expect some kind of disciplinary procedure to be started?Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
Edited by ShadownINja on Wednesday 19th August 12:35
The facts of a case aren't always clear auntil AFTER a prosecution has at least part-run its course. The clever part is knowing at what point the case might need to be abandoned. I would hate to think that state/Crown prosecutors lived under some sort of Sword of Damocles that could land on their heads every time they had to abandon a case. That would create an intolerable situation for the authorities - with only those cases with a sure-fire chance of conviction being proceeded with.
I would prefer the odd silly case like this rather than have really big (and possibly dangerous) individuals slip tthough the net because the prosecutors were afraid of some financial penalty if they couldn't prosecute for some reason.
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 19th August 12:42
Eric Mc said:
ShadownINja said:
Eric Mc said:
Why?
Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
Exactly what Eldar said. We're not talking about every failed prosecution (I thought my post was specifically about the example in the OP) but stupid things. If you wasted company money, would you not expect some kind of disciplinary procedure to be started?Does that mean that for every failed prosecution, the persons involved in instigating the case would have to pay?
Thank God that some PHers are not let near the reins of power.
Edited by ShadownINja on Wednesday 19th August 12:35
The facts of a case aren't always clear auntil AFTER a prosecution has at least part-run its course. The clever part is knowing at what point the case might need to be abandoned. I would hate to think that state/Crown prosecutors lived under some sort of Sword of Damocles that could land on their heads every time they had to abandon a case. That would create an intolerable situation for the authorities - with only those cases with a sure-fire chance of conviction being proceeded with.
I would prefer the odd silly case like this rather than have really big (and possibly dangerous) individuals slip tthough the net beacuse the prosecutors were afarid of some financial penalty if they couldn't prosecute for some reason.
Why do you need to know the outcome? Can't you assume right at the start that it is a stupid thing to go ahead with? Why did it even go to court? I am sure there's something I'm missing here. If someone said to you, "Ok, next Friday we have Mr Smith. He's being prosecuted for 0.003p..." Are you going to say, "Throw the book at him!!!!!" or "Are you mad?"?
We're talking about someone official knowing about 0.003p right at the start, are we not? It's not about not knowing about anything until half way through.
Edited by ShadownINja on Wednesday 19th August 12:46
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff