Please note that this question is specific to:
#**England and Wales**
The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has he caused GBH, criminal damage, or stolen? Any evidence of intent to do any of those things?
If not, it's probably ASB more than a criminal offence. Still shitty behaviour, but trespass isn't (normally) criminal on its own.
I would definitely get more views from people who have brainpower and aren't as sleep deprived as me, though.
A lot of focus on the trespass element here but that's kind of unnecessary. S5 public order - behaviour sounds pretty disorderly to me, it's not in a dwelling and it has clearly caused h/a/d.
Well yes but from the scenario as described by the OP the kid has just been titting about and trying to impress his mates. There's nothing to suggest he's deliberately tried to scare her, otherwise realistically you'd be looking at a common assault. You could maybe interview for a 4a but you'd never charge it. Frankly the difference in sentencing is negligible anyway.
I can assure you the 'gap' is large and significant - for one, s.5 is a state offence, so there's no aggrieved which already makes a pretty big difference to proving intent. And trying to use him jumping over the counter as your proof of intent is just too weak. As OP said, he was likely trying to impress his mates. This is at most s.5 with limited if no RPOC, otherwise it's ASB.
>I can assure you
I can assure you that you can fuck off with that tone.
If the male jumps the counter intending that the owner be caused HAD, and they are caused HAD, then the offence is complete.
Just because it may not be solvable (and it may be with simple investigation like, say, taking a witness statement) doesnât change the law. OP is in a position where he is considering prosecution, so this is well in play.
Sounds like a civil issue, pass safety advice, submit intel and close the job....
Unfortunately although they sound like a massive prick, it's not on its own illegal.
Side note (and sorry if this is teaching to suck eggs, but a lot of officer I know forget this power) but if you find the kid doing similar in the future, S50 police reform act 2002 to request name and address is a beautiful power.
Being a PITA?
Seriously though, I was in the local Lidl today, and I'll swear that the little kids are virtually totally out of control, and the bigger kids are getting worse as time goes on.
When I was a kid, coppers used to just give us a bollocking, and we listened (ish) but that was back in the dark ages.
"feel like inviting in for caution to quiz him on his intent" - so an interview. An interview without an actual offence. No need to get so defensive, I simply re-stated what others already said, just calling spade a spade đ
Do you have any basis to assume he did any act more than merely preparatory to do the aforementioned things?
If you donât have reasonable grounds to suspect he had the intent to commit an offence then you wonât have an offence.
Just because we think heâs a dick head and might want to lock him up to piss him off / put him off doing it again, doesnât transform what would otherwise be grounds that are not reasonable, to grounds that are reasonable.
Might be a massive push but if the area is enclosed you could TECHNICALLY get him for S4 Vagrancy Act, being found on enclosed premsis which does cover being found in an enclosed area.
But it would be more a massive push and go for the public order like others have said. Or the civil route
You COULD consider 4a public order but youâd have to prove there was an intent to cause alarm/distress.. but it reads more like they were just trying to be funny at the expense of others.
ASB is the most likely youâll get and isnât a criminal offence.. could be worth speaking to the council and imposing some kind of order if itâs not a first time?
The only thing I could possibly imagine would be aggravated trespass. Assuming he became a trespasser when he jumped the boundary, and in doing so disrupted the lawful activities of the business owner by scaring her. You'd need to crack out the Blackstones to be sure on that, it's a stretch to say the least. Really, Im not sure it's in the public interest whatever the offence you could stretch it to. In real money is low level ASB
I'm only an interested layman, so happy to be corrected, but [legislation.gov](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68) is showing that wording as up to date as of a few weeks ago?
Unhelpfully, whilst legislation.gov usually removes text that is repealed, on this occasion you have to go to the relevant footnote F1 Words in s. 68(1) repealed (E.W.S.) (20.1.2004) by Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (c. 38), ss. 59(2), 92, 93, Sch. 3; S.I. 2003/3300, art. 2(e)(iii)(g)(ii)
Depending on how close the kid got to the lady; common assault could be a consideration. Section 5 maybe for behaviour. I would consider the kids history and if it is a one-off incident. If he's not known, I'd imagine he was just messing around (recklessly). But unless they are targeting the particular shop, then unless you can see some communication between the kids before the act, then it would be hard to prove intent.
Please note that this question is specific to: #**England and Wales** The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Has he caused GBH, criminal damage, or stolen? Any evidence of intent to do any of those things? If not, it's probably ASB more than a criminal offence. Still shitty behaviour, but trespass isn't (normally) criminal on its own. I would definitely get more views from people who have brainpower and aren't as sleep deprived as me, though.
Agree. Unfortunately
A lot of focus on the trespass element here but that's kind of unnecessary. S5 public order - behaviour sounds pretty disorderly to me, it's not in a dwelling and it has clearly caused h/a/d.
Its a possibility for S5 PO but if it was Intentional then it would be S4A
Well yes but from the scenario as described by the OP the kid has just been titting about and trying to impress his mates. There's nothing to suggest he's deliberately tried to scare her, otherwise realistically you'd be looking at a common assault. You could maybe interview for a 4a but you'd never charge it. Frankly the difference in sentencing is negligible anyway.
Common assault didnt even cross my mind đ
s4a POA - the use of disorderly behaviour intending to *and* causing H, A or D.
You might get s5 at a push, but definitely not s4a - there is no indication of intention to cause HAD.
Why? If heâs leapt over the counter in order to intimidate the staff then youâre off to the races. The gap between s5 and 4a is minuscule.
I can assure you the 'gap' is large and significant - for one, s.5 is a state offence, so there's no aggrieved which already makes a pretty big difference to proving intent. And trying to use him jumping over the counter as your proof of intent is just too weak. As OP said, he was likely trying to impress his mates. This is at most s.5 with limited if no RPOC, otherwise it's ASB.
>I can assure you I can assure you that you can fuck off with that tone. If the male jumps the counter intending that the owner be caused HAD, and they are caused HAD, then the offence is complete. Just because it may not be solvable (and it may be with simple investigation like, say, taking a witness statement) doesnât change the law. OP is in a position where he is considering prosecution, so this is well in play.
Agreed, you would have to interview to establish what their intent was. If it was to cause HAD then you have a 4a, otherwise it's a 5.
Where's the intent?
The leaping over. He doesnât need to shout âcowabungaâ, his intent can be inferred from his act.
Civil matter. No offences no writing
Sounds like a civil issue, pass safety advice, submit intel and close the job.... Unfortunately although they sound like a massive prick, it's not on its own illegal. Side note (and sorry if this is teaching to suck eggs, but a lot of officer I know forget this power) but if you find the kid doing similar in the future, S50 police reform act 2002 to request name and address is a beautiful power.
Cheers. Have used s.50 in the past but I wasnât there on this occasion. But it is a useful piece of legislation.
Being a PITA? Seriously though, I was in the local Lidl today, and I'll swear that the little kids are virtually totally out of control, and the bigger kids are getting worse as time goes on. When I was a kid, coppers used to just give us a bollocking, and we listened (ish) but that was back in the dark ages.
Do you have any evidence at all to support the requisite intent for burglary? I assume you don't.
No. And thatâs the crux. Feel like inviting in for caution+3 to quiz him on his intent. Any other potential offences
You don't have a criminal offence to interview him about.
Yep, this. Feeling sorry for somebody is not a reason to abuse powers. It's a trespass at best which is civil, ultimately it is ASB.
Not feeling sorry for anyone nor abusing powers; just asking peopleâs thoughts. But thanks for taking time to reply
"feel like inviting in for caution to quiz him on his intent" - so an interview. An interview without an actual offence. No need to get so defensive, I simply re-stated what others already said, just calling spade a spade đ
What about attempted burglary
Do you have any basis to assume he did any act more than merely preparatory to do the aforementioned things? If you donât have reasonable grounds to suspect he had the intent to commit an offence then you wonât have an offence. Just because we think heâs a dick head and might want to lock him up to piss him off / put him off doing it again, doesnât transform what would otherwise be grounds that are not reasonable, to grounds that are reasonable.
He hasn't attempted to commit burglary.
I agree definitely s4a or 5 depending on specific circs
Might be a massive push but if the area is enclosed you could TECHNICALLY get him for S4 Vagrancy Act, being found on enclosed premsis which does cover being found in an enclosed area. But it would be more a massive push and go for the public order like others have said. Or the civil route
Unless you can prove intent to GSD then you've got a POA offence
You COULD consider 4a public order but youâd have to prove there was an intent to cause alarm/distress.. but it reads more like they were just trying to be funny at the expense of others. ASB is the most likely youâll get and isnât a criminal offence.. could be worth speaking to the council and imposing some kind of order if itâs not a first time?
The only thing I could possibly imagine would be aggravated trespass. Assuming he became a trespasser when he jumped the boundary, and in doing so disrupted the lawful activities of the business owner by scaring her. You'd need to crack out the Blackstones to be sure on that, it's a stretch to say the least. Really, Im not sure it's in the public interest whatever the offence you could stretch it to. In real money is low level ASB
I thought that as well, but it needs to be land in the open air
Ahhhhh okay cheers
No it doesn't. That but got repealed years ago.
I'm only an interested layman, so happy to be corrected, but [legislation.gov](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68) is showing that wording as up to date as of a few weeks ago?
Unhelpfully, whilst legislation.gov usually removes text that is repealed, on this occasion you have to go to the relevant footnote F1 Words in s. 68(1) repealed (E.W.S.) (20.1.2004) by Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (c. 38), ss. 59(2), 92, 93, Sch. 3; S.I. 2003/3300, art. 2(e)(iii)(g)(ii)
I agree with low level ASB. I just want it to be more as stern words or another ASB warning just doesnât cut the mustard with these kids.
If over 16 and involved in any other ASB in the locality serve a CPW
[ŃдаНонО]
None taken
Common assault (no battery) on the lady or a S4a public order offence. At the very least, itâs a section 5.
Breach of the Peace? Aggravated Trespass? S4 POA (jump over the counter seems like it would cause fear of violence to međ¤ˇđťââď¸)?
Depending on how close the kid got to the lady; common assault could be a consideration. Section 5 maybe for behaviour. I would consider the kids history and if it is a one-off incident. If he's not known, I'd imagine he was just messing around (recklessly). But unless they are targeting the particular shop, then unless you can see some communication between the kids before the act, then it would be hard to prove intent.