Litter Fine.

flanal23

Today I received a fine in the post for €150 for allegedly throwing a cigarette butt out of the window of my car.
I was driving in the area stated this day and when I was stopped in traffic the car in front of me got out and took a picture of my registration I was unsure why and went to get my lights on my car looked at Incase my brake lights were not working. I now understand why the picture was taken of my car.
I do not smoke so I don’t understand why this person would make a complaint against me.
There were no other passengers in my car that could have been smoking as I do not tolerate smoking in my car.
I’ve rang and requested an appeals form however it really is a case of a strangers word agains my own.
Would I be better off paying the fine than having to go through court fees etc?

flanal23

Today I received a fine in the post for €150 for allegedly throwing a cigarette butt out of the window of my car.
I was driving in the area stated this day and when I was stopped in traffic the car in front of me got out and took a picture of my registration I was unsure why and went to get my lights on my car looked at Incase my brake lights were not working. I now understand why the picture was taken of my car.
I do not smoke so I don’t understand why this person would make a complaint against me.
There were no other passengers in my car that could have been smoking as I do not tolerate smoking in my car.
I’ve rang and requested an appeals form however it really is a case of a strangers word agains my own.
Would I be better off paying the fine than having to go through court fees etc?

Walter Bishop

Who is the fine from? Sounds like a scam tbh.

flanal23

The letter is from the Dublin City Council and looks very legitimate.

Teyla Emmagan

Ring them and talk to them. Ask to see the evidence

flanal23

Thanks for your advice!

cgcsb

How have they suggested you pay the fine? Fines can't be issued that way.

w/s/p/c/

Don't pay that, ask them for evidence, especially since you say you don't smoke. Sounds very dodgy.

_Brian

Having made a littering complaint my experience is that there will be no evidence you can be shown.

It will come down to the person who made the complaint and if they are willing to sign a statement and are willing to go to court if you push an appeal that far. It’s a big risk on your behalf if they are adamant in court the fine can be substantially increased.

I had to continually ring to push my complaint through but there was no evidence of the littering act, just my statement.

Walter Bishop

I wouldn't be paying that. If any random punter can just snap a picture of you then report you to the Council so you get a €150 fine, there'd be all sorts at that. Absent any evidence it's your word against theirs.

LionelNashe

I wouldn't ask for evidence if I was already sure that there could be none. That would be engaging in a conversation with them which may go back and forth, wasting my time. Just tell them that nobody threw a cigarette (or any other item presumably?) from your car, you won't be paying, and you don't want to hear from them again.

GerardKeating

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Ring them and talk to them. Ask to see the evidence

Ask for the name and address of the person making the complaint, and state it is for your solicitors to make a defamation action again them

cgcsb

Walter Bishop wrote: »

I wouldn't be paying that. If any random punter can just snap a picture of you then report you to the Council so you get a €150 fine, there'd be all sorts at that. Absent any evidence it's your word against theirs.

If they had a picture of the act that'd be one thing.

Peregrinus

flanal23 wrote: »

Today I received a fine in the post for €150 for allegedly throwing a cigarette butt out of the window of my car.
I was driving in the area stated this day and when I was stopped in traffic the car in front of me got out and took a picture of my registration I was unsure why and went to get my lights on my car looked at Incase my brake lights were not working. I now understand why the picture was taken of my car.
I do not smoke so I don’t understand why this person would make a complaint against me.
There were no other passengers in my car that could have been smoking as I do not tolerate smoking in my car.
I’ve rang and requested an appeals form however it really is a case of a strangers word agains my own.
Would I be better off paying the fine than having to go through court fees etc?

If you go to court and testify that you do not smoke, have never smoked, do not allow smoking in your car, and did not throw any cigarette butt out the window, and that the person who says you did, while undoubtedly public-spirited, must be mistaken, you should be acquitted. To be sure to be sure you could bring along a spouse or partner who will testify that as long as they have known you you have never smoked.

However it will be stressful and you will have to devote half-a-day to it, which may interfere with work. Up to you to decide whether it's worth paying €150 to avoid this.

Sam Quentin

Truly unbelievable... That someone can take a pic of your reg, make up a smoky litter bug story, report you to litter bug man,.. Then you receive a fine....
Truly T R U L Y unbelievable....

Peregrinus

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Truly unbelievable... That someone can take a pic of your reg, make up a smoky litter bug story, report you to litter bug man,.. Then you receive a fine....
Truly T R U L Y unbelievable....

Why is it unbelievable? Most prosecutions start with a complaint to the authorites from someone who says they witnessed a crime. How did you think it worked?

tedpan

If you don't smoke, what was thrown out of the window?

Sam Quentin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is it unbelievable? Most prosecutions start with a complaint to the authorites from someone who says they witnessed a crime. How did you think it worked?

PLEASE...
I'm not here to argue.. But don't justify or simplify the op's position.
A litter warden has obviously made a serious error here by accepting the 'story' from the complainant!? Life is just not that easy/simple, and prosecutions are not that forthcoming with such little evidence....

Peregrinus

Sam Quentin wrote: »

PLEASE...
I'm not here to argue.. But don't justify or simplify the op's position.
A litter warden has obviously made a serious error here by accepting the 'story' from the complainant!? Life is just not that easy/simple, and prosecutions are not that forthcoming with such little evidence....

I'm not justifying it. I'm just saying that it's not in the least surprising. If the authorities aren't prepared to enforce the law when they have witnesses willing to testify to its breach, what is the point of having the law in the first place?

Condatis

I was caught in a similar situation years ago when an employee dumped material with my name on it. I forgot about the court date and was fined.

To this day my name comes up on Google as a litterer - 15 years later - along, it must be said, with some quite notable names on the same court date.

Should you decide to pay the fine don't be surprised if your name appears in court lists and thus will be in the public domain permanently.

Billgirlylegs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is it unbelievable? Most prosecutions start with a complaint to the authorites from someone who says they witnessed a crime. How did you think it worked?

If the OP did as they were accused, I am delighted that a fine was imposed.

But shouldn't the start be "we understand you are a litter bug, how do you plead".
Is the "law" for litter offences different - is it "Guilty until proven innocent" just on the say so of a witness?

Subtle

This thread is running in two forums I think...

Peregrinus

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

If the OP did as they were accused, I am delighted that a fine was imposed.

But shouldn't the start be "we understand you are a litter bug, how do you plead".
Is the "law" for litter offences different - is it "Guilty until proven innocent" just on the say so of a witness?

Effectively, a fixed penalty notice is a statement from the enforcement agency that "we understand you are a litter bug/parking offender/whatever. If you agree or admit to this, you can pay us X euros and we'll go away. There'll be no prosecution and no conviction. If you disagree, you can have your day in court. There may be an acquittal, but if there isn't you'll have a conviction on your record."

So, no, it's not "guilty until proven innocent". It's "you're going to be prosecuted, but if you think a conviction is likely you can avoid a prosecution by paying up now".

If you don't pay, and they take you to court, you are not presumed guilty merely because a penalty notice was issued. You are presumed innocent, and it's up to them to prove your guilt, e.g. by calling a witness who will say, yes, he saw you throw a cigarette butt out the window. You can cross-examine that witness, you can call your own witnesses, you can give evidence yourself. And at the end of the day the court will ask itself, as it always does, whether the evidence led by the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offence.

Wildcard7

Is there an increased fine for repeat offenders? If so I would definitely contest it.

GhostyMcGhost

Condatis wrote: »

I was caught in a similar situation years ago when an employee dumped material with my name on it. I forgot about the court date and was fined.

To this day my name comes up on Google as a litterer - 15 years later - along, it must be said, with some quite notable names on the same court date.

Should you decide to pay the fine don't be surprised if your name appears in court lists and thus will be in the public domain permanently.

You have the right to be forgotten btw

lifeandtimes

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

You have the right to be forgotten btw

not until the 18th of may

Sam Quentin

Should the innocent op be allowed to take a libel against the photographer for slander?

hullaballoo

Libel and slander (which were different forms of defamation) were abolished by the Defamation Act 2009.

There has been discussion recently in relation to the availability of the defence of qualified privilege in relation to the reporting of suspected criminal offences.

NUTLEY BOY

Was there anyone else in OP's car at the time of the alleged offence who could rebut the allegation ?

I note reference to no passengers that could have been smoking. Would this have been Sweetpea in the child seat ? If so, it is more plausible yet that there was no smoking going on if there were children in the car of a firm non-smoker.

I presume that the punctilious photographer will be required to give evidence of his observation of the offence being committed. If so, I hope that he is asked if he picked up the butt to prove that what he thinks he saw was actually a cigarette. If he comes over in court as an anal retentive his credibility might be eminently challengeable.

The photograph probably has no more evidential value than establishing particulars of the vehicle as distinct from the alleged actus reus.

I assume that OP is entitled to seek discovery of the prosecution evidence if this is to proceed. So, why not demand it now from the prosecutor ?

If this happened to me I would be hopping mad. If OP pays the fine he is admitting the offence.

I was cycling down Strand Road, Sandymount, a few years ago when I was narrowly missed by a butt thrown from the passenger side window of a Garda Jeep :rolleyes:. That definitely happened. How does the witness know for sure that anything was thrown by OP never mind the nature of it ?

Grolschevik

flanal23 wrote: »

Today I received a fine in the post for €150 for allegedly throwing a cigarette butt out of the window of my car.
I was driving in the area stated this day and when I was stopped in traffic the car in front of me got out and took a picture of my registration I was unsure why and went to get my lights on my car looked at Incase my brake lights were not working. I now understand why the picture was taken of my car.
I do not smoke so I don’t understand why this person would make a complaint against me.
There were no other passengers in my car that could have been smoking as I do not tolerate smoking in my car.
I’ve rang and requested an appeals form however it really is a case of a strangers word agains my own.
Would I be better off paying the fine than having to go through court fees etc?

Quick questions for information.

Why would you check your brake lights if the guy got out of a car in front and took a picture of the front of your car?

And how long was the traffic stopped to allow someone to get out to take a picture?

SSr0

What's to stop someone from making a false report on a person they dislike?

Pretty easy way to mess with somone, if it's just a case of a quick phone call which results in a straight €150 fine.

Sam Quentin

hullaballoo wrote: »

Libel and slander (which were different forms of defamation) were abolished by the Defamation Act 2009.

There has been discussion recently in relation to the availability of the defence of qualified privilege in relation to the reporting of suspected criminal offences.

So can the innocent op take a defamation of character claim against the photographer?

lifeandtimes

Sam Quentin wrote: »

So can the innocent op take a defamation of character claim against the photographer?

it would have to be published and/or spoken to such an extent it effects the ops credibility which resulted in the loss and/or potetential loss of earnings

Robbo

lifeandtimes wrote: »

not until the 18th of may

You've had it since 2014, under existing data protection measures.

I appreciate that a lot of people are becoming aware of data protection law for the first time recently (and that's a good thing) but the GDPR hypetrain is something to behold.

Peregrinus

Sam Quentin wrote: »

So can the innocent op take a defamation of character claim against the photographer?

Yes, if he can identify the photographer, and can prove that it was the photographer (and not, e.g., another bystander) who reported him to the police.

But the action is unlikely to succeed. If the photographer had an honest belief in the truth of what he said, and reported it to the authorities to facilitate a prosecution for littering, he has a defence of qualified privilege.

Zaph

Threads merged. OP, please don't start threads in multiple forums on the same topic. Thanks.

NUTLEY BOY

Grolschevik wrote: »

Quick questions for information.

Why would you check your brake lights if the guy got out of a car in front and took a picture of the front of your car? SNIP

I wanted to follow that line next.

If OP thought that there might be a brake light problem there is an inference that the complainant was at some stage behind their car.

If so, that might mean that the complainant saw, or thought that he saw, from behind, something emanating from OP's car that OP could very well not have seen.

Where next ? If the passengers were young is there any possibility that one of them let something fly from an open window ever so inadvertently ? It is not unknown. I make absolutely no accusation here but just suggest a line of enquiry.

Is there any other innocent explanation that might explain what the complainant saw or thought that he saw ? For example, was it a windy day and could the supposed butt have blown across OP's car from somewhere else ? It is not that rare that detritus emanates from car windows these days and that includes cigarette butts ! If windy enough and or the car is travelling fast enough someone else's fag end could travel.

Anyway, if there is reasonable doubt that a butt came from the OP's car - for the very good reasons already set out by OP - the prosecutor might not make his case. A fortiori, if the complainant insists specifically that it was a cigarette butt that would help the OP if the certain probability was that there was no smoking and could not have been any smoking in the car.

Sometimes being too specific can undo a witness.....

AnnaStezia

Does the warden have to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Dial Hard

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. There was a case thrown out a few years ago because the warden didn't pick up the thrown butt and produce it in court as evidence.

Spleerbun

Maybe a stupid question, but if you get one of these fines and have 21 days to pay it, if you subsequently send in an appeal does that time reset?
Like that wouldn't decline the appeal and then say "you're past the 21 days, we're doubling your fine"

Under His Eye

They normally offer an additional 7 days to pay.

Spleerbun

Under His Eye wrote: »

They normally offer an additional 7 days to pay.

Thanks

hierro

Beware that such a prosecution is a civil prosecution and you are liable to have costs awarded against you. You should engage with the authority. Appeal it and seek evidence. The complainant might be happy enough make the complaint but less sure of swearing the oath and being 100% about what they saw.

This video is appropriate here...
https://youtu.be/2Gkiw7zpULo

Under His Eye

Nothing civil about it. It is a criminal prosecution. The council are the prosecutor. A conviction will result in a criminal record.

hierro

Under His Eye wrote: »

Nothing civil about it. It is a criminal prosecution. The council are the prosecutor. A conviction will result in a criminal record.

Stand corrected, I accept its a criminal case but costs are awarded, similar to a civil case. I was a witness in one such prosecution where the fine was 250 with costs attached which brought the penalty to over 2000. The DPP don't seek costs in such a similar manner.