Club Bailiffs and thier Rights

[Keith Williams]

Copies of endorsement forms , re read the post , maybe I should have just kept using the word card instead of licence .

The word Permit is often misconstrued and mixed with licence .
When are guys going to get the terminology and the legal meanings correct!
In law, the licence required to be held by an angler is purely the EA Rod licence!

 

[Alan Whitty]

Well at the moment one of our clubs waters is being poached,mainly by pikies,they are easy to spot,no landing nets,plastic bags for their bait and tackle,no unhooking mat,all rules for the water,no doubt barbed hooks too,they will almost certainly take the fish,a friend had three appear behind him yesterday,they spread out and edged towards him while he was playing a foul hooked fish,he felt very threatened,he is around 58 yoa,two of these were 20's,the other 40ish,how the hell can clubs protect their fisheries against such onslaughts,the water has no public access so they are trespassing(not that they care a monkeys),getting anyone out,the police for example takes an age in which time assaults could occur,if they got there quickly these people have no respect for the law whatsoever,at 68 I am concerned that I might be at the top end of the fishery,on my own late on and be confronted by this sort of scum....

 

[John Aston]

The word Permit is often misconstrued and mixed with licence .
When are guys going to get the terminology and the legal meanings correct!
In law, the licence required to be held by an angler is purely the EA Rod licence!

Sorry to be a pedant , but that isn't quite the legal position - it is a bit more nuanced than that. It would be far simpler if we only meant an EA licence when the term was used but 'licence' can also mean an individual being given 'licence' to fish in the form of a ticket , permit , syndicate membership and so on . The term also applies to many , but not all , instances of club use of a water. A club may own a fishery, have a formal lease of the fishing rights , or (more commonly) be granted a licence of the fishing by the person who owns it .

Even more confusingly , ownership of the fishing rights can be separate from the ownership of the land through which the river flows - so a club may pay a fee to Mr A for the right to fish but accesses the river via Mr B's land

 

[Keith Williams]

So, how would it pan out if a club bailiff peacefully seized an angler's tackle purely for the purpose of evidence or to prevent the offence being continued with no intent to permanently deprive?

A Club Bailiff has no civil or compelling powers at " Common Law" nor any under criminal laws to seize another anglers fishing tackle.
It is considered an act of theft and possibly criminal damage could be proven in a magistrates court as thats where this matter would end up!
In short a clubs bailiffs have very little compelling powers other than to " Request" an offender to leave a water if club rules are broken and where no permit is held, then you call the police and lay a complaint that an act of theft is taking place and can police officers attend.

 

[@Clive]

A Club Bailiff has no civil or compelling powers at " Common Law" nor any under criminal laws to seize another anglers fishing tackle.
It is considered an act of theft and possibly criminal damage could be proven in a magistrates court as thats where this matter would end up!
In short a clubs bailiffs have very little compelling powers other than to " Request" an offender to leave a water if club rules are broken and where no permit is held, then you call the police and lay a complaint that an act of theft is taking place and can police officers attend.

The point I was making is that to prove theft you have to demonstrate that the suspect to deprived a person of their property BELONGING TO ANOTHER WITH THE INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE. For one thing permits and licences may remain the property of the issuing body, not the holder and secondly seizing a permit or licence merely to prove the identity of the person may not fit the criteria if said permit was ultimately going to be returned.

 

[ian g]

I have been a bailiff for a few years now, treat people as you wish to be treated is my philosophy.If they are uncooperative then I will try and manage the situation .I much prefer WP with like minded individuals but I would say the vast majority of people I have encountered are great, the learning is a two way street

 

[Alan Whitty]

I've heard from a mate who was fishing our small river venue today,he had been trotting the length of his swim when a guy came in the swim below him,my mate trotted down when the guy below shouted up that his float was in his swim,my mate apologised then thought to himself that he couldn't have been that far down,so he went down and had a look,and sure enough his float had reached around 5 or 6 yds upstream,so he said to the guy 'you are casting upstream into my peg',a little bit of an argument ensued,my mate went back and continued to trot down,getting a barrage of abuse,a bailiff came down and my mate asked him and he said that it was OK casting upstream,but the guy should have asked if it was OK with him,the guy moved a while later and another bloke went in and did exactly the same thing,neither caught,karma I suppose...

 

[Deejay8]

In the Angling Times a couple of weeks ago, was this headline.

BEWARE OF BOGUS BAILIFFS ON THE BANK

It seems a chap was fishing on the Spalding Coronation Channel, which is a Peterborough District AA water, and he was confronted by a man claiming to be an officer representing the club. He claimed the angler was breaking the rules and told him to hand over his gear or he would report him to the Police. It was only after the angler complied, he realised he had been conned, and he had been robbed of his gear.

I think that the best course of action if you are threatened with tackle seizure is to politely but firmly refuse and pack up and leave unless it is an EA Water Bailiff. Even if it is an EA Water Bailiff you should try and get independent proof he is genuine before handing over your gear. Try phoning the phone number on the back of your licence to check if the Bailiff is genuine. If you aren't satisfied that they are genuine, and you refuse to comply, then the Bailiff is entitled to call the Police to get them to stop you from obstructing them in their legal duty. If the Police attend then obviously he was genuine. Then you explain to the Police why you refused to comply. Obviously only do this if you can't satisfy yourself that the Bailiff is genuine.

These days it's so easy to knock up fake I.Ds with a computer and a laminating machine, and dress to look like a Bailiff, so it pays to make sure they are genuine.

 

[ian g]

My mate who is a club bailiff encountered a guy selling day tickets on one of our streches of canal , not really sure if he was scamming or just wandered a little off the other clubs stretch.

 

[Deejay8]

My mate who is a club bailiff encountered a guy selling day tickets on one of our streches of canal , not really sure if he was scamming or just wandered a little off the other clubs stretch.

In the Angling Times story, the P&DAA Chairman mentions incidents of someone going around with a piece of paper, claiming to be a Bailiff and taking day ticket cash.

 

[Keith Williams]

The point I was making is that to prove theft you have to demonstrate that the suspect to deprived a person of their property BELONGING TO ANOTHER WITH THE INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE. For one thing permits and licences may remain the property of the issuing body, not the holder and secondly seizing a permit or licence merely to prove the identity of the person may not fit the criteria if said permit was ultimately going to be returned.

The theft act also carries the charge of "Intent" !
This is a charge that has been used in the courts where an angler has fished a water without a permit or consent even though no fish have been retained.
Please see relevant court records in All England Reports, Halsbury's laws and many other case stated tomes!

 

[@Clive]

The theft act also carries the charge of "Intent" !
This is a charge that has been used in the courts where an angler has fished a water without a permit or consent even though no fish have been retained.
Please see relevant court records in All England Reports, Halsbury's laws and many other case stated tomes!

I don't see your point. What does the intent relate to? And if this is covered in the places you mention why not show it? Give some examples.

 

[Keith Williams]

I don't see your point. What does the intent relate to? And if this is covered in the places you mention why not show it? Give some examples.

The Theft Act 1968 Ss 6 is quite clear as are historical court case outcomes.
6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.

Suggest you refer to the Historical court reports ...there's a good chap!

 

[@Clive]

The Theft Act 1968 Ss 6 is quite clear as are historical court case outcomes.
6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.

Suggest you refer to the Historical court reports ...there's a good chap

Don't put the onus on me. You are the one spouting this clap-trap.

I suggest that you refer to the court records. I have no intention of doing so because I am sure that I will not find what you claim is there.

 

[John Aston]

It is a long time since I sat through Professor Hogan's criminal law lectures and I must admit I have no idea what is meant by 'the charge of intent '. Most , but not all crimes , have two elements - the mens rea (guilty intent ) and the actus reus (the act itself) . But that doesn't really explain the use of the word ' charge ' .

 

[Alan Whitty]

I'm not really sure what the argument is about,is someone saying that you can poach with impunity because the courts don't prosecute?Or should we just accept the law is an ass and nobody buy a club ticket and poach /trespass on private land,we seem to live in a time where no laws are respected anyway....

 

[John Aston]

A bit of clarity - courts don't prosecute . That is normally , but not always , the Crown Prosecution Service's job - it is an independent agency and not , for example , an arm of the police - or government .

Trespass isn't a crime except in very limited circumstances - wandering around a military base would see you in deep sh*t PDQ. But all other trespass is a tort - a civil crime as some have termed it. It is for the landowner to take legal action in the civil court . But this is only going to result in a big waste of time and money for all concerned for trivial instances . BTW - don't believe the signs saying 'Trespasses will be prosecuted' (except as mentioned above0 - famously , a judge once described these as 'wooden falsehoods ' .

Poaching - fishing without permission is a crime , whether or not any fish are retained or even caught . But - real world stuff - don't expect plod to drop everything and bust the guy who has strayed off his day ticket water on to your private stretch . Only in the more egregious cases are the police going to do that much - but they can be a real help in moving people on .

The law is clear , and far from an ass in this area . But it's a dynamic thing - old laws get binned, new ones replace them if there is the political impetus to do so . What changes do you think should be made?

Most laws are generally respected in the UK , even though every successive generation , as it gets older, convinces itself that the country has gone to the dogs and that the good olde days were better .

 

[@Clive]

The 'intent' I feel is being misunderstood by Mr. Williams. To prove theft as I previously wrote you have to prove that the act was dishonest and there was in intention to permenantly deprive. Over my 25 years service I frequently received complaints of theft that were subsequently found not to include those elements. One that springs to mind that is relevant was when a gamekeeper took an air rifle from a juvenile found to be shooting pheasants. He took the air rifle to a police station and handed it over as he had told the youth that he would. Youth's father rang in a complaint of theft of the air rifle. No theft had occurred as the act was not dishonest and there was no intention to permanently deprive.

It would be the same if a bailiff retained a fishing permit believing a contravention of terms & conditions had occurred and only in order to establish the holder's identity.

 

[Alan Whitty]

Well,sadly I don't see it that way in practice,as every year goes by people are more inclined to have slagging matches with the police,in fact,they jump at the chance,women,kids,everyone,that is people with or without money,you see laws being flaunted every day,most of the people that obey the laws most are people who are older...

 

[Alan Whitty]

Am I right in saying that quite often the card/book remains the property of the club and is given to prove validity of membership,if so they are within their rights to take said item back?