more stupid laws

[anndy]

Bonfire arson charge is dropped
The case against a man charged with arson after attending a village Bonfire Night party has been dropped.

Brett Duxfield, 39, was charged after it was alleged he lit the bonfire on Elwick village green, near Hartlepool.

It was claimed he was breaking a bylaw, which states fires are not allowed on the village green. Parish councillors subsequently complained to police.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said there was no realistic prospect of a conviction.

The bonfire event took place despite a 1994 ban imposed by parish councillors.

Mr Duxfield joined scores of families on the green to celebrate Bonfire Night.

Speaking at the time of his arrest, Mr Duxfield, a lorry driver, described the incident as a "nightmare".

I am delighted for Brett because it has been hanging over him for months and it should never have gone this far

Ex-parish councillor Hilary Thompson

His arrest led to a row between villagers and parish councillors, which resulted in two councillors resigning.

But the Crown Prosecution Service said on Friday that a letter had been sent to Mr Duxfield informing him that the case was being dropped.

A CPS spokeswoman said: "On the information that we received at the time we advised police to charge Mr Duxfield with criminal damage by fire.

"We received a full file from the police and have decided there was no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction."

Hilary Thompson, who resigned from Elwick parish council in protest at Mr Duxfield's arrest, said: "I am delighted for Brett because it has been hanging over him for months and it should never have gone this far.

"We know that he did not light the bonfire and there are several witnesses to say that he didn't."

Mrs Thompson said she hoped residents could come to an agreement with the parish council about holding the Guy Fawkes celebrations this year without any problems.

[CODHEED]

How is it stupid??

if the land doesnt belong to him, it belongs to someone else. If his fire damages their grass/turf then he has comitted criminal damage by fire. In other words arson. Tecnically an offence, in the public interest to take him to court ? probably not.
Not unless the fire was in a place that put others in danger.

[jason]

chuffin hell

you in norhumbria police or the fun police

lighten up or is it time to arrest your granny.

[CODHEED]

chuffin hell

you in norhumbria police or the fun police

lighten up or is it time to arrest your granny.

not at all, i was just pointing out that as far as the black and white letter of the law goes he had comitted arson.

Would i waste my time with it? or would i have a problem with it? personally no.


Its the crazy national crime recording standards that are responsible for people ending up in court for rubbish like this. They take away people discretion. I am sure you will have read about the crazy cases like kids getting arrested for throwing cream cakes? etc etc etc

[Stebo]

Surely though, why wait until it was lit, no doubt it would have taken hours to be constructed, why not say you can't dump a load of wood there with the intention of setting fire to it, get rid of it

[Defective]

Surely though, why wait until it was lit, no doubt it would have taken hours to be constructed, why not say you can't dump a load of wood there with the intention of setting fire to it, get rid of it

Because then there would have been one less arrest. So Mr plod cant say "look at my figures . Ive arrested loads of people this month and justified my wages"

[Stebo]

All too true i suppose, just goes to prove we're living in an insane world.

[CODHEED]

Because then there would have been one less arrest. So Mr plod cant say "look at my figures . Ive arrested loads of people this month and justified my wages"

not really, no crime (stopping it before it happens) is bettter than a detected crime. less paperwork,less hassle etc etc