So a few years ago I was charged with Breach of the Peace (long story, all charges dropped, was a ridiculous thing anyway) – this was done verbally by a police officer and I got no paperwork. Later I managed to get a crime reference number.

Is it possible to get a copy of the actual charge sheet, to find out what I was charged with and why? No serious reason, I’m just curious.

Cheers 🙂

Did you use the Edinburgh defence to get off 😉

Brilliant 🙂 No, though. I upset BAE Systems, and I want to find out how.

Data protection act, subject access request?

Police force in question should have a data protection dept. contact them and ask for a subject access report..
Usual data protection fee is about a tenner..

im intrigued, love to know what you did?

” I upset BAE Systems,” respect..

I didn’t even think of Data Protection, thanks – is it actually called a charge sheet? I wasn’t even sure what to ask for 🙂

im intrigued, love to know what you did?

I spent three days wandering around one of their explosives factories, taking hundreds of pictures. Without asking first.

Royal Ordnance Factory Bishopton

That’s brilliant Ben, excellent project will have proper look through when I have time 😀

Ben – fantastic report, really enjoyed looking at all the photos.

Ive been spending quite a bit of time reading about the adventures of people over at 28dayslater

What you will be looking for is the crime report. Sets out the charge and the surrounding circumstances. This is the report your CR number refers to.

OK so you know what you did. I don’t think the Charge sheet will help you. It will essentially just describe what you did, where and when and state that in so doing you caused distress or alarm! I guess what you are struggling with is why a police officer thought you quietly taking some photos was a breach of the peace? In which case its probably helpful to know it is a bit of a catch all charge,

Breach of the Peace is conduct which, in the particular circumstances in which it has occurred, is genuinely alarming and seriously disturbing to any reasonable person.

For the Crown to prove this charge there must be corroborated evidence leaving no reasonable doubt that
(1) the accused behaved in the way described in the charge
(2) in the circumstances in which it took place, that conduct was, or was likely to be, genuinely alarming and seriously disturbing to the ordinary reasonable person.
Intention is inferred from what is proved to have been said or done. It is sufficient that the accused intended the act done, it is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to cause alarm or disturbance.

Getting arrested or even charged by the police for Breach of the Peace doesn’t necessarily even mean that is what the PF would bring charges for if he saw fit.

The fact you have no paperwork makes me suspect you were arrested and not charged?

However if you were charged the PF either decided there wasn’t a strong enough case, or it wasn’t in the public interest to pursue it. I wouldn’t infer their lack of further action on this occasion as indicating it will be ok if you get caught again.

Thanks very much for that – definitely not arrested, was questioned under caution and then verbally told that I would be charged – the exact words were “all I can think of to charge you with is Breach of the Peace” 🙂

Though they started off talking about terrorism and the like.

I believe the problem with BoP is worse in Scotland as it’s not necessary to cause alarm or distress (which would be ridiculous in this case) but only to cause annoyance. I did read up on it afterwards just to see what kind of trouble I might be in.

The whole process was very disorganised – didn’t get anything from the PCs, had to phone around police stations to work out where they were from and get a reference number, then had to pester the PF’s office several times to find out the charges had been dropped, and still haven’t had that confirmed in writing either.

Hmm, bishopton perhaps??

Nope, Paisley 🙂

Under the dpa you don’t need to know exactly what you want – ask for everything they have on you with enough detail to let them identify you. You don’t need to know the exact name of the document you’re looking for – and you may get additional info about you rather than just the charge sheet.

OK Ben, in short, you may not get what your are looking for. In my *very* simplistic terms ( which I admit could be wrong understanding ) :

When the Police charge someone, they send a report to the PF for their consideration. In that report will be what the Police considered the preferred charge at the time.

When the PF gets the report and considers it, if thet want to take further proceedings, then for the average crime/offence they would send out a letter stating the charge and the options ( plead guilty, not guilty etc ). Its this charge in the letter that is the crime you’re actually charged with, not what the Police reported.

Why?

The charge in the letter from the PF may not be the same charge as what the Police put in the report. For example, there is a charge which is specifically a racial offence. The Police may charge a person with that and report them, but after the PF has considered it, the PF may decide that a breach of the peace, aggravated by racism is a more appropriate charge, and thats what will go on the letter as the official charge. It all depends on what essential elements to the crime there is and what evidence can prove against those elements.

By the sounds of it, you were charged by the Police and reported. However the PF dropped it and you’ve not received any letter detailing any charges against you … i.e. you’ve not been charged by the PF, more like just reported by the Police. As such, no prosecution charge sheet in the form you imagine exists.

Does that make sense?

The closest thing you *may* be able to get is a disclosable version of the Police report which was sent to the PF. This is normally referred to as the SPR ( Scottish Police Report ).

The disclosable version of the SPR does not have all the information visible to the defence ( you ), but it would outline the charge details as they were reported by the Police.

Then again, it may not give much detail, the charge could simply read:

On XX date, at XX place, you Ben Cooper did act in a manner to cause alarm/annoyance/disturbance to BAE and did commit a breach of the peace.

As a wee follow up, regarding your incident, as already said, I wouldn’t take it as read that cause nothing happened that time, that nothing would happen the next time.

My beat used to cover a very similar type of site. I found the site extremely interesting and can understand the attraction of them to people such as yourself and 28dayslater.

However, such sites also attract acquisitive crime ( i.e. metal theft ) which can destroy buildings and has been known to knock out power to large and dangerous factories nearby. I’ve seen literally hundreds of yards of ground dug up by hand to pull out copper.

As such, persons I’ve found on such sites do generally get dealt with formally ( reports / whatever ) and I would immediately be thinking along the lines of ‘is this person here to commit theft?’

And rather than a breach, it could be along the lines of Section 57 of Civic Gov Scotland Act:

(S.57) Being in or on building etc. with intent to commit theft..

(1)Any person who, without lawful authority to be there, is found in or on a building or other premises, whether enclosed or not, or in its curtilage or in a vehicle or vessel so that, in all the circumstances, it may reasonably be inferred that he intended to commit theft there shall be guilty of an offence

To which there is a power of arrest attached.

So you can see that whilst you may be there for a photo, there are potential consequences. Fly wi the crows, shot wi the crows kinda thing.

Thanks very much for that – I didn’t know how the whole thing with the PF worked, makes sense now.

This site was different to most places I go, because it’s still covered by MSER – so a criminal offence to trespass there. Most places, of course, are only civil trespass, but as you say there are other things that could cause legal problems. In the urbex community, any kind of damage is strongly frowned upon, as of course is any theft, and of course being equipped with a camera instead of a crowbar is good evidence that I’m not up to anything 🙂

I hadn’t looked at your link when I guessed that! Always fancied a nosey round there… Sigh.

Sadly most of the interesting stuff has been demolished now – BAE are clearing the site for housing.

BAE are clearing the site for housing.

Bet there are some ‘interesting’ things in the soil samples 😯

It’s a shame that out of context, the machinery is pretty bog standard paper/cellulose making kit.

It’s only the association with the Devil’s porridge that makes it of interest.

Bet there are some ‘interesting’ things in the soil samples

Quite a few reports are online if you’re interested – and some of the stories I’ve heard from ex-workers are terrifying. Being a military factory, it didn’t have to comply with the same (or indeed any) environmental or safety standards. They lost a tonne of nitroglycerine in one incident, for example 🙂

It’s a shame that out of context, the machinery is pretty bog standard paper/cellulose making kit.

Yes, there’s a lot of crossover – though I’ve never found this many Bertrams beaters in a paper mill. Actually some of my later visits armed with detailed maps were more productive in terms of the unusual stuff – the continuous NG plant, the ball powder section, stuff like that. Though again they used commercial equipment for different purposes in many cases – industrial bread dough mixers to incorporate the cordite paste, sweet-making machinery for ball powder. More here if you’re interested:

ROF Bishopton Part III

Ben,

Re: Annoyance, I wouldn’t worry too much about that widening the scope, it is clear that, “It involves causing substantially more than mere irritation.” Ultimately it will be a judgement call whether mooching around taking photos on a derelict defence site is alarming / distressing etc. and therefore whether a crime known to Scotland has been committed. I’d suggest it might be one of those debates that is more fun to have from the sidelines than the dock!

Personally I think the industrial archaeology is fascinating, and there should be requirements to record it where possible. It might be worth a chat to the local planners to see what requirements there are for preserving the archaeology of the site. The right person at the council and the right person at BAE might actually be quite keen for a local amateur (and/or a local archaeology group) to record the details of the site, before it is levelled – I know that sort of thing has happened on the east coast although not with such nice photos as you’ve captured.

Thanks, yes, I figured that “annoyance” had to be more than just being irritating – otherwise I’d be going after the chuggers on Sauchiehall Street 🙂

BAE did let RCAHMS in to do a limited tour, which was good – though they didn’t let them visit some areas for (I presume) H&S reasons. There are no requirements to preserve any of the site – none of it is listed, and it’s all to be levelled apart from the parts BAE are retaining – the offices and labs, and some buildings as an environmental test facility. I never got a look in those parts as they’re still live.

This is one of my favourite rants, though – we stump up millions to stop a rich American buying an oil painting, but we spend practically nothing on preserving the places and history of the working class.

beautiful work ben. It’s lovely to see urbex stuff where someone really knows what they are photographing