I FIND YOUR QUESTIONS RATHER UNHELPFUL. ARE YOU SEEKING MY OPINION OR AM I SEEKING YOURS. DO YOU NOT HAVE THIS LEGISLATION?. SURELY THIS PARA REFERS TO A COUNCILS DUTY TO PROMOTE ANTI LITTER CAMPAIGNS AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROSECUTION.
I'll try to assist if I can.
s.3(4) provides for local authorities to take action over littering - essentially it gives the the power to draft their own littering policy and enforce it 'with a view to promoting the abatement of litter.' All s.4(3) does is enable local authorities to publicise the offence and take action themselves in the event of littering. It enables them to take action on their own account rather than rely on the police to do so.
This is extremely common in national legislation, for instance the granting of powers to local authorities to create their own alcohol-free zones under bylaws and enforce them themselves/with the assistance of police.
The reason for the prosecution citing s.3(4) is to justify enforcement by the local authority and further may refer to local bylaws that they have enacted themselves.
You're absolutely correct that it looks a little clumsy and for preference the summons should cite s.3(4) and s.3(1) in conjunction to ensure clarity.
However, I don't believe that any appeal on the nature of the summons would find much favour with an appeal court as the nature of the offence was presumably made pretty clear in the witness statements etc.
You are entitled to appeal this conviction if you choose to - you need to ensure that you file the notice of appeal with the appeal court, court of conviction and prosecuting authority within 21 days and thereafter you'll be notified of the date of appeal.
I hope that assists but please feel free to ask any follow up questions that occur.
I'm not saying that it doesn't matter which section of the statute they quote in the summons. Clearly if the offence alleged is dog-fouling and the summons says assault then there's a problem, albeit one that can be rectified by the prosecution if they apply to amend the charge.
The core here is that section 3(4) gives local authorities power to curb littering. s.3(4) is therefore cited on the summons a) to establish their authority to prosecute the offence and b) to identify the offence to be prosecuted. The most important thing is that the alleged offence is clearly identified.
My view remains that, if you pursued an appeal solely on the basis of this point, you wouldn't find a lot of sympathy with the appeal court.
On the other hand, a straight appeal on the facts (i.e. essentially a retrial in the appeal court) may well be worth a go particularly if you have evidence to contradict that of the wardens. A judge (assisted by two magistrates) will tend to be more inclined to assess the strength of the evidence more accurately.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).