Monday 14 March 2016

'Guilty' of a 'crime' for feeding the homeless

Today, Amanda and Kim were found guilty of "breaching a dispersal order under s35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014", after Kim had been giving food to the homeless outside the Old Bank, in Castle St, Liverpool and Amanda was seen by Police throwing a sandwich to people who she believed to be homeless, who were occupying the building in May 2015.
After a three day trial in Feb 2016, two others charged with Amanda and Kim, were acquitted. But Amanda and Kim's trial was adjourned until today, when they were both found guilty.

Judge Shaw sentenced Kim to 40 hours community work, £60 victim surcharge and £713 court costs, and Amanda recieved the same surcharge and costs, but was given a curfew (8am to 10pm) and ordered to wear a tag.

In authorising this power the inspector (or above) must have regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

"An authorisation under s34 of the Act must -

(a) be in writing

(b) be signed by the officer giving it, and

(c) specify the grounds on which it is given.

Where an authorisation is in force under Sec 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation - according to Sec 35:

(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and

(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction.

Two conditions need to be met for a direction to be given:

The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to -

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

The officer considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder."

Neither Amanda or Kim had harassed, alarmed or distressed members of the public in the locality, nor had they committed any crimes or behaved disorderly. Therefore, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that they had 'contributed' to the two conditions, and the two conditions had not been met. I'd be of the view that their arrests were quite unlawful.

In my view, the only way that Amanda and Kim are guilty of this offence is, if giving food to the homeless, or anyone for that matter is 'anti-social behaviour, then they are guilty.

If giving food to others is not 'anti-social behaviour', as most sensible and compassionate people would surely agree, then they should both have been acquitted.


  1. This is outrageous, how can you be guilty of a crime in these circumstances.

  2. they used the dispersal order against me in 2014 its a new easy law to get you out of the way and even easier to prosecute you this law was set up for the police to be able to arrest you on a whim but everyone has the right to protest without being turned into a criminal, the law is a farce xxx

    1. The law is a farce indeed, it needs people to challenge it though. Hopefully Amanda and Kim will appeal.

  3. Deserve all the got I see the video these people caused so much damage to the building they where in. I agree more should be done for the homeless but that building was left in a right state. These people need to get a job and start paying taxes but no they want to fed the people who destroy buildings

    1. These two people did not cause any damage whatsoever to the Old Bank.

      These people do work, and do pay taxes.

      I suppose it's people like you who need to stop being judgmental ;-)

    2. Those people don't work because I know one of them. And yes she did cause damage as it was all over her Facebook. So ya I am not being JUDGMENTAL as you but it I'm telling the truth. They don't pay taxes and as one of them Said I will never work again I would rather be on the dole then pay taxes. So get your facts right HUYTON FREEMAN

  4. "Those people (plural) don't work because I know one (singular) of them"?

    That doesn't make sense.

    I also know one of them too.