You may have seen the media reports of the van driver in Ayr being issued with a £60 and 3 penalty points penalty notice because he blew his nose while the van was stationary in a traffic jam with the gear in neutral and handbrake applied. Were this not bad enough, the Procurator Fiscal has been reported as determined to prosecute the driver should he refuse to pay the penalty ticket. It was later reported that the same police officer had issued another £60 penalty notice for dropping litter when a £10 note had fallen out of someone’s pocket.

At the time of writing this, I do not know if this is the whole story but that itself is part of the problem. Any matter, which is sub judice, that is it is actually at the time before the court or is reasonably expected to be before a court, should not be discussed in the media so as to ensure a fair trial. However by someone simply answering that they do not accept the reported version of events but cannot comment at that time because it is sub judice cannot prejudice any subsequent trial. And such a response should have been made. The story should not have been ignored. That smacks of incompetence or arrogance on the part of the authorities concerned.

Assuming the story to be correct, and noting the authorities have deliberately chosen not to deny it, it is quite ridiculous. In the first place he has committed no crime. Secondly even if the report is not wholly accurate, did the circumstances of the offence and the offender necessitate the issuing of a penalty notice and not a warning? That takes another leap backwards when one brings in the Fiscal who requires to be satisfied that (a) it can be proved that a crime has been committed and (b) it is necessary (and note necessary) in the public interest to prosecute the individual for it.

How on earth is it even suggested that at the time he was not in control of the vehicle, which is the alleged basis for the £60 fine? It was stationary, out of gear and with the handbrake on. Do different laws of physics apply in Ayr whereby such a vehicle could move by itself? What was he meant to do instead?

What too are we to make of it being a littering offence to drop a £10 note? Are Ayr police officers paid so much money out of the public purse, that to them a £10 note is simply a piece of litter to be discarded? Did it occur to the officer that it was not intended to be thrown away and, if not, why not? The crime of littering requires intent.

Nor is it acceptable to suggest that we simply have one out of control officer. What are his supervisors doing? Do they know, and approve, of his actings? If they don't know, why not? After all they are paid from public funds to supervise.

However the serious issue is not the apparent total lack of common sense in the law enforcement authorities in Ayr, but the effect on public perception created by this story. Criminal Law is a matter of consent. The public have to be in general agreement with the particular law and the way it is enforced for it to be effective. Policing requires the active support of the public. This story seriously undermines that trust in the law enforcement authorities, making them a laughing stock at best or a vindictive bunch of Judge Dreads at worst and simply further reinforces the opinions of those who already do not hold them in high regard. And for what? Minor matters, which were probably not criminal but, even if so, best dealt with by a quiet word. Thereafter when the balloon went up, instead of ignoring it, there should have been an acceptance that a mistake had been made and an explanation given immediately to the public in whose name they all act.

That is where arrogance comes in. "They" know best and are not required to justify or explain anything to the little people. Unfortunately for them, it is the little people who really matter.