It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Illegal Or Unlawful
what's the difference between illegal and unlawful?
Was talking to a friend about tv license's and he said that not having one was unlawful but not illegal.
What's the difference?
thanks
Was talking to a friend about tv license's and he said that not having one was unlawful but not illegal.
What's the difference?
thanks
Answers
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I think that a lot of the confusion here is that watching live TV without a licence is at present a CRIMINAL offence. There is a change in the law due soon to make it a CIVIL offence.
nalit is correct in that to convict you of watching TV without a licence the enforcement officer has to actually see the TV set switched on and showing live TV. To do this he / she has to actually be in the room not just looking through a window or hearing the sound. As they DO NOT have the right of access they have to persuade you to let them in or get you to admit that you watch without a licence. In theory they could get a police officer to get a warrant but in reality the police do not have the time or interest to bother . Getting a warrent needs a magistrates signature and no magistrate is going to be willing to issue one when they know it is useless.
Even if the TV licence man did get the warrant all the householder has to do is refuse to open the door until they have turned off the TV then let them in. Having a TV that is not turned on is not an offence , as I said they have to actually be in the room while it is being used. There was a case a while back where a conviction had to be overturned. The TV licence people came round when only a 14 year old child was present. The child let them in and showed the TV working. The court overturned the conviction as the entry was illegal, a child can not give access to a house without permission of the householder.
nalit is correct in that to convict you of watching TV without a licence the enforcement officer has to actually see the TV set switched on and showing live TV. To do this he / she has to actually be in the room not just looking through a window or hearing the sound. As they DO NOT have the right of access they have to persuade you to let them in or get you to admit that you watch without a licence. In theory they could get a police officer to get a warrant but in reality the police do not have the time or interest to bother . Getting a warrent needs a magistrates signature and no magistrate is going to be willing to issue one when they know it is useless.
Even if the TV licence man did get the warrant all the householder has to do is refuse to open the door until they have turned off the TV then let them in. Having a TV that is not turned on is not an offence , as I said they have to actually be in the room while it is being used. There was a case a while back where a conviction had to be overturned. The TV licence people came round when only a 14 year old child was present. The child let them in and showed the TV working. The court overturned the conviction as the entry was illegal, a child can not give access to a house without permission of the householder.
There's no need to get too bogged down in the legalities of this. A glance at the Communications Act 2003, Section 363, tells all:
http://
S363- Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
is guilty of an offence.
The section goes on to describe the maximum penalty for contravention (£1,000 fine).
This is fairly straightforward, explaining that installation or use of a TV is an offence. It is an Act of Parliament and forms part of criminal law, so contravention is illegal.
The BBC or its agents do not have automatic right of entry but may obtain a warrant, This is dealt with under S366:
http://
S366 - Powers to enforce TV licensing
(1)If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,
(b)that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and
(c)that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,
(Subsection 3 sets out a number of conditions where a warrant may be issued, including that where access would be denied without a warrant).
All fairly uncomplicated.
http://
S363- Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
is guilty of an offence.
The section goes on to describe the maximum penalty for contravention (£1,000 fine).
This is fairly straightforward, explaining that installation or use of a TV is an offence. It is an Act of Parliament and forms part of criminal law, so contravention is illegal.
The BBC or its agents do not have automatic right of entry but may obtain a warrant, This is dealt with under S366:
http://
S366 - Powers to enforce TV licensing
(1)If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,
(b)that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and
(c)that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,
(Subsection 3 sets out a number of conditions where a warrant may be issued, including that where access would be denied without a warrant).
All fairly uncomplicated.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
CORBYLOON, my bad, i meant they didnt have a right of access per se. With a warrant is different. I jumped in to quickly. However to get a warrant they must have some evidence that a crime is been committed and simply been unlicensed is not evidence. If it was they would have been back at my door many a time with a warrant to search. And if you withdraw your implied right of access they cannot even (legally) knock on your door, let alone have a snoop in your living room for a tv.
nalit do you know that there is an online form that you can fill in to declare that you 'do not need a TV Licence' ? There are several reasons on a drop down menu that you can choose for not needing a TV licence. one of these is ' My Tv set does not work'
I know a person who does not have a TV set and has filled in the form to say so, he has not had the TV licence people round for at least 3 years.
I know a person who does not have a TV set and has filled in the form to say so, he has not had the TV licence people round for at least 3 years.
Can we just quit with this illegal/unlawful nitpicking.
It's morally wrong - you are stealing something that the rest of us pay for.
If you think the BBC licence fee should be abolished then elect a party that promises that in its manifesto - until then either ditch the TV or man-up and pay your fair share.
It's morally wrong - you are stealing something that the rest of us pay for.
If you think the BBC licence fee should be abolished then elect a party that promises that in its manifesto - until then either ditch the TV or man-up and pay your fair share.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
That, of course, is an entirely different issue, db, and I think you're probably right.
However, back to the question. There does not have to be evidence that an offence has been committed for a warrant to be granted, nailit:
"...is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed, "
"Reasonable grounds for believing" will do. So something like "No record of a TV Licence being held and an aerial or Sky dish on the roof" will almost certainly fit the bill. No need to walk up the path, no need to look through the window. No need to defy the "implied right of access" repudiation. Remember, once a warrant has been granted entry can be secured and the finer points about whether the TV is being used to watch live programmes or not can be discussed and investigated.
All a bit over the top and warrants are rarely requested. But that's how the law is.
However, back to the question. There does not have to be evidence that an offence has been committed for a warrant to be granted, nailit:
"...is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a)that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed, "
"Reasonable grounds for believing" will do. So something like "No record of a TV Licence being held and an aerial or Sky dish on the roof" will almost certainly fit the bill. No need to walk up the path, no need to look through the window. No need to defy the "implied right of access" repudiation. Remember, once a warrant has been granted entry can be secured and the finer points about whether the TV is being used to watch live programmes or not can be discussed and investigated.
All a bit over the top and warrants are rarely requested. But that's how the law is.
-- answer removed --
