rajsuspect wrote:
would liabilty be reduced by having a formal hire contract for the equipment ie the equipment on site being on hire from a company or individual?
not any more…
cops now work with a CPS lawyer so they use both their power of physical force etc to retake the territory and legal means to try and justify the actions by their interpretation of the law. they are also making better use of electronic evidence gathering (using timecoded video and photographs) to prove that the equipment in question and the people using it were present at the unlicensed gathering.
even without using the CJA powers which specifically relate to sound equipment, under PACE 1984 (police and criminal evidence act) any constable can legally seize any property being used to commit a crime provided they can justify in Court that the property was being used to commit a crime. it doesn’t matter who legally owns it until the cops decide whether to return it.
If they use PEL laws it can be argued that just being involved in organising the event is crime in itself, so the cops are justified in seizing property to prevent the event going on.
Often drugs charges or (in indoor buildings) abstracting (stealing) electricity are added to the list of charges so cops can also argue that none of this would have happened if the rave was not in that location so the property is part and parcel to the crime being committed.
there is no habeas corpus law for property (a law against people being unjustly detained) so cops can get away with storing it for as long as they like to keep it out of use. this is clearly being done with some of the crews in the Thames Valley who had stuff confiscated back in 2004 and may not have had it returned yet.
also by confiscating property usually an owner comes forward to claim it and has to prove ownership; so the cops have someone to hold accountable for the rave…
it would be a civil matter between the owner of the property and the Police Authority to claim that the loss of the property was causing them financial hardship (i.e by not being able to put on events).
The owner of the property can either be nicked as well for being involved in the event or worse still could be subject to a counterclaim in the civil courts for financial losses caused to the venue owner by damage/trespass.
Some forces pass on the details of the organiser to venue owners solicitors, this has happened to someone I know and he has had private detectives trying to locate him and his assets to recover costs through civil courts.
the “hire company” it was a trick which sometimes worked 10 years ago when cops didn’t know the law as well, had less resources and there was less of a backlash against raves.
Times change though – nowadays cops would take the kit anyway and if the hire company boss whinged they would say “why are you hiring kit to illegal raves?” and would be either asked to turn in the organisers as a “bargain” to get the kit; or perhaps even be investigated themselves.
