My CBO

[MarcellaPotter]

Hi everyone, long story short I'm the same person as was discussed in this part of a thread about "idiots" who didn't get their own thread:

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10855&start=2160

What happened was that I got remanded into custody by Judge Holt, I was arrested for breaching my bail conditions within 24 hours of a hearing before Norwich Crown Court in which I intended to argue that they should be lifted. Norfolk Police were going to put me before the Magistrates Court, but instead I had to be taken to Norwich Crown Court as that was the correct court due to me having a hearing there. The Judge saw the evidence and put the Prosecution case to me, foolishly rather than asking for a lawyer, I just got into a conversation in which I ended up admitting to breaching my bail conditions, leading to Judge Holt essentially finding me guilty of breaching them. He asked me if I had any remorse and if I would do it again, being annoyed at the apparent injustice that he had caused by denying me a fair hearing, I said "no" to both of those questions.

Eventually my appeal was heard and my defence barrister Jonathan Goodman did a terrible job in representing me, that said I doubt it was entirely his fault. It turns out that the rep I spoke to from Sheridan Bowles just didn't listen to my instructions, and that he was on holiday at the time. So annoying. How the hell can a Legal Executives holiday be something that they end up prioritising over the needs of their own client? Anyway, long story short, I ended up deciding to plead guilty to both counts of breaching my Criminal Behaviour Order. After I decided to attempt to vacate those pleas, then after seeking legal advice and representation, only one of those pleas, the court heard and rejected my application. As a result the matter got adjourned for sentence, which was eventually passed in April.

I had already spent 69 days in custody for the breach of bail, and was awarded a time served sentence of 60 days on each count (to run concurrently) for the breach of my Criminal Behaviour Order. This is despite the fact that even Judge Holt himself only said that he was awarding 30 days on each count, that said he wasn't clear enough despite the fact that he meant that those two sentences were to run consecutively to each other. He did however make it clear that my total sentence was 60 days "imprisonment", that said given that I was under 21 this should have been detention in a Young Offender's Institution.

The Judge also purported to vary the Criminal Behaviour Order to prevent this situation from occuring due to a possible misunderstanding. The new terms were more onerous, and didn't just say not to film, photograph, or audio record and not to contact any members of staff or officers, but also prohibited contact with the Constabulary full stop, or even talking about an officer or member of staff within that person's earshot (is that even contact?). Even Sgt Gorbutt (a Custody Sergeant at Wymondham Police Investigation Centre) called the new terms "draconian", and I would be minded to agree with him on that. Being annoyed at this injustice, I decided to ignore the advice of multiple lawyers (who told me not to bother as there would be no prospect of the appeal having any success) and fight the matter in the Court of Appeal.

To their great surprise, I won! That said, the grounds I used to argue for the appeal (and no, they were nothing to do with claiming common law jurisdiction, or any crazy freeman bullshit, those were in fact that I felt that the variations to the order amounted to a violation of my human rights and were not necessary in any event to help in preventing me from conducting anti-social behaviour) were not the reason that the order's variation was reversed, it was reversed on the grounds that the Court of Appeal decided, that as submitted by Prosecution barrister Oliver Haswell, the Crown Court did not have the power to vary a Criminal Behaviour Order made by Norwich Magistrates Court. As a result the original order was restored, which only prohibited recording (by photograph, sound, or video) any Norfolk Constabulary officers or staff, and from contacting any Norfolk Constabulary officers, or staff.

I subsequently applied for it to be revoked, and got another defence barrister Jude Durr to do the application on the basis that it was not a lawful order, and was not helpful in any event as I had inadvertently breached it (as established by the Crown Court accepting my guilty pleas to both counts in spite of my application to vacate one of them) due to misunderstanding its terms of it. He insisted on psychological evidence from Dr Eaton first, I was not happy with this so ended up sacking him and doing the application myself. The application was rejected by Norwich Magistrates Court, Jude Durr shouted at me "WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT" before being lead away by a friend on a night out (that's alcohol for you, I'm a vile drunk too!), and the order ran out by itself on 03/07/2019. What can I say?

[wserra]

foolishly rather than asking for a lawyer, I just got into a conversation in which I ended up admitting to breaching my bail conditions
...
[The judge] asked me if I had any remorse and if I would do it again, being annoyed at the apparent injustice that he had caused by denying me a fair hearing, I said "no" to both of those questions.
...
my defence barrister Jonathan Goodman did a terrible job in representing me
...
the rep I spoke to from Sheridan Bowles just didn't listen to my instructions
...
I ended up deciding to plead guilty to both counts of breaching my Criminal Behaviour Order. After I decided to attempt to vacate those pleas
...
I decided to ignore the advice of multiple lawyers
...
I won!
...
ended up sacking him and doing the application myself.
...
What can I say?

Don't know what you might say. This reader (who admittedly knows nothing about the jurisdiction of various British courts) might say the following: Congratulations on the win. Surely, however, it seems as though you might have gone through considerably less had you not been so certain that you knew best at almost every turn.

And don't call me "Surely".

[Albert Haddock]

Being annoyed at this injustice, I decided to ignore the advice of multiple lawyers (who told me not to bother as there would be no prospect of the appeal having any success) and fight the matter in the Court of Appeal.

To their great surprise, I won! That said, the grounds I used to argue for the appeal ... were not the reason that the order's variation was reversed, it was reversed on the grounds that the Court of Appeal decided, that as submitted by Prosecution barrister Oliver Haswell, the Crown Court did not have the power to vary a Criminal Behaviour Order made by Norwich Magistrates Court.

In other words, assuming that they were advising you on the basis of your grounds for appeal, the multiple lawyers were probably right.

[SpearGrass]

This is so pseudo-legal! One serious impact of pseudo-legal arguments is that they often conceal the fact that they may have a defence - sacking all lawyers doesn't help of course. I once had to deal with someone charged with possession of an Cat C drug, who was working through the entire fotler bingo card, and it was only after he'd been committed to the Crown Court (because he refused to co-operate in the allocation process), remanded in custody after he offended on bail, and the case had been listed for trial, that a prosecutor realised that the drug in question (a steroid) wasn't illegal.

But usually when the sheeple's legal system has done its work, probably in this case because the staff at the Criminal Appeal Office spotted the error, it's seen as a win. This case is unusual, though, because MarcellaP fairly admits that it wasn't their arguments that won the day. Indeed it seems a very clear and accurate account. The case rings a bell with me, I think it may have been reported, though I couldn't find it