The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[NG3]

Since been removed from gofundme website

I doubt the new owner would sell for £43k anyway...

[bagman]

Since been removed from gofundme website

I doubt the new owner would sell for £43k anyway...

I DID NOTICE IT HAD BEEN RUNNING SINCE JUNE 5TH ....RAISED £000.00

[YiamCross]

Since been removed from gofundme website

I doubt the new owner would sell for £43k anyway...

I DID NOTICE IT HAD BEEN RUNNING SINCE JUNE 5TH ....RAISED £000.00

I think to be fair it was pulled down fairly quickly at the Crawfords' request because didn't want to pay, which they could have done 10 times over from their own pockets, they were fighting because they were in the right.

It was the principle that caused them to lose their house for the principal.

[Forsyth]

Agreed, which is why I posed it as a question, to demonstrate the legal position, rather than as a statement against the individual.

It's a difficult one to answer without having the whole story. Certainly simply being on a roof with a hammer wouldn't, on its own, be enough. As such the picture can only be part of the evidence but not sufficient by itself.

A quick Google for charges relating to rooftop protests was interestingly varied:

http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/814541 ... p_protest/
http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/830453 ... rotestors/
Charged with burglary and public order offences, charges dropped because of insufficient evidence.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Woman-char ... story.html
Charged with causing a public nuisance, due to come to trial today, apparently.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/charges- ... e-1.151100
(Northern Ireland) Charged with entering the premises as trespassers and failing to comply with a police officer's direction to leave the building, The Resident Magistrate held there had been no evidence as to how the four men gained access to the roof. Therefore he could not find that they entered the building and he dismissed the charge. Also mistakes in the procedures followed by the police officer.

http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/Activ ... tory.htmlp
http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/Charg ... story.html
Charged with aggravated trespass, charges dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service as there is no longer a “realistic prospect” of conviction.

It's interesting that there is little in common between the charges and of the three that we know the ending for, none have resulted in convictions.

[bmxninja357]

I would venture a guess that a tool used to gain access to a prohibited are does not constitute a weapon unless threats are uttered or implied using said tool.

Sometimes a tool is just a tool held by a tool for the purpose of acting like a tool.

but openly carrying a weapon

Like a hammer...



Would that cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety?

The question need only be examined hypothetically in court, it's not necessary for a "real" person to have been afraid, just that a hypothetical one could have been.

I'm not sure how it is there but where I am you would be in possession of break and enter tools unless there were reasonable and probable grounds they were to be used as weapons.
Peace
Ninj

[hanlons razor]

Sorry people, we are sailing too close to the wind here. We can discuss the law in general and find recent pictures on the internet but we can't go naming names and connecting them to charges which are sub judice.
I think one difference is that in some cases there will be PLENTY of evidence!!! Especially from the seized mobiles etc. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one person involved pretty much had a step by step log of the entire planning and execution phases of their protest along with several or countless further associated messages/posts which would cement the charges further.

[Jeffrey]

If the Crawfords think they will get their house back, why are they so intent on getting the dishwasher and cooker delivered to the new house?

[bagman]

Agreed, which is why I posed it as a question, to demonstrate the legal position, rather than as a statement against the individual.

It's a difficult one to answer without having the whole story. Certainly simply being on a roof with a hammer wouldn't, on its own, be enough. As such the picture can only be part of the evidence but not sufficient by itself.

A quick Google for charges relating to rooftop protests was interestingly varied:

http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/814541 ... p_protest/
http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/830453 ... rotestors/
Charged with burglary and public order offences, charges dropped because of insufficient evidence.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Woman-char ... story.html
Charged with causing a public nuisance, due to come to trial today, apparently.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/charges- ... e-1.151100
(Northern Ireland) Charged with entering the premises as trespassers and failing to comply with a police officer's direction to leave the building, The Resident Magistrate held there had been no evidence as to how the four men gained access to the roof. Therefore he could not find that they entered the building and he dismissed the charge. Also mistakes in the procedures followed by the police officer.

http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/Activ ... tory.htmlp
http://www.lichfieldmercury.co.uk/Charg ... story.html
Charged with aggravated trespass, charges dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service as there is no longer a “realistic prospect” of conviction.

It's interesting that there is little in common between the charges and of the three that we know the ending for, none have resulted in convictions.

Very interesting, and a good read, but there is one issue that the silly-hat-six have that is gonna make any chance of having there charges dropped very difficult,,(will not put names) the one that's on remand,,,this is the very reasons that anyone with a ounce of sence would have walked away one that individual had involved himself into the insanity that was the silly-hat-six, prity sure from how the CPS have worked in the past, as one has been remanded then they will push hard for a conviction. If only to justify the remand and time served.

[bagman]

If the Crawfords think they will get their house back, why are they so intent on getting the dishwasher and cooker delivered to the new house?

because there hungry and too lazy to wash the plastic plates..

[Forsyth]

I'm not sure how it is there but where I am you would be in possession of break and enter tools unless there were reasonable and probable grounds they were to be used as weapons.

In the UK that would be called "going equipped", that only applies to committing a burglary, theft or "cheat" (obtaining property by deception). For a generic tool (and not one specifically made or adapted for the event), such as a hammer, it's easy to cast doubt on unless there's other supporting evidence. Also, it isn't an offence after the event - going home from a burglary with a set of lock picks isn't (apparently) an offence, nor is it if the person hasn't made their mind up about committing the offence even if they've been considering it.

As for weapons, the "made for, or adapted to" bit is strongly relevant. If it can't be shown that an item isn't specifically prohibited (there are several different lists - including most bladed items - with various exceptions) or made as or adapted to be a weapon then it has to be shown that there is intent of using it as a weapon. Taking a generic tool and arguing that it's being carried as a weapon is tricky - again we'd need to know more than one picture can tell us.

My feeling is that difficulties such as these are why we see a charge of affray, which allows a more holistic approach to the scene.

(I should emphasis again that I may be talking rubbish here - reading a book is no substitute for proper training in the field and "going equipped" isn't something I've felt the need to research before today!)

[NG3]

[Taking a generic tool and arguing that it's being carried as a weapon is tricky

Actually context smooths a lot of it out, for example someone I knew (non-friend) who was a carpet fitter was prosecuted and part of the prosecution revolved around his possession of a carpet knife. He tried the defence that it was a tool of the trade, but given context that defence was rejected.

What lawful reason would a man have for possessing, and brandishing, a hammer on the roof of a property he had no legal right to be on?

My feeling is that difficulties such as these are why we see a charge of affray, which allows a more holistic approach to the scene.

Agreed, it's a very open charge.

[ArthurWankspittle]

In the UK that would be called "going equipped", that only applies to committing a burglary, theft or "cheat" (obtaining property by deception). For a generic tool (and not one specifically made or adapted for the event), such as a hammer, it's easy to cast doubt on unless there's other supporting evidence.

I understood there were a few other elements which would concur with your information. I heard of a situation years back where someone was arrested for several burglary and related offences, one of which was "going equipped" as he was found in possession of a screwdriver. Now, if several burglaries were done by someone prising windows open with a screwdriver or similar tool, and the possessor of said screwdriver has no legitimate reason for having one (let alone in this case being unlikely to be able to spell screwdriver) then you can make out a case for "going equipped". If you are a carpet fitter, being found with a hammer and a Stanley knife in your van isn't going to convince anyone that beyond reasonable doubt you are conspiring to commit burglary.
Edit to add : freaky jinx double post.

[Forsyth]

Actually context smooths a lot of it out, for example someone I knew (non-friend) who was a carpet fitter was prosecuted and part of the prosecution revolved around his possession of a carpet knife. He tried the defence that it was a tool of the trade, but given context that defence was rejected.

I've heard a similar story about (IIRC) a car mechanic who had a Stanley knife (box cutter to the rest of you) in his pocket when he went to lunch. Because he didn't need the knife while he was at lunch, it was an offensive weapon.

What lawful reason would a man have for possessing, and brandishing, a hammer on the roof of a property he had no legal right to be on?

The interesting defence here would be to say "it's not a weapon, it's a burglary tool as I was thinking about, but not fully committed to, the idea of committing a burglary." Thereby removing the possibility of a prosecution for either offence.
If anyone wants to try that out in court, please do let me know how you get on.

[YiamCross]

Some movement on finding out who the new owners of 3 Fearn Chase are.

Sally Crocker Sarkozi
48 mins
I've had a land registry update
Dear Sally Crocker
Property Alert reference: 87417
There has been activity on the following property for which you have requested a Property Alert notification.
Property address: 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham (NG4 1DN)
Title number: NT231862
The activity details are:-
Application lodged by PRIORITY LAW LIMITED
On: 12.Aug.2015 At: 11:45:52
Customer reference: AJ/MC/STE00126 Nevins
Land Registry reference: T096KMN
If you are unsure about any of the information provided in this alert...
....Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Like Comment
6 people like this.
View 5 more comments

Handley Karen Priority Law they work closely with the mortgage lenders and providers of financial services that are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority ,,, if there regulated there not conducting well are they,,,,,
20 mins · Like · 1

Claire Booker http://www.cantorlawsolicitors.co.uk/pr ... veyancing/
We are experts in advising and acting for businesses in matters of residential and commercial conveyancing and are experienced in acting for mortgage lenders, property investors and asset man...See More

Conveyancing - Priority Law
Priority Law are experts in advising and acting for businesses in matters of residential and commercial...
CANTORLAWSOLICITORS.CO.UK
14 mins · Edited · Like

Amanda Pike interesting
8 mins · Like

Amanda Pike thanks for sharing honey x
8 mins · Like

[NG3]

If anyone wants to try that out in court, please do let me know how you get on.

I suspect few here would try such an approach, especially given that it's most likely impact would be with regards to sentencing.

I think someone suggesting they'd gone out considering committing burglaries wouldn't help their standing in the judges eyes.

"No, your honour, despite the evidence to the contrary, I didn't go out intending to commit an affray, I was looking to commit burglary instead, the affray was just a happy coincidence that I joined in with".

It's often best to go with the KISS approach, and just stick with the facts, especially given that judges usually react quite harshly to defendants they think are trying to game them (lack of remorse is considered in sentencing).

[bmxninja357]

Is there any evidence they brought tools? Could the tools have been on the property prior to thier entry or did they bring them with the intent to commit both b&e and wilful destruction? Did they have prior thoughts to gain access to the roof or was it just easy as things were found?

Peace
Ninj

[bagman]

Is there any evidence they brought tools? Could the tools have been on the property prior to thier entry or did they bring them with the intent to commit both b&e and wilful destruction? Did they have prior thoughts to gain access to the roof or was it just easy as things were found?

Peace
Ninj

I think these are questions best asked/answered in the court

[wanglepin]

I DID NOTICE IT HAD BEEN RUNNING SINCE JUNE 5TH ....RAISED £000.00

That'll be a lot of money then over in Goofsville.

[NG3]

Is there any evidence they brought tools? Could the tools have been on the property prior to thier entry or did they bring them with the intent to commit both b&e and wilful destruction? Did they have prior thoughts to gain access to the roof or was it just easy as things were found?

Peace
Ninj

I think these are questions best asked/answered in the court

Yes, I perhaps shouldn't have raised the hammer but I didn't intend it's purpose to discuss the case, merely to highlight how open a charge it is, with hypothetical witnesses and the actions of one being aggregated to the group, and open interpretations of elements etc.

[AndyPandy]

Some movement on finding out who the new owners of 3 Fearn Chase are.

Sally Crocker Sarkozi
48 mins
I've had a land registry update
Dear Sally Crocker
Property Alert reference: 87417
There has been activity on the following property for which you have requested a Property Alert notification.
Property address: 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham (NG4 1DN)
Title number: NT231862
The activity details are:-
Application lodged by PRIORITY LAW LIMITED
On: 12.Aug.2015 At: 11:45:52
Customer reference: AJ/MC/STE00126 Nevins
Land Registry reference: T096KMN
If you are unsure about any of the information provided in this alert...
....Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Like Comment
6 people like this.
View 5 more comments

Handley Karen Priority Law they work closely with the mortgage lenders and providers of financial services that are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority ,,, if there regulated there not conducting well are they,,,,,
20 mins · Like · 1

Claire Booker http://www.cantorlawsolicitors.co.uk/pr ... veyancing/
We are experts in advising and acting for businesses in matters of residential and commercial conveyancing and are experienced in acting for mortgage lenders, property investors and asset man...See More

Conveyancing - Priority Law
Priority Law are experts in advising and acting for businesses in matters of residential and commercial...
CANTORLAWSOLICITORS.CO.UK
14 mins · Edited · Like

Amanda Pike interesting
8 mins · Like

Amanda Pike thanks for sharing honey x
8 mins · Like

Does anyone know what type of application this would be ?