Tobe Hayden Lee - Kent Renegade Loses 2 Houses

[John Uskglass]

YT vid from THL about how he's going to get off because the offence is statute barred.

Aye, right - as they say in these parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrcvxXuPyn0

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Criminal damage isn't a summary only offence, it's a hybrid offence ("Certain offences triable either way to be tried summarily if value involved is small") and so there is no time limit. Interpretation Act 1978 Schedule 1:

Thanks for the clarification. The offence was listed on the screen shot and I read this on a solicitor's website.

The penalties for criminal damage vary depending on the severity of the offence. If the value of the damage caused is below the threshold of £5,000, it is only triable summarily with a maximum penalty of Level 4 fine and/or 3 months’ imprisonment.

Although the Sentencing Council guidelines would also seem to be out of date.

Criminal damage (other than by fire) value not exceeding £5,000, Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.1 (1)

Triable only summarily (except as noted below*)
Maximum: Level 4 fine and/or 3 months’ custody
Offence range: Discharge – 3 months’ custody
*Note: Where an offence of criminal damage:

a) is added to the indictment at the Crown Court (having not been charged before)
or
b) it is an offence committed by destroying or damaging a memorial as defined by s22(11A) – (11D) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 committed on or after 28 June 2022

the statutory maximum sentence is 10 years’ custody regardless of the value of the damage. In such cases where the value does not exceed £5,000, the exceeding £5,000 guideline should be used but regard should also be had to this guideline.

[kindregards]

This is a very simple case, some people have made it complicated. It is a summary only offence(criminal damage under £5000) that can only be tried in the magistrates court.

The time limit(6 months) for summary offences stand, its the law

[Larry Spoons]

Criminal damage is listed in schedule 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 as an either way offence.

Section 22 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980 provides that criminal damage must be tried in the Magistrates' Court if the value of the damage appears to be less than £5000 but section 22 applies only to the venue of the trial. That was confirmed in DPP v Bird [2015] EWHC 407 (Admin).

In other words, no time limit appliesto the criminal damage alleged against Hayden Lee.

Whether the CPS will be interested in prosecuting an old low value damage is another thing altogether.

[Firthy2002]

There's speculation that come 28 days the CPS will decide no further action is to be taken.

I expect Tobe will be too pre-occupied with homelessness by that time as I anticipate seizure of his other house is imminent.

[kindregards]

Criminal damage is listed in schedule 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 as an either way offence.

Section 22 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980 provides that criminal damage must be tried in the Magistrates' Court if the value of the damage appears to be less than £5000 but section 22 applies only to the venue of the trial. That was confirmed in DPP v Bird [2015] EWHC 407 (Admin).

In other words, no time limit appliesto the criminal damage alleged against Hayden Lee.

Whether the CPS will be interested in prosecuting an old low value damage is another thing altogether.

Good God. It is a summary offence therefore the time limit applies. Why do you and others try to detract from this fact and it is a fact, no matter what irrelevant links or quotes you post. It is astonishing.

[aesmith]

YT vid from THL about how he's going to get off because the offence is statute barred.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrcvxXuPyn0

I think he goes beyond that. He appears to be working up to the following "logic" ..
* When he was arrested it was claimed to be for an indictable offence
* His arrest enabled his house to be possessed
* BUT .. it was actually a summary offence, so he shouldn't have been arrested
* If he hadn't been arrested they couldn't have taken the house
* Hence they need to give the house back

[Albert Haddock]

Criminal damage is listed in schedule 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 as an either way offence.

Section 22 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980 provides that criminal damage must be tried in the Magistrates' Court if the value of the damage appears to be less than £5000 but section 22 applies only to the venue of the trial. That was confirmed in DPP v Bird [2015] EWHC 407 (Admin).

In other words, no time limit appliesto the criminal damage alleged against Hayden Lee.

Whether the CPS will be interested in prosecuting an old low value damage is another thing altogether.

Good God. It is a summary offence therefore the time limit applies. Why do you and others try to detract from this fact and it is a fact, no matter what irrelevant links or quotes you post. It is astonishing.

I think this is the relevant passage, paragraph 12 of DPP v Bird:

Although the matter is not quite as simple as Mr Boyd put it in his skeleton argument, the offence of criminal damage is clearly indictable. The effect of the decisions, in particular R v Fennell [2000] 2 Cr App R 318 and R v Aldon [2002] 2 Cr R (S) 74 is that the offence is triable either way. Although where the damages of a value of less than £5,000, the offence is to be treated as if triable only summarily, that does not mean that it is to be treated as a summary offence for all purposes. The cases of Fennell and Aldon and the environmental prosecution in Kemp and Liebherr (GB) Limited [1987] 1 All England 885, make it clear that the offence remains an either way offence with no time limit and that this has not been affected by provisions such as section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In Aldon it was stated (at paragraphs 25 and 30 to 31) that section 40 is not a freestanding provision which reclassified criminal damage but a procedural provision which followed on from the categorisation process in terms of value by the justices and which affects the crown court sentencing powers. Accordingly, the court hearing the earlier proceedings in March erred in its reliance on S.127 as the justification for bringing the proceedings to an end.

[Larry Spoons]

Criminal damage is listed in schedule 1 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 as an either way offence.

Section 22 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980 provides that criminal damage must be tried in the Magistrates' Court if the value of the damage appears to be less than £5000 but section 22 applies only to the venue of the trial. That was confirmed in DPP v Bird [2015] EWHC 407 (Admin).

In other words, no time limit appliesto the criminal damage alleged against Hayden Lee.

Whether the CPS will be interested in prosecuting an old low value damage is another thing altogether.

Good God. It is a summary offence therefore the time limit applies. Why do you and others try to detract from this fact and it is a fact, no matter what irrelevant links or quotes you post. It is astonishing.

I'm a lawyer who has practised criminal law for over 30 years. If you want to debate the point then fill your boots, but unless you're in a position to overrule the decision in authorities such as Bird, you probably shouldn't.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

If you want to debate the point then fill your boots, but unless you're in a position to overrule the decision in authorities such as Bird, you probably shouldn't.

I wouldn't be too harsh on those who aren't aware of precedent cases. It's an easy conclusion to jump to as a lay person given the phrasing of the Sentencing Council and solicitors' websites. I suspect Tobe read the same and jumped to the same conclusion I initially did. It's why I thanked SpearGrass for the clarification.

[TheRambler]

@Larry Spoons, it appears that you are mistaken in your interpretation of The Law. Andrew Devine has made this clear by quoting a superior authority, namely Facebook. There are probably a couple YouTube videos out there as well, to reinforce it.

As you can see I was 100% correct to call it out on the 19th January, two days after the unlawful arrest of Ted. I stated: "the Police removed the owner for an offence that was statutory barred, meaning the police were really there just to remove the owner so the Bailiffs could take the property."
KentOnline News this is now confirmed at Court by the Clerk and the Judge, evidenced here: https://fb.watch/y4fHOPMP8l/
KentOnline News when are you going to stand up and do what you know should be done. Your silence is deafening Elli Hodgson
at ehodgson@thekmgroup.co.uk. I wonder if the People send you the link to this post, asking you to kindly look at it and maybe leave a response or even a request to interview Ted D. Legends...

https://www.facebook.com/andrew.devine. ... SPXjC7ayDl

TheRambler

PS I notice when following the second link to his Facebook page that he has consulted ChatGPT and as I’m sure everyone realises, there can be no higher authority.

[Larry Spoons]

If you want to debate the point then fill your boots, but unless you're in a position to overrule the decision in authorities such as Bird, you probably shouldn't.

I wouldn't be too harsh on those who aren't aware of precedent cases. It's an easy conclusion to jump to as a lay person given the phrasing of the Sentencing Council and solicitors' websites. I suspect Tobe read the same and jumped to the same conclusion I initially did. It's why I thanked SpearGrass for the clarification.

Point taken. I was a bit OTT and I apologise. I accept that is a slightly odd situation for only summary trial to be available for an either way offence.

I'm in the phase of my career where I get angry about time being wasted in court. It's a pity that the prosecutor and/or court clerk didn't squash the time limit nonsense immediately (although I admit the possibility that one or both did, but Tobe hears what he wants to hear).

[Larry Spoons]

@Larry Spoons, it appears that you are mistaken in your interpretation of The Law. Andrew Devine has made this clear by quoting a superior authority, namely Facebook. There are probably a couple YouTube videos out there as well, to reinforce it.

As you can see I was 100% correct to call it out on the 19th January, two days after the unlawful arrest of Ted. I stated: "the Police removed the owner for an offence that was statutory barred, meaning the police were really there just to remove the owner so the Bailiffs could take the property."
KentOnline News this is now confirmed at Court by the Clerk and the Judge, evidenced here: https://fb.watch/y4fHOPMP8l/
KentOnline News when are you going to stand up and do what you know should be done. Your silence is deafening Elli Hodgson
at ehodgson@thekmgroup.co.uk. I wonder if the People send you the link to this post, asking you to kindly look at it and maybe leave a response or even a request to interview Ted D. Legends...

https://www.facebook.com/andrew.devine. ... SPXjC7ayDl

TheRambler

PS I notice when following the second link to his Facebook page that he has consulted ChatGPT and as I’m sure everyone realises, there can be no higher authority.

Mr Devine blocked me some time ago when I (very
politely) corrected a duff argument that he was advancing to his followers.

I've often wondered why he doesn't have his own thread given his track record. At least three people that he has 'assisted' have wound up in prison, a secure psychiatric setting or both.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I've often wondered why he doesn't have his own thread given his track record. At least three people that he has 'assisted' have wound up in prison, a secure psychiatric setting or both.

I suspect that's because whilst he's a grifter and there is cross-over as he has links to Neelu, EWE, Paterson, Taylor and the New Zealand swindler John Wanoa, he's really just a common or garden conspiracy nut.

I feel that Neelu is documented here because of her Swissindo nonsense (she posted a video of herself trying to pay off her mortgage with a Swissindo M1 certificate) and her links to the Common Law Court muppets, rather than her satanic conspiracy and baby organ harvesting stupidity.

[carobee57]

apparently "it's in the bag" and something is happening today. He positively reeks of desperation now!

[wserra]

I'm in the phase of my career where I get angry about time being wasted in court.

It took me about a year to get to that point. I'm now in my 49th year of practice.

[John Uskglass]

Apparently, because the security company is called Orbis Commercial, that means a crime has been committed - or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQsazpi4sTU&t=4s

I do wonder if anyone is managing to follow his increasingly baroque arguments and make some sort of sense of them.

[The Observer]

I do wonder if anyone is managing to follow his increasingly baroque arguments and make some sort of sense of them.

Not me. When he enters his rococo phase, I'll pay more attention.

[JohnPCapitalist]

I do wonder if anyone is managing to follow his increasingly baroque arguments and make some sort of sense of them.

Not me. When he enters his rococo phase, I'll pay more attention.

I respectfully suggest that he is not likely to proceed to full-on rococo for a while yet. He seems passionately committed to a course of action that results in financial ruin. In other words, he's going to "go for Baroque" for a long time to come.

Now that I've said that, I hope the expression is used on the right side of the pond as well as here on the left.

[Philistine]

"go for Baroque"

I had a sensible chuckle from across the pond.