FatGambit wrote:I thought of that too, doing criminal damage is generally when you do something to someone else's property right?
Yes but be careful about the "someone else" bit plus you can only do it yourself - you can't tell or give permission to someone to perform criminal damage IIRC.
FatGambit wrote:I can see them trying to argue that because B&B had not yet sold it, only had possession of it through repossession, and Tom's name still being on the land registry, would mean Tom's previous invitation to walk on the roof remains relevant, meaning criminal damage was not done.
See previous comment above.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
No lawful excuse to break into the roof of a strangers house a guy you kind of know no longer owns.
Last edited by Jeffrey on Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
YiamCross wrote:An application was made by the prosecution to adduce previous convictions of certain defendants which means they can be put before the jury at their trial.
Note this is an application at this stage, I see no mention of a decision. Please therefore don't speculate about who this includes among the defendants.
You will note I haven't speculated about anything.
ArthurWankspittle wrote:Separately, are any of the defendants represented?
Two were but I'd rather not speculate about who.
ArthurWankspittle wrote:And further, from what I can tell, if found guilty, the likely sentence for the charges would involve custody.
I don't think you should speculate about possible outcomes of an upcoming trial.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—
(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; [...]
(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.
(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—
(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; [...]
(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.
I don't know how much time has been allocated for the trial in January but I suspect that any who plan taking time out to attend should book a few days off if the above is anything to go by.
I do have a bit of experience of being in court against 'FMOTL types' but I am not assuming or speculating that they will use FMOTL arguments.
Unless of course, Ebert is involved in which case it will be over in a few hours - he doesn't appear to have any skills in reading or interpreting acts from what I have gathered.
ArthurWankspittle wrote:And further, from what I can tell, if found guilty, the likely sentence for the charges would involve custody.
Sentencing guidelines are available on line, which are not something that can be disputed and therefore should be safe to contemplate without prejudicing any case:
Discussing where the current case may fall on the scale is possibly out of order (or, at least, to be approached with caution), as it could presuppose both guilt and severity (neither of which has been proved) not to mention that which charges, if any, will ultimately be presented to the court has yet to be determined.
So Craig is going to go to the Police with a video made in court to prove someone allegedly told him to F off? The Crawfords as a family seem to have some problems with the definitions of words like troll and harassment.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—
(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; [...]
(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.
(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
(c) having a charge on it.
Whichever of those three tests is applied, in each one the proper "owner" would clearly be B&B rather than TC.
An attempt to claim an honest belief otherwise would be a brave but foolhardy defence, especially if the defendants had been closely involved and must have known about the facts. Just commenting in general terms, obviously - I wouldn't want to speculate about any immediate connection to one or another case.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
I've heard of case in which the owner of a tenement deliberately sabotages the utilities to try and drive away tenants so that they can upgrade the property, or at least the rent. I don't know what the charge is in such a case but i know that there is one.
So Craig is going to go to the Police with a video made in court to prove someone allegedly told him to F off? The Crawfords as a family seem to have some problems with the definitions of words like troll and harassment.
Dunno about that, if indeed people turned up and acted as he claimed, then I would say he has every right to complain about it.
Or maybe the person who told him to feck off had absolutely nothing to do with us shills, and was just there on totally unrelated matters.
You know, just like the person randomly walking down the road that Tom accursed of being with Yiam and the woman with the pushchair/bike that Sue decided to try and get involved.
Or even, they were just following his dad's mates advice, since nobody has the right to demand your name....
