Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[ArthurWankspittle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Cc_zRyQj0

I wonder if this is a video of Craig doing his distraction act ?

Whatever it is, I doubt they paid Muse for their music.

[Pox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Cc_zRyQj0

I wonder if this is a video of Craig doing his distraction act ?

I doubt that Craig could distract anyone for too long - after about 30 seconds I reckon I would make my excuses and depart his company.

[Bones]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Cc_zRyQj0

I wonder if this is a video of Craig doing his distraction act ?

Whatever it is, I doubt they paid Muse for their music.

[getoutofdebtfools]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Cc_zRyQj0

I wonder if this is a video of Craig doing his distraction act ?

It always makes me laugh how the terms "Expect us" and "Anonymous" are used. We "Expect" them to get nicked and they are hardly "Anonymous" now. Morons

[exiledscouser]

The Crown is opening its case so for that video to be played at this stage in the proceedings Craig's carefully edited and put together effort is the prosecution's Exhibit 1.

D'oh!

You Tube and Facebook. The prosecution's friend.

[wanglepin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Cc_zRyQj0

I wonder if this is a video of Craig doing his distraction act ?

Don't think so. I think Amanda was on distraction detail with one of her erotic dances.

[wanglepin]

Sycophant Sallie has waded in. Where has she been hiding?

by SalliNae » Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:41 pm
Truth will out. If I were a Defence Lawyer, the first question would be proof of ownership to anyone other than Tom and Sue on the date of the alleged incident. There was no legal paperwork to prove lawful eviction despite a High Court Order requesting production of the same. Until that paperwork was produced, as per the High Court Order, there was absolutely no ill intent on behalf of any the Defendants who firmly believed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they were doing anything other than stopping criminals from taking property and causing criminal damage to Sue and Tom's property.

Nothing like a little spin to promote the prosecution's case. Typical MSM repeaters who, you can guarantee, will not be repeating anything that goes against the "public interest" for that read "Crown Corporation"

https://www.facebook.com/izzieshier.xx/ ... ent_tagged

[Hercule Parrot]

If I were a Defence Lawyer...

You have more chance of being a pink unicorn, Sally.

[Bungle]

Error. Keyboard engaged before brain.

[Bungle]

No Tommy, nobody's watching the posts. Stop worrying. It's only Facebook you're posting on. Who reads that anyway?????

[Chaos]

If I were a Defence Lawyer...

You have more chance of being a pink unicorn, Sally.

sadly........she didn't 'take either path'

[Jeffrey]

If I were a Defence Lawyer...

You would have told them not to break into a house?

[ArthurWankspittle]

If I were a Defence Lawyer...

You have more chance of being a pink unicorn, Sally.

She'd be more useful as a traffic cone though.

Truth will out.

Oh yes, but then when you don't like it you can fall back on

Nothing like a little spin to promote the prosecution's case. Typical MSM repeaters who, you can guarantee, will not be repeating anything that goes against the "public interest" for that read "Crown Corporation"

If I were a Defence Lawyer, ( AW) the first question would be proof of ownership to anyone other than Tom and Sue on the date of the alleged incident. Why? see later comments There was no legal paperwork to prove lawful eviction except for every court hearing in connection with the case believes there is despite a High Court Order requesting production of the same. Until that paperwork was produced, as per the High Court Order, the court order said Tom should have a full set of documents, NOT that until a full set of documents was produced everything was on hold there was absolutely no ill intent on behalf of any the Defendants who allegedly damaged the property who firmly believed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they were doing anything other than stopping criminals from taking property and causing criminal damage to Sue and Tom's property.

So, firstly, in English law you can only damage your own property yourself. So unless the accused can show they own the property they are committing an offence. Secondly, your logic appears to work like this: You own a car. I "firmly believe" that it is about to get trashed in a riot. I break the window of your car, get in, break the steering lock, hot wire it and drive it a mile away. According to you I have done nothing wrong as I "firmly believe" it was about to get damaged.

[AndyPandy]

If I were a Defence Lawyer...

What's she on about, they don't believe in 'defence lawyers' do they?? I thought 5 of the idiot 7 were representing themselves, is that her subtle way of saying 'get yourself a good lawyer' !!

[Forsyth]

Secondly, your logic appears to work like this: You own a car. I "firmly believe" that it is about to get trashed in a riot. I break the window of your car, get in, break the steering lock, hot wire it and drive it a mile away. According to you I have done nothing wrong as I "firmly believe" it was about to get damaged.

I believe this specific part is, in fact, correct.

Criminal Damage Act 1971 Chapter 48 Section 5
2 (b) [...] in order to protect property belonging to himself or another [...] and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—

(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

That isn't to say it applies to this particular setting, or that no test would be applied to the requirement of "honestly held", or "immediate need of protection", or the if the method of protection was "reasonable".

It is, however, possible to damage someone else's property without their prior permission but without committing an offence. To provide a slightly less strained example, it would, probably, be acceptable to break down someone's front door if you saw their living room was on fire and you were attempting to extinguish the flames, or to attempt to save property or life. If you made a mistake then so long as your actions were reasonable according to your honestly held beliefs, then you may be liable for a civil claim for damages (which is a different kettle of fish altogether), but not subject to criminal charges.

Discussion of whether any such tests would be passed in the current setting is probably out of bounds for another few weeks, of course.

[SteveUK]

Mods - perhaps now is the time to close this thread and start off a rooftop 6 one?

[hanlons razor]

I'd second the new thread.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It is, however, possible to damage someone else's property without their prior permission but without committing an offence. To provide a slightly less strained example, it would, probably, be acceptable to break down someone's front door if you saw their living room was on fire and you were attempting to extinguish the flames, or to attempt to save property or life. If you made a mistake then so long as your actions were reasonable according to your honestly held beliefs, then you may be liable for a civil claim for damages (which is a different kettle of fish altogether), but not subject to criminal charges.

I disagree. I think that you are still committing an offence but no one would pursue it, the owner wouldn't bother, the cops won't bother especially if the owner won't and the CPS would drop it as a waste of time and not in the public interest. To further back my position, if I were to go to a customer's house and find them on the floor when I look through a window, I phone the Police and the Ambulance service because the Police have a right to break in, in the case of imminent danger or some similar wording. The public and Ambulance crew don't, at least that's my understanding.

Discussion of whether any such tests would be passed in the current setting is probably out of bounds for another few weeks, of course.

Absolutely, we will have to see what is raised in the next few weeks.

[Chaos]

Secondly, your logic appears to work like this: You own a car. I "firmly believe" that it is about to get trashed in a riot. I break the window of your car, get in, break the steering lock, hot wire it and drive it a mile away. According to you I have done nothing wrong as I "firmly believe" it was about to get damaged.

the amount of damage from new curtains, furniture and a coat of paint cause on a broken down hovel is tremendous!

[#six]

There is a lawful excuse defence for criminal damage, that of belief of consent and belief of protection.

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Criminal-Damage.php

S.5(2) sets out two instances of what can amount to lawful excuse in relation to criminal damage. S.5(2)(a) covers belief in consent and s.5(2)(b) covers belief that property was in immediate need of protection. By virtue of s.5(3) these two provisions are entirely subjective in their approach, based entirely on the defendant's belief. It need not be a justifiable belief provided it is an honest belief. Even a drunken mistaken belief is sufficient:

It could be argued by a good defence lawyer that belief of consent covers this situation but I would assume that the lawyer would also have to argue that consent was given by T Crawford and that the defendants had no reason not to believe that T Crawford was able to give consent (ie they believed it was still his home)

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Denton.php

The appellant set light to some machinery at his place of employment causing £40,000 worth of damage. He then gave himself in to the police and said that he had deliberately done so because the business was in financial difficulty and he thought that setting fire to the machinery would help out the employer. The employer had hinted that it would be desirable if the machinery was put out of action and that there was nothing like a good fire to improve the financial position of the business. The trial judge ruled that the word 'entitled' to consent in s.5(2)was qualified with the word 'honestly'. The defendant therefore pleaded guilty to criminal damage by arson and appealed the judge’s ruling requiring honesty.

Held:

The appellants conviction was quashed. There was no requirement that the person entitled to consent was honest.

Arguing this defence when representing oneself maybe more problematic.

Obviously I must stress that persons are innocent until otherwise proven guilty, yada, yada ,yada.

ETA: However, I'm not entirely sure if this would also cover conspiracy to commit criminal damage