Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[#six]

Verdict in 2 weeks doesn't sound right to me. Sentence sure, but not a verdict. Then again this whole debacle has surprised me all along.

[ArthurWankspittle]

A two week wait for the verdict in a criminal case? I can't say I've heard of that before.

Is this Crawford-speak for "Found guilty. Adjourned two weeks for sentencing"?

And/or awaiting medical reports?

Just had a thought - this was a magistrate court hearing wasn't it? Maybe it's been moved to Crown Court for sentencing? But then would it be as quick as two weeks? It would also seem OTT for the level of the offence too.
Although, is Tom still under some conditions or restrictions from previous hearings?

[rumpelstilzchen]

I must admit I am more curious about how they are going to explain “TC spotted wearing a high res vest picking up litter in Nottingham city centre” in 3 weeks’ time.

That's easy. Five words will do the job:
"Everything is going to plan."

[TheNewSaint]

I doubt anything newsworthy occurred today. Probably just procedural tasks and Tom raising irrelevant points.

[littleFred]

On ETFOTB:

[...] We don't know when this will be over but we will never give up, and why should we! we can PROVE our home has been violently stolen. Today Dad did that over and over and OVER again.

My parents have been robbed in the most disgusting way and we will NOT settle until we have our home back, [...]

It seems Tom was rehashing all his old arguments from the Godsmark case. I suspect the two weeks will be for the judge to write a careful and patient judgement that Tom is wrong on every point.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Amanda wrote:

We don't know when this will be over

Amanda, it was over a long time ago.

[rumpelstilzchen]

In her piece Amanda wrote:

My parents paid for that bungalow not only in their agreed mortgage payments in FULL

Amanda, even if that is true and your parents made every single payment on time and paid every single payment in full, you need to understand that at the end of the agreement they still owed the amount they had borrowed. That is how an interest only mortgage works. There is a clue in the description of the type of mortgage your parents had: interest only.

[letissier14]

Amanda's full post

Amanda Pike
9 hrs

I know what I say about my family being strong yadda yadda but today has been another level of proud, Dad you were absolutely AMAZING and with Mum at your side who helped you prepare and has been just as awesome in other ways I seriously could not be prouder. I mean that with all of my heart!

After all you have been put through today for the first time in court ( shocking!!) you got to share and show ( just a bit in the big scheme of things) some of your evidence....more to come later in yet more cases. But for today it was still fantastic!

I am sure those there will vouch for the fact that what my Dad was able to physically show the fraud etc and show they owed NO MONEY along with showing the laws that have been broken ( with hard evidence examples) it was shocking stuff hearing it all at once and I know the case in full but hearing it all together, well I had a tear or 2 listening to it all.
How all this has got to this, with no justice so far is mind boggling

Dad was just awesome today too taking no rubbish and showing up the entire process they have been forced to endure and have been put through.

Please remember they have been totally violated and robbed leaving them with nothing when they are totally innocent.
It was fascinating for soooo many reasons, and Dad was a power house of truth and light showing the entire room just how criminal their case has been.

The people that attended for us were so so soooooo wonderful!! many travelling many hours to join us and become witnesses to the case, you guys seriously are the best THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN for coming you really do not know what it means! please do feel free to share your thoughts on the day

Thank you also for all the online support comments and private messages along with texts! you are all such stars!
We don't know when this will be over but we will never give up, and why should we! we can PROVE our home has been violently stolen. Today Dad did that over and over and OVER again.

My parents have been robbed in the most disgusting way and we will NOT settle until we have our home back, which one way or another will happen, and the people that think they own it will need to take it up with their own solicitor Their beef is with them, not us.

My parents paid for that little bungalow not only in their agreed mortgage payments IN FULL as PROVED today in court but also with their blood sweat and tears. It IS OURS and every single day that passes where they are being deprived of it just makes it all the worse..

I knew my Dad knew his stuff but he basically turned into a talking law book today! so cool!!

Love you Dad and Mum, keep going, I am right behind you and justice will come! xxx

Ps if Dads up to it he will post later or tomorrow bless his heart he is exhausted. As ever much love to all x

[SteveUK]

With expert legal minds like this on board, Tom will be back in 'his home' before Christmas

[exiledscouser]

My view is; found guilty after a short trial.

Sentence adjourned for reports.

Sentencing options are fairly limited, see;

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of ... al-damage/

Because it is highly likely that the damage is under £5,000 in value then this case was only ever going to be dealt with summarily i.e. no jury, just Magistrates or a DJ with most likely outcome a conditional discharge or some sort of community order, perhaps a small fine.

It can't even be 'sent upstairs' to Crown by the lower court as they have perfectly adequate sentencing powers - for an old fool on a roof.

Meanwhile the Crawfords will continue to let this gnaw away at them, more's the shame.

[Forsyth]

Anyway, I can only presume that Tom lost, as all here suspected he would, and has been found guilty of what he supposedly wanted to be charged with. I can't remember what the final charge was (someone remind me) but whatever it was it's no surprise that already they are selling a loss and a win and giving us the "you wait and see" rhetoric once more.

I suppose I should pipe up here as a dissenting voice. While I'm far from certain that he'll be found not guilty, I do think that is more likely than not what will happen. That has nothing to do with my own opinion on Tom's actions, but that the defence that is open to him (that he honestly believed that he still owned the property) may be difficult to disprove.

This does not exclude the possibility that Tom will be given a restraining order preventing him from returning to the property. As the new owners were present in court I suspect the impact on them may be taken into account. While we are very short on details at present, my feeling is that it is also more likely than not that he will be the recipient of such an order.

If do we see a not guilty verdict I suspect this will be trumpeted as vindication of Tom and Sue's ownership of the house. This is not correct. If the charge is a simple matter of criminal damage then the issue at stake is Tom's belief in the ownership and makes no comment on what the ownership actually is (and, of course, there are all the other various requirements to prove criminal damage which may or not have been met).

If Tom is found guilty of criminal damage then that will be a dramatic statement as it will indicate that the court found that Tom himself did not believe that he still owned the house, though it is possible that he simply failed to present a coherent defence (though any competent legal advisor would be unlikely to miss this opportunity).

The combination of not guilty and a restraining order will indicate that Tom does not own the house, but that he genuinely believes that he does, and that the public need to be protected from his mistaken beliefs in the future even if he does not have a 'criminal mind'.

There's a lot more speculation in this post than I'm happy with and I'm aware that the facts of the case are not known to us in any detail and those that we do know could be wrong in some material way which would render it all meaningless.

[ArthurWankspittle]

My view is; found guilty after a short trial.

Sentence adjourned for reports.

Sentencing options are fairly limited, see;

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/of ... al-damage/

Reading that link I think you are more than likely correct. The likely outcome would be a fine but there is this element of repeated incidents concerning the house. I'll have more to say after the final hearing but I wonder if the judge was short of some information which he wants providing before the final hearing.

[doublelong]

Can you order transcripts or is that only for crown court?

[littleFred]

While I'm far from certain that he'll be found not guilty, I do think that is more likely than not what will happen.

I'm inclined to agree with you. (Though I don't know what if anything Tom was charged with, with the evidence was, and so on.)

Assuming Tom was charged with criminal damage, and his defence was that he thought he owned the house (evidenced by his rambling at the court), this makes the verdict simple but the judgement difficult.

"Mr Crawford, we find you not guilty, you are free to go, goodbye."

Tom would then march back to the castle, surrounded by adoring followers, and retake it. But I expect the magistrate (or district judge or whatever) wants to discourage this. In my view, Tom cannot now be persuaded that he is wrong, though I would expect the judgement to say so.

[daltontrumbno]

While I'm far from certain that he'll be found not guilty, I do think that is more likely than not what will happen.

I'm inclined to agree with you. (Though I don't know what if anything Tom was charged with, with the evidence was, and so on.)

Assuming Tom was charged with criminal damage, and his defence was that he thought he owned the house (evidenced by his rambling at the court), this makes the verdict simple but the judgement difficult.

"Mr Crawford, we find you not guilty, you are free to go, goodbye."

Tom would then march back to the castle, surrounded by adoring followers, and retake it. But I expect the magistrate (or district judge or whatever) wants to discourage this. In my view, Tom cannot now be persuaded that he is wrong, though I would expect the judgement to say so.

With a criminal damage charge ownership is not considered, only the act itself you can damage your own property and still be charged with criminal damage.

[SoLongCeylon]

http://www.nottinghampost.com/carlton-m ... story.html

Tom took his broken record to Court and spewed out the usual.

[Bones]

http://www.nottinghampost.com/carlton-m ... story.html

Tom took his broken record to Court and spewed out the usual.

However the judge told him: "Let's not make the mistake of thinking we are dealing with the Bradford and Bingley. No-one else is in the court but you."

Crawford, 65, pleaded not guilty to damaging the roof on March 28.

"He admitted his actions had been both reckless and intentional. He agreed he caused that damage to the tiles," the police statement went on.

Someone wants to have their cake and eat it

[Forsyth]

With a criminal damage charge ownership is not considered, only the act itself you can damage your own property and still be charged with criminal damage.

The act makes reference to "person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to" under the section for lawful excuses. While you are correct that this doesn't explicitly mention ownership, I would suggest that ownership is often likely to be relevant to the issue of whether someone is so entitled.

[Forsyth]

Someone wants to have their cake and eat it

Actually, I find that report very interesting. It sounds as though Tom knows that a charge of criminal damage could be resolved without touching on who owns the property (after the original rooftop protest this should be expected), so he deliberately attempted to be arrested for an offence where his "honest beliefs" wouldn't be considered, but the real matter of ownership might.

If the above is correct, then I wonder if the police have deliberately chosen not to prosecute for the burglary offence precisely because it is what Tom wants and to avoid getting bogged down in the details that Tom was planning to raise.

The police would know the difficulties they are likely to face in achieving a criminal damage prosecution, but they would also know that a restraining order is a possibility. It may well be that this is a case where the police are not particularly aiming for a guilty verdict but for the order that might come instead.

[Bones]

Someone wants to have their cake and eat it

Actually, I find that report very interesting. It sounds as though Tom knows that a charge of criminal damage could be resolved without touching on who owns the property (after the original rooftop protest this should be expected), so he deliberately attempted to be arrested for an offence where his "honest beliefs" wouldn't be considered, but the real matter of ownership might.

If the above is correct, then I wonder if the police have deliberately chosen not to prosecute for the burglary offence precisely because it is what Tom wants and to avoid getting bogged down in the details that Tom was planning to raise.

The police would know the difficulties they are likely to face in achieving a criminal damage prosecution, but they would also know that a restraining order is a possibility. It may well be that this is a case where the police are not particularly aiming for a guilty verdict but for the order that might come instead.

My reference to cake was in terms of him pleading not guitly to criminal damage but admiting he caused the damage. He appears to have gone a long the I own it route

Mr Quinn added: "He believes he is the owner of the property despite civil proceedings instigated by him last year, which confirmed the possession order. The defendant has no reasonable belief that the property is his own."