When Tom says "I never got the warrant", he means "I only got a copy of the warrant, not the original," implying (but never actually saying) that only the original document counts. He admits this in court:
112. Mr Justice Phillips : Did you receive a warrant from the court?
113. Mr Crawford : No.
114. Mr Justice Phillips : You didn’t?
115. Mr Crawford : No. I got a facsimile that looks like a warrant …
The solicitor clarifies that Tom was a copy of the warrant at his request (and that this was sorted out in the prior hearing):
206. [Mr West] : Mr Crawford then complained about the absence of the warrant for possession itself. Now
that is dealt with Ms (inaudible) in paragraph 24 of her witness statement, which is at page
37 of the bundle.
207. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes, I’ve read that.
208. Mr West : And she explains that the warrant itself is a court document, no copy of the
warrant itself was forwarded to Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors. However, she says that
she was aware that Mr Crawford previously made application to the court requesting sight
of the warrant, which was subsequently granted and she refers the court to the letters sent to
the claimant by Mr (inaudible) of Nottingham County Court, which confirms that Mr
Crawford was provided with a copy of the warrant itself by the counter clerk on 12th
August.
Tom continues to claim that he never got the warrant:
253. Mr Crawford : Yes. Once again, Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors waffle on about certain
things and ignore the facts. The facts are that if you go to the document I passed up to you,
page 12, for instance, a request to reissue the warrant that they all acted on and stole my
property, if you look at the box, where it’s got an X next to it, and they signed it. And the
amount and the balance due is shown. Obviously, I don’t owe anything to have this request
for a warrant. Where was the warrant, why wasn’t it issued to me in good time?
And again, apparently egged on by his advisors:
379. (Instructions to Mr Crawford from his colleague)
380. Mr Crawford : So first of all … you haven’t seen a correct warrant, I haven’t seen a
correct warrant, they say that there’s a shortfall, they … I’ll give you the document in …
381. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re re-arguing the matter …
382. Mr Crawford : No, no, this isn’t …
383. Mr Justice Phillips : … I’ve already decided that your application fails and your claim
should be dismissed.
In the oft-cited Amanda post above, she says "we have the unicorn", immediately declares it useless, then goes on about having it "analyzed." This would be consistent with a belief that only the original document carries any legal weight.
I won't speculate as to whether Tom is intentionally obfuscating, or if he's just unable to articulate the problem as he perceives it. Certainly either is possible.
