Rekha Patel loses her house

[Siegfried Shrink]

Maybe I misread it, but it seemed to me that the Judge thought the warrant should be a different format to the format that is currently in use. Wouldn't you call that a misconception? If he had seen secondary evidence that aligned with his expectations, would he have wished to see primary evidence? (we do not know).

BTW, I didn't say that Chrisy Morris played a blinder, but it is fairly obvious that he argued his case more skillfully than the CPS. This is not a good thing, by the way and sends out an unhelpful message.

You are right that we have no idea why the judge was dissatisfied with the secondary evidence, my contention is simply that this was the technicality that scuppered the CPS and the little Mr. Morris said could only be complimeted for having the judge do all the defending for him.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

I see your point, but the CPS lawyer did not exactly push back on the document format, did she? Morris seemed to have been polite, respectful and consistent in his argument (even if it had no merit)

[Siegfried Shrink]

I did suspect that Mr. Morris had hired a normal person to appear in his stead.

You cannot expect a junior barrister barely out of pupilage to do a lot of pushing back in the circumstances.

Courts on fictional TV have a lot to answer for, we expect counsel to be eloquent, learned and confident, in reality I have observed juniors in court who seemed blithering idiots, who had barely lost their egg-teeth before finding themselves in the midst of a case, which to be fair, they had probably only just been handed the brief.

[ArthurWankspittle]

He got lucky in a way because his defence was always the writ was invalid. The standard SovCit stuff - no seal, no wet ink signature etc. When it came to the appeal the judge wanted to see the original writ but the CPS only had a copy. Because the validity of the writ or warrant was the defence from the start, the judge is entitled to expect the original to be available if not presented. The defence is saying it isn't valid and the prosecution can't produce the original. The judge has virtually no choice but to uphold the appeal.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

He got lucky in a way because his defence was always the writ was invalid. The standard SovCit stuff - no seal, no wet ink signature etc. When it came to the appeal the judge wanted to see the original writ but the CPS only had a copy. Because the validity of the writ or warrant was the defence from the start, the judge is entitled to expect the original to be available if not presented. The defence is saying it isn't valid and the prosecution can't produce the original. The judge has virtually no choice but to uphold the appeal.

Good points - but as the prosecution was aware that the defence were using an argument that would be likely to require the original warrant to be produced, then I still don't believe that it is 'getting off on a technicality', the prosecution had enough notice of the hearing to get the original document and lack of it is poor preparation.

How much did this trial/appeal cost the public coffers?

[ManontheClaphamBus]

I did suspect that Mr. Morris had hired a normal person to appear in his stead.

You cannot expect a junior barrister barely out of pupilage to do a lot of pushing back in the circumstances.

Courts on fictional TV have a lot to answer for, we expect counsel to be eloquent, learned and confident, in reality I have observed juniors in court who seemed blithering idiots, who had barely lost their egg-teeth before finding themselves in the midst of a case, which to be fair, they had probably only just been handed the brief.

Just out of interest, is it the barrister's job to identify and procure the document required to prove the authority of the HCEO?

[Siegfried Shrink]

It is the barrister's job to be prepared. The chambers clerk probably does the legwork but it is down to the barrister to think it through and ask for any support needed. The instructing solicitor also has a responsibility to ensure the chambers have anything they have that is relevant. In this case the CPS would be the instructiong solicitor,so a good chunk of responsibility falls there. They should have prepared the brief better.
A dozen or so posts back up this thread is what should have happened.

[longdog]

AnOwlCalledSage wrote:
- references to someone’s previous convictions
- statements about a person’s character
- evidence seeming to link a person directly to the crime of which they have been accused
- other suggestions that the person is guilty

When proceedings are ‘active’, the above content CANNOT be posted and the Facebook user is in contempt of court. Proceedings are ‘active’ when:

- a person is charged
- a person has been arrested
- an arrest warrant is issued
- a summons is issued

Oh dear, looks like the Quatloosian admins will have to go through this 2-year 107-page thread and remove all references to the above...

I can think of two possible reasons why not...

1) Quatloos is, as far as I know, a Canadian forum and the sub judice rules in a British case would not apply.

2) Again as far as I know... There's no obligation on the admins of a forum too seek out and delete posts which were made before the case became sub judice. It's the same as newspapers published before sub judice applies.

In any event the sub judice rules would only apply to UK posters and in the absence of a Canadian court order to Quatloos admin for an IP address and a British court order to the person's ISP to identify them... All assuming the person wasn't using IP changing software/networks... There's not much anybody can do.

That said I agree we should be wary of what we say about the pending charges.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I can think of two possible reasons why not...

[snip]

That said I agree we should be wary of what we say about the pending charges.

I think it's established that comments made prior to charges are unlikely to constitute a breach. Additionally, there is a certain amount of mitigation if a case is not going to be heard by a jury as judges are perceived to be above such bias.

However, I believe that respect for the judicial process reflects well on the commenter and this forum.

[Gregg]

AnOwlCalledSage wrote:
- references to someone’s previous convictions
- statements about a person’s character
- evidence seeming to link a person directly to the crime of which they have been accused
- other suggestions that the person is guilty

When proceedings are ‘active’, the above content CANNOT be posted and the Facebook user is in contempt of court. Proceedings are ‘active’ when:

- a person is charged
- a person has been arrested
- an arrest warrant is issued
- a summons is issued

Oh dear, looks like the Quatloosian admins will have to go through this 2-year 107-page thread and remove all references to the above...

First reaction...Come and try, Lizzy, we kicked your ancestors out once already, and the UCC is real law in this country, just like the 1st Amendment (for now, anyway).

The law looks to me like its not Q that is liable, but anyone who posts here (and who is subject to the UK/EU jurisdiction).
Just to be safe, if I come over next year as planned, I'll travel incognito, you'll find me at the Mount Royal, Mable Arch, registered as "Admiral Sir Washington Jefferson Madison"

[ArthurWankspittle]

I can think of two possible reasons why not...

1) Quatloos is, as far as I know, a Canadian forum and the sub judice rules in a British case would not apply.

2) Again as far as I know... There's no obligation on the admins of a forum too seek out and delete posts which were made before the case became sub judice. It's the same as newspapers published before sub judice applies.

In any event the sub judice rules would only apply to UK posters and in the absence of a Canadian court order to Quatloos admin for an IP address and a British court order to the person's ISP to identify them... All assuming the person wasn't using IP changing software/networks... There's not much anybody can do.

That said I agree we should be wary of what we say about the pending charges.

Quatloos is hosted somewhere other than the UK. The rules would affect UK posters as suggested. Now whilst Quatloos isn't going to hand out ISP identification, all UK posters must be aware that there may be sufficient information to identify their Quatloos username from other information than ISP details. For instance we know who several of the UK SovCit types are despite them having non name related internet IDs e.g. Ceylon. So I will be wary of posts relating to court cases and may have to use my moderating powers on some comments.

PS I live in Chico California anyway.
PPS I was writing a post on the above subject earlier and I am still working on it. It's so much simpler for these colonials with their fancy constitutions and rights and stuff.

[Gregg]

Just to be clear, while I think its the general consensus that no one is going to come kick down my door (or the people who own Quatloos) for publishing information that in the UK you ought not to, it is one of our guidleines that we will not allow information that "Doxxes" people and will not allow information that we reasonably think UK law frowns upon it being published. We don't have to, but we will, polite yanks that we are, try our best to comply with UK law.....cue the disclaimer*!

*As always, this is not a rule, but a guideline 'cause we don't do actual rules. As such, the interpretation and application of any guidelines is entirely at the discretion of the Administrators, Moderators, and other various vassals, miscellaneous minions, and contracted performers of the management. Trust us, you agreed to all this when you signed up and consented to our terms of service, so if you don't like, start your own forum.
Your mileage may vary, not applicable where prohibited by law, Gunsmiths and Llamas are exempt in the US Virgin Islands, all tax is the responsibility of the user except registered members posting from Pango Pango. No Cash Value. Nunc de Dunk, Praeterea Preterea VIctoria Victoria, Pizza Pizza Notice to Waiter is Notice to Restaurant, Notice to Restaurant is Notice to Waiter

[Burnaby49]

Yes, despite all of his excellent contributions they never mentioned him once. Very shabby, and in the end it broke his spirit. Bones hasn't logged in here for a long time, and is sadly missed.

Perhaps he and Mowe are making their own Burnaby style magical mystery tour.

I've just finished an intensive two week, 2,200 mile tour of craft brewery taprooms in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. I didn't see Mowe or Bones in any of them.

[Burnaby49]

1) Quatloos is, as far as I know, a Canadian forum and the sub judice rules in a British case would not apply.

2) Again as far as I know... There's no obligation on the admins of a forum too seek out and delete posts which were made before the case became sub judice. It's the same as newspapers published before sub judice applies.

In any event the sub judice rules would only apply to UK posters and in the absence of a Canadian court order to Quatloos admin for an IP address and a British court order to the person's ISP to identify them... All assuming the person wasn't using IP changing software/networks... There's not much anybody can do.

That said I agree we should be wary of what we say about the pending charges

.

Quatloos has some Canadian forums and I moderate them but it is not a Canadian website. Its an American website and was exclusively American from inception in about 2003 until Mowe and I started adding Canadian topics in 2011. After the Canadian forums were established Quatloos essentially migrated to the UK where the bulk of the postings are now made. However Quatloos is still legally in American jurisdiction.

[longdog]

1) Quatloos is, as far as I know, a Canadian forum and the sub judice rules in a British case would not apply.

2) Again as far as I know... There's no obligation on the admins of a forum too seek out and delete posts which were made before the case became sub judice. It's the same as newspapers published before sub judice applies.

In any event the sub judice rules would only apply to UK posters and in the absence of a Canadian court order to Quatloos admin for an IP address and a British court order to the person's ISP to identify them... All assuming the person wasn't using IP changing software/networks... There's not much anybody can do.

That said I agree we should be wary of what we say about the pending charges

.

Quatloos has some Canadian forums and I moderate them but it is not a Canadian website. Its an American website and was exclusively American from inception in about 2003 until Mowe and I started adding Canadian topics in 2011. After the Canadian forums were established Quatloos essentially migrated to the UK where the bulk of the postings are now made. However Quatloos is still legally in American jurisdiction.

I am indebted to m'learned friend for his correction

[HardyW]

Wrecka's Stockport Mags appearance on 16th July.

Is this still due to happen tomorrow?

Might provide an hour or two's entertainment.

[TheRambler]

Wrecka's Stockport Mags appearance on 16th July.

Is this still due to happen tomorrow?

Might provide an hour or two's entertainment.

Does anyone know for certain what charges she is facing?

TheRambler

[TheHallouminati]

Does anyone know for certain what charges she is facing?

The charges are detailed in the first posting of the Peter McDowell thread.
Looks like Stef Shambala's gift of £50 to the GoFundMe private prosecution fund has now brought the total up to £145.
That should pay for an hour's legal advice on whether suing the entire world is a good idea...or not

[TheRambler]

Does anyone know for certain what charges she is facing?

The charges are detailed in the first posting of the Peter McDowell thread.
Looks like Stef Shambala's gift of £50 to the GoFundMe private prosecution fund has now brought the total up to £145.
That should pay for an hour's legal advice on whether suing the entire world is a good idea...or not

Well, based upon that she will almost certainly be remanded to Crown Court for trial, whether she likes it or not.

TheRambler

[He Who Knows]

I've just rang Stockport Magistrates. Princess Shoutypants is on after 10am today and it's for two counts of criminal damage and one count of squatting.
She's being dealt with by the TSJ (Transforming Summary Justice) .