I rang Manchester & Salford Magistrates just now and Rekha Patel's case has been adjourned until August 22nd, 9.30am same court. The admin woman read out to me the reason for the adjournment as : "To prevent interference with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice."
She also read out that for the next hearing in August, "Ms Patel MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE" (their bold). She confirmed that Ms Patel was in attendance this afternoon.
The same bail conditions of staying away from Macca and Simmondley Village stand.
Maybe she told the Magistrate/District Judge she wasn't going to any more of these kangaroo courts for corporations and wanted Crown Court next time.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
Nothing about Wrekha's hearing today but they did post this 2 hours ago:
Tunkashila Limited
HMCTS has been hijacked by Civil Court Users Association (CCUA) a corporate lobbyist group and secretariat of CCBC and the Claim Production Centre. It’s members account for 85% of all issued civil proceedings in the County Court and High Court.
Addendum: As someone who has been through the system, that bit about interfering with witnesses is standard boiler plate bail condition wording. The interesting bit, as you drew attention to, is "Ms Patel MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE". That would seem to indicate that she said something, as attendance would be expected.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
“MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE” is sometimes a judicial hint translatable as “if the accused fails to turn up they’ve been warned what will happen. So will whichever judge who hears the case please issue a warrant for their arrest then consider contempt of court and/or detain them until the case is heard”.
The Seventh String wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:14 pm
“MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE” is sometimes a judicial hint translatable as “if the accused fails to turn up they’ve been warned what will happen. So will whichever judge who hears the case please issue a warrant for their arrest then consider contempt of court and/or detain them until the case is heard”.
Or continue in her absence maybe?
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
The Seventh String wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:14 pm
“MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE” is sometimes a judicial hint translatable as “if the accused fails to turn up they’ve been warned what will happen. So will whichever judge who hears the case please issue a warrant for their arrest then consider contempt of court and/or detain them until the case is heard”.
Or continue in her absence maybe?
Well, I’m not a lawyer but I would have thought that unlikely. As I understand things magistrates quite often find someone guilty in absentia, but mostly for things like relatively minor motoring offences where the defendant hasn’t turned up, the offence is often absolute, and the penalty is a fine and/or license endorsement.
More serious offences can be tried in absentia under unusual circumstances, such as the defendant absconding abroad or otherwise disappearing without trace, but it seems pretty rare.
Civil matters, such as County Court hearings, are a different matter and often go ahead in absentia, but their procedures are different to the criminal courts and they don’t have the power to fine or detain.
The problem in dealing with Wrekha is that it is getting really hard to keep track of what she is really going to court for this time, since her version of reality and actual reality barely coincide at even the smallest point .
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
The Seventh String wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:30 am
Well, I’m not a lawyer but I would have thought that unlikely. As I understand things magistrates quite often find someone guilty in absentia, but mostly for things like relatively minor motoring offences where the defendant hasn’t turned up, the offence is often absolute, and the penalty is a fine and/or license endorsement.
More serious offences can be tried in absentia under unusual circumstances, such as the defendant absconding abroad or otherwise disappearing without trace, but it seems pretty rare.
Civil matters, such as County Court hearings, are a different matter and often go ahead in absentia, but their procedures are different to the criminal courts and they don’t have the power to fine or detain.
The criminal courts are becoming less inclined to wait for defendants to co-operate. It has been a game for some years - they fail to attend on the first day so the trial gets postponed, or thy disappear partway through (maybe with a dubious medical reason). The aim is to wear down the victims and witnesses, run up costs for CPS & courts, then in a year or two claim that the delay means it can't proceed.
Any news from the court yet, case listed for 9:30am, nothing from Rekha or her pet monkeys, so either things did not go well for her or the case is running late.
She plead not guilty and case adjourned till December, Bail conditions were also lifted which I don't think is the wisest decision the court could have made, she will be back harrasing the new owners by tonight.
I decided I was able to go to the court again this morning, this session was effectively a planning session between the district judge and the two solicitors for the actual trial which will be December 13-14th and in particular identifying witnesses and matters that are agreed. The judge has obviously been made aware that the defence argument is based on the accused being a lawful tenant therefore entitled to create damage and re-gain entry. There was a suggestion that Ms ___ the neighbour should be a witness but actually she doesn't have evidence to give regarding the events at issue. So the witnesses will be the police officers in attendance,and the present owner, and for the defence Miss "call me Wrecka" Patel herself and those who handled the original conveyance (the "under-value sale" as the judge called it) to the company/ies with apparently a legal opinion about the land registration issue. Plainly it's this issue that makes it a possible two day trial. The bail conditions remain in place.
Well done HardyW for attending and shedding some light
HardyW wrote: those who handled the original conveyance (the "under-value sale" as the judge called it) to the company/ies with apparently a legal opinion about the land registration issue.
So Longlands/Ian Burton-Baddeley will have to account for their £2 and £100 sale of the cottage? Should be interesting.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
Excellent court reporting - thank you for the update. So on one side professional witnesses and a scary builder, on the other charlatan chancers playing fast and loose with land registry issues, off the shelf companies and general piss-taking. Hope The Baron and Brave Sir Ken make the cut.
No English judge is gonna rule against Paul McCartney. Not. Going. To. Happen.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
He Who Knows wrote: ↑Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:39 pm
Well done HardyW for attending and shedding some light
HardyW wrote: those who handled the original conveyance (the "under-value sale" as the judge called it) to the company/ies with apparently a legal opinion about the land registration issue.
So Longlands/Ian Burton-Baddeley will have to account for their £2 and £100 sale of the cottage? Should be interesting.
I think that's extremely unlikely. If a law firm admitted to any part in this obvious fraud to evade court orders, the regulatory and insurance consequences could be very serious. I think someone like Peter McDowell will appear in this capacity, and I hope the court takes an appropriately dim view of that. However CPS are so utterly useless nowadays that another acquittal by negligence is entirely possible.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
TheRambler wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:22 pm
Thank you for pointing out McDowell and Ross, definitely “players”. Longlands solicitors is interesting as there is clearly limited capacity for supervision and oversight within the firm. I also note that there is mention that the principal has appeared before a disciplinary tribunal, although no details are available and I would treat it as unconfirmed.
<snip>
From the Warrington Guardian, 10 July 2009:
Solicitor faces disciplinary tribunal
A town centre solicitor will appear before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal following a ruling by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
David Burton-Baddeley, of Longlands Solicitors on Wilson Patten Street, is alleged to have taken money out of clients' accounts without their authorisation.
He is also accused of failing to maintain properly written up accountancy books, failing to inform clients of commission he received or seeking their consent to retain it.
It is alleged that he conducted himself 'in a manner likely to compromise or impair his integrity and his duty to act in the best interest of his clients'.
A date has not yet been set for his hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Mr Burton-Baddeley specialises in civil litigation, financial and investment services and personal injury claims.
His lawyers were approached for comment but were not available as the Guardian went to press.
According to the Law Society Gazette, 24 June 2010, the case of Ian David Burton-Baddeley was heard on 4 February 2010, and the reasons published 7 May 2010.
The outcome was:
The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Warrington, Cheshire WA1, should pay a fine of £12,500. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,932.
I Googled the above when it was first posted on Quatloos (3/7/18) and now when I Google it, it has gone!
Do you think Mr Burton-Baddeley has asked Google to remove it?
Google will remove stuff under EU rules. I always use google.com/ncr (no country redirect) which means you get the US version with no EU redactions/censorship.
While checking that that worked I noticed that as a young articled clerk (trainee solicitor) Mr Burton Baddeley decided his name was not posh enough for his intended career so he changed it to I D Burton-Baddeley.
In the immensely complicated rules of English middle class society the double barreled name would have higher status but much lower status if it was known to be in effect false colours.
Notice is hereby given that by a Deed Poll dated 19th May
1980 and enrolled in the Supreme Court of Judicature on
24th June 1980, I IAN DAVID BURTON-BADDELEY of
Keamari, 12 Halton Road, Great Sankey, Warrington in the
county of Chester, articled clerk, single, a citizen of the United
Kingdom and Colonies by birth, abandoned the former
Christian name of Burton and the surname of Baddeley and
assumed the surname of Burton-Baddeley—24th June 1980
