Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[Chaos]

I say he's not even in the house. it's all bullshit. he would have posted a video if he was. he's too in love with himself. then there's the risk of 'losing it again' by leaving.

[Gregg]

Somebody could call the police and report a burglary in progress.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

My money is on this getting dropped by the CPS & filed under "Can't be arsed to carry on".

The smart money is on this. The cost of prosecution against a max £5,000 fine is not worth it. Of course it will be spun as a victory, but he no longer has a house!

[aesmith]

Maximum sentence for affray is 3 years inside. I have a nasty feeling that you could be right about CPS dropping the case, but I have a secret hankering for him to receive something over 6 months imprisonment. It would be so fitting if his beloved jury trial actual resulted in something more severe than the Magistrates could have imposed.

[longdog]

I hope he insists on being tried for affray under common law. It was made statute in 1987 but in the interests of consistency he really should face the maximum sentence under common law... Life imprisonment.

[Chaos]

Maximum sentence for affray is 3 years inside. I have a nasty feeling that you could be right about CPS dropping the case, but I have a secret hankering for him to receive something over 6 months imprisonment. It would be so fitting if his beloved jury trial actual resulted in something more severe than the Magistrates could have imposed.

are you people arguing he's not affray'd?

[SteveD]

I'm not in the UK atm, but I was under the impression that affray was actually a more serious offence, when they didn't think they had a chance of a conviction then they would drop it back to a sec47 assault instead...

In this case they seemed to have gone the other way- to me this suggests that after reviewing the case, they believe they have a chance with a more serious offence- any legal beagles that could confirm/deny this?

If this is the case, then he may have stepped out of the pan and into the fire...

WIN!!!ELEVENTY!!

[Footloose52]

Affray is more serious than assault.

[Burnaby49]

Since they've upgraded the charges I have to assume that they're serious about nailing him.

[Comrade Sharik]

CPS guidelines on Affray
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/p ... g-standard

Affray
An offence under section 3 is triable either way. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is 3 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of unlimited amount. On summary conviction the maximum penalty is 6 months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5.

Under section 3 of the Act, it must be proved that a person has used or threatened:

unlawful violence;
towards another;
and his conduct is such as would cause;
a person of reasonable firmness;
present at the scene;
to fear for his personal safety.
The seriousness of the offence lies in the effect that the behaviour of the accused has on members of the public who may have been put in fear. There must be some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or persons. Mere words are not enough. Violent conduct towards property alone is not sufficient for the purposes of an offence under section 3. For a definition of 'violence' in affray see section 8 of the Act .

The offence may be committed in a public or private place.

The notional bystander test is explained in the case of (R v Sanchez [1996] Crim L R 572 CA), and asserts that the hypothetical bystander, rather than the victim, must be put in fear for his or her personal safety. Apart from the hypothetical bystander, there must be present a 'victim' against whom the violence is to be directed (I & Others v DPP (2002) 1 AC 285 HL).

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focused solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out (Leeson v DPP, unreported (2010)).

The level of conduct appropriate for charges under section 3 will often fall comfortably within the ambit of that anticipated within section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. Affray should be considered in circumstances of serious and indiscriminate violence. Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a section 3 offence include:

A fight between two or more people in a place where members of the general public are present (for example in a public house, discotheque, restaurant or street) with a level of violence such as would put them in substantial fear (as opposed to passing concern) for their safety (even though the fighting is not directed towards them);
Indiscriminate throwing of objects directed towards a group of people in circumstances where serious injury is or is likely to be caused;
The wielding of a weapon of a type or in a manner likely to cause people substantial fear for their safety or a person armed with a weapon who, when approached by police officers, brandishes the weapon and threatens to use it against them;
Incidents within a dwelling should not be charged as affray merely because a lesser public order charge is not available. Offences of assault are likely to be more appropriate. Affray should be considered in circumstances analogous to those listed above where serious violence is used or threatened, and with due regard to the principles set out in R v Sanchez.
The accused must have intended to use or threaten violence; or have been aware that his conduct may be violent or may threaten violence.

[notorial dissent]

Since they've upgraded the charges I have to assume that they're serious about nailing him.

He's an obnoxious little p**** and he has or should have a criminal record, and he threatened to do violence at the time of his out turfing. I would imagine that was a pretty good reason, and they probably looked back over his behavior at the time of the incident and decided the more serious charges were warranted. I am now wondering if he hasn't already been picked up and is awaiting his arraignment.

[aesmith]

The wielding of a weapon of a type or in a manner likely to cause people substantial fear for their safety or a person armed with a weapon who, when approached by police officers, brandishes the weapon and threatens to use it against them;

Seems to match the facts as reported by Mr Crab on 6th Feb.

... I heard a loud bang at the side door, went to investigate with homemade baseball bat in hand and noticed the bottom panel in the door had been kicked in with a coppers head poking through. I told him to fuck off so he produced his taser and threatened to fire, I said okay go on then and he fired one to my chest. No shock with that one so I ripped it out and said fuck off again, he aimed the next one at my leg which connected and was a bit shocking. ...

[AnOwlCalledSage]

CPS guidelines on Affray

I could be wrong here as so many of these idiots demand jury trials when they aren't warranted by the facts of the case, but wasn't it Crabby who demanded it went to Crown Court? Oops!

[SteveD]

Affray is more serious than assault.

And thanks to the others that posted after as well- I thought that was the case...

So indeed I was right, he's jumped right into the fire!
I really don't think it's sunk in though- he 'seems' to be under the impression he is off the hook, or nearly so, when the opposite is the case...

Then there was more interesting stuff to come. The cps have decided to drop the 2 assault on emergency workers namely police constables charges (result), and are charging me instead with affray, lol. Anyway I got all the dates when everything has to be done by, and if all is well and they still want to go ahead there should be an estimated 2 day trial around mid July.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1957436 ... 122115133/

Is there a more classic case of 'turning a ticket into jail time'???


ETA unfortunately notorial dissent, he hasn't been picked up yet, he posted 3 hours ago at the time I'm writing this.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Is there a more classic case of 'turning a ticket into jail time'???

I'm beginning to wonder if the witness for the prosecution will be HIS OWN FACEBOOK POSTS!!!

I say this because you can be arrested and charged and then as more evidence comes to light subsequently charged with more offences. It would make sense that on the basis of the facts at the time of eviction he tussled with officers, warranting the immediate "emergency workers" charge. Whilst he was prevaricating and demanding a jury trial, the prosecution will have had access to his social media postings which clearly demonstrate that he had premeditated an assault on persons going about their lawful duty. Now that is clearly a more serious offence.

I'm hoping the moron doesn't apply for professional legal advice. We won't know until his trial, but Crabby being hoist by his own petard would just be delicious.

[SteveD]

Maybe he could borrow Edward Ellis for the job...
After all he did such a bang up job on Neelu's repossession case!
(waves hi at the hooty one)

[longdog]

Edward Ellis? Why not go for gold and engage the late and unlamented Patrick Cullinane, ranting pseudo-legal gobshite par excellence?

I wouldn't think his having long since assumed room temperature would in any way impinge on his success rate and the prospect of his shouting "YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT AND I DEMAND YOU SERVE ME!!!!! I AM A COMMON LAW LAWYER!!!!" at the judge and from beyond the grave would be well worth the cost of a fare to Maidstone.

[AndyPandy]

Edward Ellis? Why not go for gold and engage the late and unlamented Patrick Cullinane, ranting pseudo-legal gobshite par excellence?

I wouldn't think his having long since assumed room temperature would in any way impinge on his success rate and the prospect of his shouting "YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT AND I DEMAND YOU SERVE ME!!!!! I AM A COMMON LAW LAWYER!!!!" at the judge and from beyond the grave would be well worth the cost of a fare to Maidstone.

Pah!! if he wants a true legal genius then I would suggest the one and only Steve McRae, Expertinfeckall, what a stunning combination that would be !!!!1!!!

[hucknallred]

Has our Crabbie done a silent disappearance from Facebook?

He's no longer an admin or member of his Council tax is a bit of a bother group, nor does he show up on a search.

[SteveUK]

Clicked on his profile, he's there still. Currently making shit garden furniture out of odds and sods he's picked up.