Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[longdog]

Looks as though 29 Park Road, Sheerness sold for £220k in July 2020, the photos have it boarded up

Now that is interesting. In the absence of evidence to the contrary can we assume that he was either evicted or gave up and simply decided not to mention it?

[John Uskglass]

Looks as though 29 Park Road, Sheerness sold for £220k in July 2020, the photos have it boarded up

Umm. Wasn't that July 2010?

https://themovemarket.com/tools/propert ... s-me12-1uy

[AndyPandy]

Looks as though 29 Park Road, Sheerness sold for £220k in July 2020, the photos have it boarded up

Umm. Wasn't that July 2010?

https://themovemarket.com/tools/propert ... s-me12-1uy

Yes, you’re right, apologies. I didn’t read it correctly, I was thrown by the photo of it with the shutters on it, presumably taken after he was evicted.

[John Uskglass]

Waugh is on the case.

This weekend I will be interviewing Bob White, the man featured in this article, who has just been acquitted by a jury of affray, after the police broke into his home, punched and tasered him - twice - because he exercised the right of self-defence.

https://twitter.com/TheBernician/status ... jepOopAAAA

[Larry Spoons]

I'm sure that all sorts of weird interpretations will be attached to the verdict in the case (there's an element of that in the YT video), but as a matter of criminal law, the position seems fairly clear to me. Police officers routinely attend evictions as part of their duty to prevent breaches of the peace. If, as appears to be the position here, they fall into the trap of actively participating in the eviction, then they have exceeded their powers and the occupant of the address can exercise self-defence.

In other words, the officers would have done well to remember that eviction is a civil matter.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I do wonder whether the CPS had addressed their minds to the interaction of the civil and criminal law here when they brought and continued with this prosecution.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I do wonder whether the CPS had addressed their minds to the interaction of the civil and criminal law here when they brought and continued with this prosecution.

I suspect that, although the verdict would have been the same since it was deemed illegal assistance, the CPS could have disposed of his "it just happened to be nearby" argument by simply looking at his posted images and comments stating that he had weapons, had booby trapped the house and was prepared to assault the bailiffs. If they hadn't acted pre-emptively he'd have done the same. Poor homework by the prosecution.

[Hercule Parrot]

fall into the trap of actively participating in the eviction, ..

Yes, it does appear that cops were leading the forced entry while bailiffs stood back. They could've done that for purpose of criminal arrest, but not to execute a civil order. Bailiffs should've led the entry, and then called police forward if/when Krabbie became violent.

Can't rely on the Daily Fail, but I'm surprised that police didn't have a go at presenting a PACE necessity to enter for purpose of criminal arrest. Krabbie had published lurid threats of violent harm to others, indicating that he was preparing weapons and methods to carry this out. Should have gone with "we didn't care about the house, we were there to arrest him on other matters" and announced their entry as a criminal arrest. IMHO IANAL RSVP etc

[longdog]

Question for actual lawyers and/or better barrack room lawyers than me: If it had been HCEOs would the police have been justified on the grounds that obstructing an officer of the court is in itself a criminal offence?

Just idle curiosity.

[TheRambler]

Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. He had issued threats and had some form but do you let the bailiffs go in and get assaulted or take pre-emptive action? Do you let it develop into a siege situation or even risk a hostage situation?

I’ve never had to deal with this kind of situation in real life but have spent many hours discussing Rules of Engagement scenarios and playing simulations and live exercises. This is a classic RoE scenario, the recognition and identification of a “Hostile Act”, get it wrong and the options ranged from losing your command (being blown up) or potentially starting World War 3. Scenarios could be dissected in the syndicate room and all the options examined, but when faced with the situation in the simulator things could easily go in a different direction.

I have sympathy for the police officers who had to deal with this event. No matter how exhaustively briefed and instructed on the law their actions were always effectively going to be driven by by their interpretation of Crabbie’s intentions. They appear to have taken the option of preventing a more serious situation occurring by doing the “right thing” although their action was incorrect. I’ve sat through criticism at a debrief, accepted the truth of it but thought it quite probable that I’d do the same thing again in similar circumstances.

TheRambler

[John Uskglass]

While we're only seeing a summary of a three day trial I'm inclined to the view that complacency and poor preparation by the CPS probably played a large part in the result.

As has been said, the material collated here would surely have shown that White was preparing to resist the eviction by force, and had stated his intent to do so.

[Juisarian]

I can see how it could still be a win if the cops prevented someone from getting baseball battered or whatever Crabbs was intending, even if they couldn't pin a crime on him as a result. Crime prevention is good, doomed public prosecutions probably less so.

[Larry Spoons]

A couple of points:

1. I'm no fan of the CPS and have reservations about the amount of thought and preparation that goes into 'routine' cases, but it's the police who are responsible for investigating and collating evidence.
2. It is the circumstances and state of knowledge of the officers at the time that would determine the lawfulness or otherwise of their actions. A restrospective trawl of YouTube would not assist them.

[John Uskglass]

Michael Waugh's film on White's aquittal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq0uR0Qbg2U

I haven't watched the whole thing but around the 40 minute mark, Waugh makes some extravagant claims about the wider significance of the case.

[WillGoodfellow]

If it had been HCEOs would the police have been justified on the grounds that obstructing an officer of the court is in itself a criminal offence?

No, because a High Court Enforcement Officer executing a writ of possession has no more rights than an Enforcement Agent executing a warrant of possession. The outcome would have been exactly the same. Both can be equally obstructed in executing a warrant or writ as the rights conferred to them depend on the warrant/writ being enforced and not the type of officer or agent executing them.

There is a common misconception that High Court Enforcement Officers have more rights than Enforcement Agents when that is not the case at all.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

There is a common misconception that High Court Enforcement Officers have more rights than Enforcement Agents when that is not the case at all.

You may be confusing debt collection by HCEOs with eviction. HCEOs have rules they have to follow, but they can force entry if there is a court order for repossession.

[longdog]

If it had been HCEOs would the police have been justified on the grounds that obstructing an officer of the court is in itself a criminal offence?

No, because a High Court Enforcement Officer executing a writ of possession has no more rights than an Enforcement Agent executing a warrant of possession. The outcome would have been exactly the same. Both can be equally obstructed in executing a warrant or writ as the rights conferred to them depend on the warrant/writ being enforced and not the type of officer or agent executing them.

There is a common misconception that High Court Enforcement Officers have more rights than Enforcement Agents when that is not the case at all.

According to Shelter, who I assume know what they are talking about, if there is a warrant for possession which I believe there was at some point, HCEOs can indeed force entry to evict the former homeowner and anybody else on the premises.

Whoever is in occupation of the property may leave before the execution of the warrant. If the borrower or any other occupiers are still in the property when the enforcement agents arrive, they will be evicted, the locks will be changed and the property will be made secure. Enforcement agents with a warrant of possession have the right to force entry to the property if necessary.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professi ... y_eviction

[WillGoodfellow]

According to Shelter, who I assume know what they are talking about, if there is a warrant for possession which I believe there was at some point, HCEOs can indeed force entry to evict the former homeowner and anybody else on the premises.

Whoever is in occupation of the property may leave before the execution of the warrant. If the borrower or any other occupiers are still in the property when the enforcement agents arrive, they will be evicted, the locks will be changed and the property will be made secure. Enforcement agents with a warrant of possession have the right to force entry to the property if necessary.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professi ... y_eviction

You may be confusing debt collection by HCEOs with eviction. HCEOs have rules they have to follow, but they can force entry if there is a court order for repossession.

I think you've both misunderstood my post. Both High Court Enforcement Officers and Enforcement Agents can force entry using reasonable force with a writ or warrant of possession. The rights conferred to them are no different whether it's a writ (HCEO) or a warrant (EA).

So therefore the outcome of the situation when the police broke in would have been no different if an HCEO had executed a writ of possession compared to where an EA had executed a warrant of possession. The question was, "If it had been HCEOs would the police have been justified on the grounds that obstructing an officer of the court is in itself a criminal offence?" - To which the answer is no as there is legislation in place which applies to both HCEOs and EAs equally where they are obstructed. There is little difference between them, and neither has more rights of enforcement than the other.

[aesmith]

He's back posting on Facebook with a new profile of "Bob White". Can't work out how to create a link to an actual post of his, but there is one showing photos of all his weapons. No indication of any imminent eviction. Apart from the weapons his posts are family stuff, cute animal videos, or anti-eviction activities of his "Kent Renegade Crew"

[hucknallred]

June 10 is the next eviction date. He's posted full details on his Facebook with a call to arms.


In other news he has a gofundme going to pay for a transcript of his recent court hearing.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/justice-for- ... laim-cases

[Wakeman52]

IIRC, didn't Mrs White pass away some time ago?