Rekha Patel loses her house

[He Who Knows]

A new year, a new round of appeals for Rekha Patel. She's appearing at Manchester Crown Court (Minshull St) tomorrow and Friday to appeal her 5-year restraining order to stay away from Hanover Cottage. This was adjourned last October because one day apparently wasn't long enough for the hearing. Fun starts 10.30am.

[daltontrumbno]

A new year, a new round of appeals for Rekha Patel. She's appearing at Manchester Crown Court (Minshull St) tomorrow and Friday to appeal her 5-year restraining order to stay away from Hanover Cottage. This was adjourned last October because one day apparently wasn't long enough for the hearing. Fun starts 10.30am.

I can't see her appeal going very well. If I remember correctly the CPS wanted the restraining order to be the same as her bail conditions which prevented her from entering Simondly village the judge rejected the request and came to a compromise where she is not allowed to enter the cul-de-sac where Hanover cottage and her former neighbours house is. Seeing as the only reason she would want to visit the cul-de-sac would to be to harass her former neighbours and the new owners of Hanover Cottage I can't see any reasonable grounds for a judge to overturn the restraining order.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Seeing as the only reason she would want to visit the cul-de-sac would to be to harass her former neighbours and the new owners of Hanover Cottage I can't see any reasonable grounds for a judge to overturn the restraining order.

Whilst experience shows that most FOTLers are serial recidivists, each application has to be taken on its own merits.

I can see a very good reason for her to apply for the removal. It will appear on a basic DBS check whilst in force and definitely on an enhanced DBS check. As, if I remember right, she is a teacher then this can cause all kinds of problem and whilst it is in force she will not be even able to get a job stacking shelves at Tesco.

I would not be surprised if the removal is granted. Whether it is is really down to her.

If she can assure the court that she has not broken it and there is no likleyhood of a further breach, then proportionality would suggest that removal is in order. If she tries any FOTLer nonsense then I would expect the judge to keep it in place.

https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase ... ng-orders/

[daltontrumbno]

Seeing as the only reason she would want to visit the cul-de-sac would to be to harass her former neighbours and the new owners of Hanover Cottage I can't see any reasonable grounds for a judge to overturn the restraining order.

Whilst experience shows that most FOTLers are serial recidivists, each application has to be taken on its own merits.

I can see a very good reason for her to apply for the removal. It will appear on a basic DBS check whilst in force and definitely on an enhanced DBS check. As, if I remember right, she is a teacher then this can cause all kinds of problem and whilst it is in force she will not be even able to get a job stacking shelves at Tesco.

I would not be surprised if the removal is granted. Whether it is is really down to her.

If she can assure the court that she has not broken it and there is no likleyhood of a further breach, then proportionality would suggest that removal is in order. If she tries any FOTLer nonsense then I would expect the judge to keep it in place.

https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase ... ng-orders/

The reason for overturning the order on the grounds of it appearing on a DBS check is at best moot, as she already has a conviction for obstruction of a court official, that offence is now spent but any job above the most menial these days requires a standard DBS check so unless she only sees her future in entry level retail, hospitality or manufacturing any job she applies for will fail a standard or enhanced DBS check anyway.

[TheNewSaint]

Whilst experience shows that most FOTLers are serial recidivists, each application has to be taken on its own merits.

I think Rekha's track record is more than enough to qualify her for "serial recidivist."

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The reason for overturning the order on the grounds of it appearing on a DBS check is at best moot, as she already has a conviction for obstruction of a court official, that offence is now spent but any job above the most menial these days requires a standard DBS check so unless she only sees her future in entry level retail, hospitality or manufacturing any job she applies for will fail a standard or enhanced DBS check anyway.

No. It really isn't moot. I speak through experience.

And you are wrong. Most jobs require only a basic check. An employer has to justify a standard or enhanced check and access to it is not automatic. Basic is the level at which you are legally entitled at interview if it is not a restricted profession to say "No" to the question of "Do you have a criminal record?"

I appreciate that the majority of people on this forum (and I guess you are one) are absolute law abiding citizens who would consider a harsh word a smear on their names and consider any villain who may have got a fine for fare dodging when they were 18 deserves all manner of punishment until they shuffle off this mortal coil, but having an unspent conviction in the UK in effect makes you unemployable.

Whilst Wrekha is a moron, it is not proportionate that her stupidity is a millstone for life if she has repented of her ways. The law allows her that benefit even if the Daily Mail readership would prefer otherwise.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Whilst Wrekha is a moron, it is not proportionate that her stupidity is a millstone for life if she has repented of her ways. The law allows her that benefit even if the Daily Mail readership would prefer otherwise."

IF.

Somehow, I think that Wrekha is so deep into her delusions that she has nailed her colors to masthead, and cannot "repent of her ways" without realizing what a horse's ass she has made of herself, for the last several years. She would probably prefer to retreat further into her world of delusion.

[longdog]

Could the court not lift the restraining order if she gave an undertaking to the court not to approach the new owner of the property or the neighbour or carry on her ridiculous campaign?

I seem to remember from the Brexit case in Scotland last year that one of the reasons the judge gave for not granting an order to compel the government to do / not do whatever they might or might not do was that the government lawyer had given an undertaking and that was binding on pain of contempt.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

IF.

Somehow, I think that Wrekha is so deep into her delusions that she has nailed her colors to masthead, and cannot "repent of her ways" without realizing what a horse's ass she has made of herself, for the last several years. She would probably prefer to retreat further into her world of delusion.

And that is what will be tested and we will no longer have to speculate. We shall soon find out if she is still deep in her delusions or whether she's had a period of refelction and it is not inconceivable that she has seen the error of her ways.

I would warrant that any attempt to relitigate or play out FOTLer nonsense in court would mean that the restraining order would continue, and she'd deserve it. However, any competent lawyer would advise their client to be penitent and throw themselves at the mercy of the court (although I appreciate that in the past her choice of lawyers has been less than competent). The judge will question her and make a ruling depending on her answers. It goes without saying that any further attempt to harass the new owner escalates into a higher category of squatting in an occupied property and commiting contempt at this hearing would be an aggravating factor at sentencing.

https://www.unlock.org.uk

[He Who Knows]

DaltonTrumbno wrote: as she already has a conviction for obstruction of a court official, that offence is now spent

The obstruction of a High court Enforcement Officer conviction was appealed by Rekha Patel a year later in 2018, but she lost her appeal. So this November 2017 conviction still stands unless someone else knows different?

[hucknallred]

The obstruction of a High court Enforcement Officer conviction was appealed by Rekha Patel a year later in 2018, but she lost her appeal. So this November 2017 conviction still stands unless someone else knows different?

This would be my starting point to establish if the conviction is spent or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilit ... s_Act_1974

Not been through it myself to see what applies to Wrecker P. though.

[Comrade Sharik]

having an unspent conviction in the UK in effect makes you unemployable.

I think that's overstating it. A few years back I was employed at a fairly senior level in a local authority, despite a youthful drugs conviction, and later discovered that my boss had an assault conviction arising out of political activism.

I think it depends very much on the nature of the offence, how long ago it was, and the sentence. Also very dependent on the reasons for the check and how the employer sees the potential risk in terms of the role of the post.

Plus, of course, many smaller private sector companies will not run a check at all.

[letissier14]

I had a friend who when younger, spent 18 months in prison for credit card fraud while working for the Post Office.

He came out and got a job straight away working for BT cleaning phone boxes.

He retrained in another profession and is now a crane training instructor.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

having an unspent conviction in the UK in effect makes you unemployable.

I think that's overstating it.

You are right. I'm probably over reacting. I applied for a job, fully disclosed my conviction at interview. Started work and then was let go one month later after having started work. I was on job seekers allowance/universal credit for three years and never had a response to any of my applications whilst it was unspent.

And the usual trick to get around the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is that you will be asked at interview is you have any convictions. You will legally reply "no". Either through social media or other sources, HR are made aware. You will be sacked for lying during an interview.

At least with a spent conviction you have a chance.

If anyone wants to run offences, then Unlock has a spent conviction checker. http://www.disclosurecalculator.org.uk/ (You may have probably guessed, I'm a supporter of Unlock!)

Practically all minor offences are spent within a year or two, but a 5 year order is not spent until the end of the order. You also have to declare unspent convictions if asked applying for insurance and renting a property. The effect on insurance is usually a 4 fold increase in payments.

[aesmith]

It may depend on industry, or maybe things were different a few years ago when I was actively involved in recruiting, interviewing and deciding appointments. However at that time I know we never asked about convictions, nor did we do any form of DBS check or whatever it was called at the time. We had one contract with the Children's Reporter where we had to submit checks for anyone attending their premises, but apart from that I can't recall the subject being mentioned.

So I guess based on my experience I would be very surprised if disclosure was required as a matter of course for "normal" jobs.

[Comrade Sharik]

To my mind there's also an issue about employers insisting on an enhanced check (which throws up everything) when it isn't objectively proportionate. It feels as if rehabilitation very much takes a a back seat to arse covering (yes, I see what I did there...).

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So I guess based on my experience I would be very surprised if disclosure was required as a matter of course for "normal" jobs.

And this is my point. A spent conviction is vastly different to unspent. Wrekha has many good reasons that are not "moot" to apply for the order to be lifted. If she had been convicted of actual assault and given a 6 month sentence, a conviction is spent after 4 1/2 years. I don't think anyone is suggesting her twatting about trespassing rises to the level of actual assault.

Amazon do a standard DBS check and drug test for all employees in their warehouses. Tesco ask you at interview. Universities will in most cases deny you access (although Unlock has done some good work getting some to sign up to a code of practice).

Whilst my experience is just as anecdotal as a friend of a friend testimony, it does have the advantage of having a personal practical basis. I think, if she has seen the error of her ways, that this is a well founded application.

[Burnaby49]

What is meant by "unspent"? I think I can roughly guess but it's a concept not used in Canada.

[hucknallred]

What is meant by "unspent"? I think I can roughly guess but it's a concept not used in Canada.

Going back to my link to The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

After this period, if there has been no further conviction the conviction is "spent" and, with certain exceptions, need not be disclosed by the ex-offender in any context such as when applying for a job, obtaining insurance, or in civil proceedings.

So 'spent' as in expired, exhausted etc.

[longdog]

Amazon do a standard DBS check and drug test for all employees in their warehouses.

That reminds me of the time an employer (who was a tad impressionable) decided after a sales presentation by a testing company rep that he was going to introduce random drug testing for all staff the vast majority of who were under 25.

"And what are you going to do when people fail a test for cannabis or ecstasy?" I asked.

"Well sack them obviously" Said he.

"You really think you can replace 75% of your staff without affecting production?"

I never heard anything about it again