Obstructing a Bailiff (people prosecuted!)

[caledfwlch]

Since when was Obstructing a Bailiff a criminal offence?

 

Or is it a different matter because its dealing with eviction?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/23/dale-farm-prosecutions-abandoned-council

 

After the Dale Farm evictions, 2 protesters were successfully prosecuted by Basildon Council for "obstructing a bailliff"

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A Bailiff executing a warrant if obstructed can involve the police and the offenders can be charged.

Obstructing a warrented officer of the court.

[zydeco]

Just waiting now for the first bailiff attending a property to levy saying,

 

"If you don't let me in I'll have you arrested for Obstructing A Bailiff "

[caledfwlch]

Just waiting now for the first bailiff attending a property to levy saying,

 

"If you don't let me in I'll have you arrested for Obstructing A Bailiff "

 

This is what is worrying me - has Basildon Council just created a precedent, that will basically make it impossible to keep bailiffs out, or to not deal with them etc? As if it can be said to apply to all bailiffs, then these 2 prosecutions have potentially just null and voided all the advice on this entire subforum. I hope I am just overreacting/being overimaginative here.

[mellymoo74]

No I agree it's a worry I think it would currently only apply to evictions though and I believe in those cases bailiffs already had those rights

[Conniff]

This is what is worrying me - has Basildon Council just created a precedent, that will basically make it impossible to keep bailiffs out, or to not deal with them etc? As if it can be said to apply to all bailiffs, then these 2 prosecutions have potentially just null and voided all the advice on this entire subforum. I hope I am just overreacting/being overimaginative here.

 

This isn't how obstruction works. If they have entered your property and done a levy and you then refuse on a subsequent visit entry to that property you are causing an obstruction. If a levy has been put on a car and you move, sell whatever to that car, you are causing an obstruction, (in this case you can also be charged with theft).It's not obstruction to refuse entry before entry has taken place or hide that car away before it has been levied, so don't worry there.

They entered the farm through the courts.

[sgtbush]

obstructing a bailiff is nothing new, if enforcing a warrant, also note that if a bailiff gains access to your property

take note if you have a porch that is lock-able and its unlocked, or window open etc then implied access has been gained and you cannot forcably remove the bailiff from your property

 

to add some notes to conniff's post, if a levy is put on your car and you sell it, you would be arrested for theft and charged under Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

[caledfwlch]

obstructing a bailiff is nothing new, if enforcing a warrant, also note that if a bailiff gains access to your property

take note if you have a porch that is lock-able and its unlocked, or window open etc then implied access has been gained and you cannot forcably remove the bailiff from your property

 

to add some notes to conniff's post, if a levy is put on your car and you sell it, you would be arrested for theft and charged under Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

 

I don't believe a Porch counts.

[sgtbush]

if it is lockable and is unlocked then it does, as far as i know

may be wrong but i think it is

[caledfwlch]

if it is lockable and is unlocked then it does, as far as i know

may be wrong but i think it is

 

A Porch is not the House though, otherwise the same logic could apply to a Shed, or a lockable doghouse.

 

Also if that was the case, then on finding a lockable porch unlocked, the first action of the Bailiff would be to put in the front door to levy. This is not happening.

[sgtbush]

sheds have been addressed under legislation and not permitted, just spoke to my brother who is an inspector in merseyside police

if the porch is a feature to the house and is lockable and left unlocked then entry has been gained lawfully and the police will not remove a bailiff, only attend to make sure a breech of the peace is not commited

[wonkeydonkey]

The Porch is not classed as entry to the dwelling....there is case law on this but I do not have time to research it at the moment but as I recall , one of the cases in question was a bailiff gained entry to the unlocked porch then broke into the locked door of the dwelling and the Court ruled it to be 'an illegal act'

WD

[caledfwlch]

The Porch is not classed as entry to the dwelling....there is case law on this but I do not have time to research it at the moment but as I recall , one of the cases in question was a bailiff gained entry to the unlocked porch then broke into the locked door of the dwelling and the Court ruled it to be 'an illegal act'

WD

 

When I lived in Leeds, every house in the area was fitting with those lockable black metal security fence/gates over the front door, to stop thieves from putting the front door in. By the Porch logic, accidently leaving one of those gates open would also give the bailiff "peaceful entry" into a dwelling.

[brassnecked]

The Porch is not classed as entry to the dwelling....there is case law on this but I do not have time to research it at the moment but as I recall , one of the cases in question was a bailiff gained entry to the unlocked porch then broke into the locked door of the dwelling and the Court ruled it to be 'an illegal act'

WD

 

If there is a secure exterior grade door with a letterbox, then that is the door the bailiff has to gain peaceful access through, a porch may not even have a door, so in that circumstance he could not claim to have entered the dwelling if the front door is locked imho

[ploddertom]

Many porches were constructed as a "feature" to dwellings and as such the "actual" door to the property is contained within the porch. If the porch is open the Bailiff may enter but if he is then confronted by the locked original entrance then he has not gained peaceful entry. Hopkins v Nightingale 1794 1 Esp 99 is one authority to this which says even if a door is within the boundaries of a property and can only be reached by passing through other gates or doors, if it constitutes the entrance to a dwelling, it is protected.

[brassnecked]

Thanks PT that arcane case still has relevance, as if a porch leads to another lockable door then that door is the entrance not the porch.

[old bill]

obstructing a bailiff is nothing new, if enforcing a warrant, also note that if a bailiff gains access to your property

take note if you have a porch that is lock-able and its unlocked, or window open etc then implied access has been gained and you cannot forcably remove the bailiff from your property

 

to add some notes to conniff's post, if a levy is put on your car and you sell it, you would be arrested for theft and charged under Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

 

Er, you cannot be arrested for Theft and then be charged under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. If you are arrested for Theft, that is what you will be charged with. However, dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive have to be proven AND the Ghosh test has to be satisfied fully. This is all, of course, subject to a certificated scrote acting lawfully in the first place.

 

The other thing that has to be remembered is that it is very easy, indeed, to go wandering into the scope and jurisdiction of Criminal Law. It is a legal minefield for those unfamiliar with it and its idiosyncracies.

[caledfwlch]

Er, you cannot be arrested for Theft and then be charged under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. If you are arrested for Theft, that is what you will be charged with. However, dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive have to be proven AND the Ghosh test has to be satisfied fully. This is all, of course, subject to a certificated scrote acting lawfully in the first place.

 

The other thing that has to be remembered is that it is very easy, indeed, to go wandering into the scope and jurisdiction of Criminal Law. It is a legal minefield for those unfamiliar with it and its idiosyncracies.

 

I would have thought it would be impossible to prove interference with levied goods anyway, if the levy as usual did not list serial numbers, distinguishing marks etc. "The TV died so I had to throw it out" "we were burgled, but didnt bother calling the Police as we had left the door open" etc. Whilst proving goods existed may not be impossible, proving an intent to deprive etc, ie that they were not broken would be much harder I bet.

 

I wonder if there are any previous cases where a debtor was prosecuted, and found guilty of interfering with levied goods. I strongly suspect, that if there is, it is almost guaranteed to involve very high value goods.

 

Not to mention actually proving WHO took the goods.

[old bill]

I would have thought it would be impossible to prove interference with levied goods anyway, if the levy as usual did not list serial numbers, distinguishing marks etc. "The TV died so I had to throw it out" "we were burgled, but didnt bother calling the Police as we had left the door open" etc. Whilst proving goods existed may not be impossible, proving an intent to deprive etc, ie that they were not broken would be much harder I bet.

 

I wonder if there are any previous cases where a debtor was prosecuted, and found guilty of interfering with levied goods. I strongly suspect, that if there is, it is almost guaranteed to involve very high value goods.

 

Not to mention actually proving WHO took the goods.

 

Absolutely so, Caled. A certificated bailiff would have an extremely difficult job trying to prove a debtor had allegedly stolen goods. In fact, any certificated bailiff laying such an allegation would have to provide evidence to substantiate it. If they cannot, they'll be off the debtor's property or out of the police station enquiry office on the toe of some police officer's boot.

[brassnecked]

Absolutely so, Caled. A certificated bailiff would have an extremely difficult job trying to prove a debtor had allegedly stolen goods. In fact, any certificated bailiff laying such an allegation would have to provide evidence to substantiate it. If they cannot, they'll be off the debtor's property or out of the police station enquiry office on the toe of some police officer's boot.

Failure to properly identify the goods, and I mean down to the make and serial number, would negate any allegation of theft, and as to tort, that is civil, theft is criminal sgtbush.

Edited September 10, 2012 by brassnecked

[old bill]

sheds have been addressed under legislation and not permitted, just spoke to my brother who is an inspector in merseyside police

if the porch is a feature to the house and is lockable and left unlocked then entry has been gained lawfully and the police will not remove a bailiff, only attend to make sure a breech of the peace is not commited

 

Unfortunately, a lot of serving police officers are not familiar or conversant with bailiff law, Sgt Bush. This often results in them unwittingly assisting certificated bailiffs to commit criminal acts. The sooner police officers are trained in bailiff law, the sooner we will see certificated bailiffs being forcibly removed from a debtor's property on the toe of a police officer's boot or told to foxtrot oscar by the police. It is not unknown for certificated bailiffs to be in possession of forged or invalid liability orders and warrants.

[old bill]

A Bailiff executing a warrant if obstructed can involve the police and the offenders can be charged.

Obstructing a warrented officer of the court.

 

Only if the scrote is acting wholly within the law. If the scrote is acting ultra vires or has in their possession a warrant or liability order that is forged, suspected of being forged or invalid, then the scrote is not being obstructed and can be legitimately removed for trespass. As we all know, bailiffs are habitual liars and exploit police officers' lack of knowledge of bailiff law.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Do you have evidence that ''bailiffs'' have acted upon forged authorities??

May I suggest that you edit the sc**t* descripton from your posts it serves

no purpose.

[old bill]

Do you have evidence that ''bailiffs'' have acted upon forged authorities??

May I suggest that you edit the sc**t* descripton from your posts it serves

no purpose.

 

In answer to the first part of your post, yes, and the matter is currently sub judice. Referring to a certificated bailiff as a "scrote" is a lot more restrained and acceptable than some of the more unacceptable terms that could be used to describe them.

[caledfwlch]

Brigadier, I can't find any links, but very recently, a Bailiff was I believe convicted for carrying out an illegal eviction using forged court paperwork.

 

When he realised the trouble he was in, he attempted to get legal paperwork from the court, but time was up.