Debtor charged under section 68(1) of TCEA 2007 with "intentionally obstructing a bailiff"......UPDATE

[Bailiff Advice]

In September last year I started a new thread regarding a very serious case concerning a debtor who had been arrested for assaulting a bailiff.

 

 

 

The reason for the debtor's arrest can be seen in the following links from that time:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.(20-Viewing)-nbsp

Edited February 7, 2015 by BankFodder
relevance

[Bailiff Advice]

It would seem that on 2nd February the debtor attended the Magistrates Court and the criminal case against him has been adjourned until May. For forum owner stated publicly that the bailiff himself (who would supposedly be a witness) failed to attend the hearing. And yet.....in the same sentence, he states that the bailiff did attend.....but given that the forum owner was 'too ugly' the bailiff left the court!!!!

 

If that comment was extraordinary.....imagine the shock to then read a very lengthly post from the forum owner where he outlined in full detail the entire prosecution case.....together with the entire defence statement.......that he had prepared for the debtor. This was published knowing that a criminal case was ongoing and the case adjourned until May.

 

The reason given by the forum owner for publishing all this information was to appeal to solicitors and barristers who may have clients that have been arrested for similar offences to consider using his services to secure an acquittal.

[lookinforinfo]

Does the forum owner know the meaning of sub judice? I imagine that there will be one barrister definitely contacting him-prosecuting counsel.

[citizenB]

Would the Judge not have something to say about the production of the defence/prosecution documents being posted publicly whilst there was a hearing in place ?

[citizenB]

Although, I do appear to have lost the plot a little. Do I have this right.

 

The bailiff attended the debtor's property.

 

Debtor was filming the process when the bailiff grabbed the debtors phone, injuring the debtor (even if it was only a scratch). The Police were called and the debtor was arrested for assaulting the bailiff ??

[lookinforinfo]

If he is using s92[8] of the Courts Act 2003 all the other barristers will at least get a laugh out of it.

 

The sad thing is that a proper defence would probably get the accused off. There is nothing wrong with videoing the bailiff and if it was for a

decriminalised offence, the Police perhaps should not have been assisting. Indeed the accused may have a counter claim for assault [taking the phone].

[Bailiff Advice]

Would the Judge not have something to say about the production of the defence/prosecution documents being posted publicly whilst there was a hearing in place ?

 

I do not know sufficient details of the procedure but Contempt of Court comes to mind.

 

However much more serious is that from the defence statement prepared for the debtor by the forum owner (which I can email over to you later today) it would seem to indicate that the debtor is being encouraged to commit perjury. I have good reason for saying so and this is based upon the fact that given the seriousness of this matter at the time I retained a PDF of the entire thread.

 

The debtor confirms that he was filming the bailiff and that the bailiff took his mobile phone from him and that he had an injury to his hand. The following is what the forum owner drafted in the defence statement:

 

'Client was recording on video using a mobile phone, and EA committed an offence under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by snatching the phone out of Clients hand and:

 

'causing him an injury by

ripping out his fingernail'

 

PS: 'Ripping out' a fingernail is something that is unheard of and was confined to torture rituals in war times.

[Bailiff Advice]

The debtor (CAM) stated in his original post the following:

 

Had council tax issue, wrote letter to council, no reply. They then took out an LO without informing me. Only know about it when I received a supplementary Notice of Enforcement. However, I had fully paid up the council tax, no existing monies owed, apart from £75 charge.

 

PS: it does beg the question as to why the debtor did not pay the £75 or question it with the council or EA.

 

The 'Defence Statement' states as follows:

 

'There was no Notice of Enforcement under regulations 6/7/8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 given to client

until after EA had attended on 17th September 2014'.

 

In fact, the debtor did not say when he received the Notice of Enforcement.

 

In relation to the 'assault' the Defence Statement relies upon Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In fact, if they had even the basic background of law they would know that Section 39 relies upon evidence being provided of the 'intent' to cause injury. Where there is no intent, there will be not be an assault.

 

The Defence Statement contains the most extraordinary paragrph:

 

 

'The Liability Order was

invalid

because CLIENT did not know of the proceedings for which the council had applied to magistrates for it until the EA attended'.

 

A Liability Order would not be 'invalid' at all. Only a Court of Appeal could make such a finding.

 

The person who drafted this statement had an almost childlike ability to read legislation in a way that is unique to him. The debtor should seek independent legal advise from an expert and should not use the services of a Will Writer.

[citizenB]

I think that clarifies things a little better BA - Thank you

[wonkeydonkey]

I don't see the details of it. Can someone post a link or screengrab?

 

The post being discussed appeared on the site in question at 00.32 hrs on 4th February, at 08.06 hrs poster Mark 1960 made comment, it was then pulled from view.

 

I think you will find the OP realised the implications of his post and hoped it had gone unnoticed....it hadn't!!!!

 

Owing to the content of the post it would be unfair to provide the pdf on open forum.

[wonkeydonkey]

Trust me....just for once. There is absolutely no 'supposed' revealing of the defence case it is all there in black and white and it makes very interesting reading.

[Coughdrop]

Trust me....just for once. There is absolutely no 'supposed' revealing of the defence case it is all there in black and white and it makes very interesting reading.

 

Indeed it does Wonkey Donkey. As Pote knows, I tend to keep late hours and I, too, managed to get a copy of these posts. I think if it was going to be shared with anyone, I'd be inclined to email it to the CPS who are conducting the case. That would be the route that would bring justice, surely?

 

Mark 19 whatever it is would tell him even he stated, "I personally wouldn't have broadcast any of this on the internet just yet, as nothing has been decided."

 

The guru will have a copy I imagine. Pote should ask them.

[citizenB]

Now that is strange seeing as you assure everyone that you have blocked that site. Why even today, you were wondering whether you should unblock it.

 

Again Pote, your guru is not telling you everything. They knew the site was temporarily unblocked, and the reasons why. It was subsequently reblocked. We err from the topic of discussion though.

 

We certainly do, so can it please get back on topic !!

[Bailiff Advice]

In fact, to date I have received 7 copies of the thread that published the entire Defence & Prosecution Statement and just one of them is from a person that I know through this forum.

[mikeymack2002]

So will any one be uploading the document in question for FULL viewing? maybe admin could see what the implications are before posting this alleged thread from where ever it came from then everyone can see what the fuss is about?

[Peterbard]

Again Pote, your guru is not telling you everything. They knew the site was temporarily unblocked, and the reasons why. It was subsequently reblocked. We err from the topic of discussion though.

 

Yes Potee is very good fat erring form the subject in order to get digs in, that serve no real purpose.

 

I have question which occurred to me, the claim is that these defenses are never put before a judge(or rarely) because they are presented to the CPS before the case goes to trial and they then decide to purl the case.

Now to me there is a serious matter here, it is being suggested firstly that the poster knows more about the law than the CPS and that the reason he pulls the case is because that same poster enlightened him, which I find unlikely.

But more importantly, if the CPS decide to prosecute and then pulls the case because of these same "points of law", then what is the judge for? Isn't it the judges job to decide. I wouldn't have even thought that the CPS would take representations from the other side on matters of law once they had decided to prosecute, it seems to defeat the whole object. In fact once the CPS had commenced the action I would be surprised if they were allowed to withdraw without it going before the judge.

 

Persona;ly I am afraid I do not believe a word of it.

[ploddertom]

Thread closed temporarily while we tidy some of the posts up.