Bailiff enforcement:Debtor 'steals' vehicle from new owner after it had been sold by bailiff company.

[Leakie]

A question to you all

Have any of you been selected for Jury service?

 

You can only go on the evidence put before you and the guidance of the Judge.

 

If they got off on a technicality, it is not the defendants fault,

 

They were found not Guilty,

so in the eyes of the law they are innocent.

 

With regard to enforcement, a lot people think if you owe a debt, you are a bad person .

but they do not take into consideration , the reasons for the debt.

 

I do not know all of the fact in this case , and I am sure no one else does.

We were not present at the trial.

 

So all we are doing is going around in circles making assumptions.

 

either side of the arguments could be correct, or it could be some where in the middle.

 

 

lets wait until the facts are out before coming to conclusions.

 

Leakie

[Bailiff Advice]

To those few who may understand what this means, it also explains why ther was no bailiff presence, there was no issue over ownership, there could not be.

 

The bottom line is that they were both cleared. I have to question why the McKenzie considered that it was either right or proper to even publicise this case in the first place. The very first rule of a McKenzie friend is confidentiality and providing the defendants name, court and even court number on a social media site is simply beyond belief. To provide an entire synopsis on social media is even worse.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

So all we are doing is going around in circles making assumptions.

 

either side of the arguments could be correct, or it could be some where in the middle. lets wait until the facts are out before coming to conclusions.

 

Leakie

 

I have been saying exactly this since yesterday. I cannot see that there is anything further to add.

[Leakie]

BA the case is over ,

They were found not guilty, weather we agree or not end of.

 

In most trials there is reporting so I do not see a problem with this.

if it were a big crown court case, we have daily updates from the press,

 

as I have already said we are going around in circles

 

Leakie

[Leakie]

Sorry BA posts crossed

[Peterbard]

The bottom line is that they were both cleared. I have to question why the McKenzie considered that it was either right or proper to even publicise this case in the first place. The very first rule of a McKenzie friend is confidentiality and providing the defendants name, court and even court number on a social media site is simply beyond belief. To provide an entire synopsis on social media is even worse.

 

The important point is that you cannot start a criminal proceedings to challenge ownership of goods which may or may not have been correctly seized, ownership of goods cannot be decided in a criminal court.

 

So those who wish to challenge a seizure must take the civil route. The case in question had nothing to do with the actions of the bailiff and the sale of goods. This must already been clear in the CPS's mind before they commenced the case.

[Peterbard]

Just found this to illustrate further

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/

 

Arguments over Ownership of Property

 

The criminal law is not a suitable vehicle to regulate such disputes. Before a criminal charge can proceed the ownership of any property must be absolutely clear. If that ownership is in real dispute the criminal law should not be invoked until ownership has been established in the civil courts.

 

However, circumstances will arise where the issues are clear and the offences are serious. If so, prosecution may be required in the public interest. Prosecutors should ensure that the state of affairs between the parties has not changed prior to any trial. This may affect both the public interest and the evidential test.

 

Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governs the compellability of spouses and civil partners in criminal proceedings. The prosecution cannot compel a spouse or civil partner to give evidence in Fraud Act offences.

[Leakie]

Hi Dodgeball

this makes this case even more weird,

 

They must have been the legal owners of the car, otherwise they would have been found Guilty.

 

Does anyone actually know what charges were being brought against them?

[Peterbard]

BA the case is over ,

They were found not guilty, weather we agree or not end of.

 

In most trials there is reporting so I do not see a problem with this.

if it were a big crown court case, we have daily updates from the press,

 

as I have already said we are going around in circles

 

Leakie

 

Going around in circles because some either do not understand or more likely do not want to understand what is being said. It is being said that this is an option for people who dispute the seizure of the car. It is not. The only options are civil and under CPR.

 

In this case the people only escaped punishment for theft or fraud, they did not resolve the matter of the car, it is still not in their hands ther is no victory for them in this, just relief a t not being sent to prison or fined.

Sanctions which would have not happened if they had not pursued this course of action in the first place. We do not want to see a rash of these cases on the back of this, as said the only winners are the ones who are providing this advice.

[unclebulgaria67]

The important point is that you cannot start a criminal proceedings to challenge ownership of goods which may or may not have been correctly seized, ownership of goods cannot be decided in a criminal court.

 

So those who wish to challenge a seizure must take the civil route. The case in question had nothing to do with the actions of the bailiff and the sale of goods. This must already been clear in the CPS's mind before they commenced the case.

 

Yes criminal cases do not decide ownership.

 

It was up to the prosecution to make sure ownership was not an issue.

 

There is nothing stopping a defendant in a theft case bringing ownership into their defence. A Judge has to decide based on law and the rules that apply, whether a Jury can take into account issues about ownership.

 

If ownership was part of the defence, the prosecution would have been ready with evidence and argument to counter. This might well have touched on enforcement actions and the sale.

 

What is sure, is that the current ownership status is in a state of flux. This will have to be decided by civil proceedings.

[Peterbard]

You do not seem to understand . A criminal court cannot decide ownership. So ti cannot be used as a defence, because the court cannot make a ruling on it. This has t be decided before the commencement of criminal proceedings. The issue to be decided is the theft or fraud nothing more..

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball

this makes this case even more weird,

 

They must have been the legal owners of the car, otherwise they would have been found Guilty.

 

Does anyone actually know what charges were being brought against them?

 

No ther are other reasns why guilt cannot be proven in a criminal court, as said earlier. See sections 1 and sections 2 of the theft act 1968. Also my previous psos on the matter on this thread.

[Bailiff Advice]

Bringing a little bit of light hearted humour into the debate, if the weather were nicer, I would love to be taking a test drive in a newer vehicle but I cannot bear to give up my dependable 4 year old Cherokee Jeep. It has probably been the best vehicle that I have ever owned and with the number of miles that I drive each week, is vital.

 

But having two 4x4's in the family is just plain silly. My next car will be my treat to myself.

[Peterbard]

In addition leakie. The court only found them not guilty of the allegation of theft, it did not say who has ownership of the car . The car should have been returned to the garage, but there may be other issues which have to be addressed outside the alleged theft and judgment of the crown court.

[Peterbard]

Bringing a little bit of light hearted humour into the debate, if the weather were nicer, I would love to be taking a test drive in a newer vehicle but I cannot bear to give up my dependable 4 year old Cherokee Jeep. It has probably been the best vehicle that I have ever owned and with the number of miles that I drive each week, is vital.

 

But having two 4x4's in the family is just plain silly. My next car will be my treat to myself.

 

Nothing wrong with taking a test drive in a nice new car BA, you dont have to buy it, just dont forget to take it back.

[Leakie]

I understand what you are saying,

Are we assuming the charge was for theft or fraud?

do we actually know.

 

I must admit after being on jury service quite awhile ago,

I was not impressed.

we had a case of ABH and it was a split jury,

 

It was very hot in the jury room and getting near lunch time.

4 of the jurors changed there mind because they wanted to go shopping. this made it 10-2

 

in the end the guy got off on a technicality.

 

Go for ti BA treat yourself.

 

nice little sports car convertible may be

 

Leakie

[unclebulgaria67]

You do not seem to understand . A criminal court cannot decide ownership. So ti cannot be used as a defence, because the court cannot make a ruling on it. This has t be decided before the commencement of criminal proceedings. The issue to be decided is the theft or fraud nothing more..

 

Yes i do understand. The court is not deciding ownership. It is simply looking at the theft allegation. The defence case is that you cannot steal your own property.

 

Just as a Criminal court cannot decide ownership at trial, it cannot do so in the period leading up to a trial. The ownership was still something that was disputed and still is.

 

If you look at the logic of ownership having been decided before the trial, then these cases will mostly obtain a guilty verdict. The Jury would never be able to listen to there being a dispute about ownership, as it would be deemed irrelevant. Any subsequent civil cases about ownership where it was found a person convicted of theft was the rightful owner would then be subject to appeal.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Go for ti BA treat yourself. nice little sports car convertible may be

 

Leakie

 

I dont change my cars that often and for the best part of 30 years, have owned estate cars. Four years ago (after my first ever accident...my fault I'm afraid) I fell for the Jeep and simply love it and with the amount of driving that I do, it a brilliant car.

 

However, I have always wanted a convertible car.....and always had a good reason not to buy one. I may hate it when it comes to driving it but that is why I will have quite a few test drives first with different cars. I promise though to take the cars back !!

[Bailiff Advice]

Yes i do understand. The court is not deciding ownership. It is simply looking at the theft allegation. The defence case is that you cannot steal your own property.

 

Just as a Criminal court cannot decide ownership at trial, it cannot do so in the period leading up to a trial. The ownership was still something that was disputed and still is.

 

If you want to know more, you will see that the McKenzie has has posted copies of all witness statements. As always, and to ensure accuracy, I have never ever seen these documents before and cannot view them now as they are only available for members to read. Their contents will therefore have to remain a secret.

 

Unfortunately, this person has also published the name of the debtors company. Why is he giving so much personal information? The defendants names are in the public domain on the Law Pages website (together with the charges) but his company name isn't.

[Peterbard]

Yes i do understand. The court is not deciding ownership. It is simply looking at the theft allegation. The defence case is that you cannot steal your own property.

 

Just as a Criminal court cannot decide ownership at trial, it cannot do so in the period leading up to a trial. The ownership was still something that was disputed and still is.

 

If you look at the logic of ownership having been decided before the trial, then these cases will mostly obtain a guilty verdict. The Jury would never be able to listen to there being a dispute about ownership, as it would be deemed irrelevant. Any subsequent civil cases about ownership where it was found a person convicted of theft was the rightful owner would then be subject to appeal.

 

I am afraid you dont, until ownership is settled the trial cannot begin. Ownership disputes must be settled first in a civil court.

[Bailiff Advice]

If you want to know more, you will see that the McKenzie has has posted copies of all witness statements. As always, and to ensure accuracy, I have never ever seen these documents before and cannot view them now as they are only available for members to read. Their contents will therefore have to remain a secret.

 

Unfortunately, this person has also published the name of the debtors company. Why is he giving so much personal information? The defendants names are in the public domain on the Law Pages website (together with the charges) but his company name isn't.

 

If anyone is tempted to ask questions about these statements would they please remember that the documents are highly confidential and very likely commercially sensitive as well and should not under any circumstances be shown either now or at any time to anyone who is not a party to the proceedings.

[Peterbard]

Just had a look at the document posted elsewhere and the only important part and the only relavant part is the instruction written at the borm f the document, thi is what would have won the case for them.

No idea who wrote it but it is 110% accurate, the rest is nonsense.

 

"You must persuade the jury that you acted under the genuine belief the car was that of your company, and you had the right to take it."

 

This i as described earlier in this thread and has nothing to do with ownership, it is about the CPS having to prove dishonesty as section 2 of the theft act.(dishonest intent.)

 

Going to have a long bath now ugh.

[unclebulgaria67]

I am afraid you dont, until ownership is settled the trial cannot begin. Ownership disputes must be settled first in a civil court.

 

I do understand and think you are wrong.

 

The CPS can proceed to prosecute based on them believing 'in their opinion' that there are no issues with ownership, but it is always up to any Judge whether they accept evidence about ownership being bought before a Jury.

 

If in this case the Judge allowed evidence about ownership into the proceedings, then he will have to give way for you to take over, as you think you are better placed. It would seem the defence was that the defendants owned the car, so they can't be guilty of theft. According to your opinion, the defendants could not use such a defence and would have to be found guilty, as the car was owned by the garage owner, with there being no doubt about it.

[Peterbard]

Just found this to illustrate further

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/

 

Arguments over Ownership of Property

 

The criminal law is not a suitable vehicle to regulate such disputes. Before a criminal charge can proceed the ownership of any property must be absolutely clear. If that ownership is in real dispute the criminal law should not be invoked until ownership has been established in the civil courts.

 

However, circumstances will arise where the issues are clear and the offences are serious. If so, prosecution may be required in the public interest. Prosecutors should ensure that the state of affairs between the parties has not changed prior to any trial. This may affect both the public interest and the evidential test.

 

Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governs the compellability of spouses and civil partners in criminal proceedings. The prosecution cannot compel a spouse or civil partner to give evidence in Fraud Act offences.

 

 

Arguments over Ownership of Property

 

The criminal law is not a suitable vehicle to regulate such disputes. Before a criminal charge can proceed the ownership of any property must be absolutely clear. If that ownership is in real dispute the criminal law should not be invoked until ownership has been established in the civil courts.

 

JUst thought i would copy this again for you read the first paragraph, you are not likely to understand the difference between civil and criminal law so we will have to agree to differ.

[unclebulgaria67]

"Arguments over Ownership of Property

 

The criminal law is not a suitable vehicle to regulate such disputes. Before a criminal charge can proceed the ownership of any property must be absolutely clear. If that ownership is in real dispute the criminal law should not be invoked until ownership has been established in the civil courts.

 

However, circumstances will arise where the issues are clear and the offences are serious. If so, prosecution may be required in the public interest. Prosecutors should ensure that the state of affairs between the parties has not changed prior to any trial. This may affect both the public interest and the evidential test.

 

Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governs the compellability of spouses and civil partners in criminal proceedings. The prosecution cannot compel a spouse or civil partner to give evidence in Fraud Act offences."

 

 

The key bit is in bold. The prosecution can start a trial for theft, where they don't think there are any issues with ownership. They should check whether this changes before any trial, but it does not preclude them from starting. A Judge is able to decide whether they are willing for a Jury to hear argument from a defendant about ownership.

 

The prosecution barrister can make representations to the Judge that ownership is not in question. But it is up to a Judge how they manage any trial. They know the law and all rules that apply. I would not start questionning either the Judge or the Jury in this case.

 

I know there are arguments between various people, with nasty comments being made on the other site, but lets try to keep calm rationale thinking. Trying to find arguments, because you don't seem to accept the verdict of a Jury or that there are no issues about ownership, is just blinkered thinking.