Jump to content

miromike

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by miromike

  1. Ok then ... hasta la vista - baby ... I won't be back ...
  2. To Maxwell TM SRPO Old Codja I'll make thus the final post because the JR papers go off to the Admin Court on Monday so I'm going to rather busy ... Nobody seems to have got the point that I made to LU and I will now for the fianl time before I go blue in the face: I'm not challenging the conviction. Yes she did use the FP, and yes, she was found guilty in her absence - but, using a bitta legal nous we didn't pay the fine the £250 and costs of £490, and in the same process saw off the bailiff who wanted £1200. The use was inadvertent. I didn't give
  3. If it wasn't for the fact that judsges get it wrong there wouldm't be any need for lawters ... I'm not lawyer ... just an ordinary 75-year-old who did a law degree 1980 - 83 yo go with my degfree in electronics for the purposes of negotiatimg European Telecomms ... never intended to get involved with the other stuff . My point is this ... I happen to disagree with the judges decision in Corbyn ... the decision there was a policy decision anyway made a very specific set if circumstances. If you stack it up against LUL's REPP there's an argument to be made. LUL prosecutors seem to live in
  4. To Maxwell TM The case is not " ... 4 years old ..."; it has been " ... ongoing for 4 years ..." ... as a legal man the words - and where you put them are essential ... It's like SRPO talking abour levels of "means rea", when he really meant "levels" of mens rea ... Massive legal cost??? I offered on up to thgree occasions to meet LUL to settle this internally with an apology,re-imbursement of my out-of-pocket expenses of around £2000 up to about November last year and a donation to Help for Heroes (I'm an ex-serviceman by the way) but got the brush off. So ... p-l-e-a-s-
  5. Well of course I have hard evidence ... I would HAVE to have it wouldn't I???: the RCI's statement compared with my own vist to the "crime scene", the raw notes made at the time (WS subsequently produced varies fron it). the Staement of Facts prodised using the falsities in the WS, the sketch of the layout from where shw was observing at the time (LUL wouldn't give permission for photographs), Although of no use in the JR I also have the transcript from the Mag Court which shows that she omitted
  6. Re 'vexatiousness', I refer you to both 'Vexatious Litigants & Permission in Judicial Review Proceedings' by J Pierce and 'Administrative and Public Law' e-bulletin and a judgement by the ECJ March 2010 and which in my view now supplants Burkett. The Inspector had no business lying in her Witness Statement. Under the provisions of the REPP LUL was required to review the papers and to take into account mitigating circumstances which they did not, nor did they call for them when they ought have done once they had been made aware ... hopefully by now you will have checked the RE
  7. To wriggler Glad you're playing devil's advocate ... pun intended! I'll try again though ... I am not seeking to hegate the decision I'm challenging the whole basis upon which the decision was made. The RCI's Witness Statement bore no relation to the physicalities i.e what she saw from where she was positioned for observing. At the mainline station in question she said my daughter touched in with her Oyster card as she came in from the street. To cut a long story short I visited the "crime scene" myself and her statement is a load of tosh. These lies were then used to draft the Statem
  8. To SRPO You talk about levels of "mens rea" ... do you mean "levels" of mens rea? It's like having levels of pregnancy ... wot? Anyway, if you look up LUL's REPP on the internet and go through it you'll get the core of my argument: there is a host of other factors which bears on this case - too long to explain here. The guilt or otherwise of my daughter is NOY the point. It's about the " ... manner in which the decision to prosecute was arrived at - that's what JR is all about ... got nothing to do with guilt or innocence. And it's not about overturning a decision in a Ma
  9. T Maxwell Everything clear about the mens rea and actus reus. The RRA 1889 was formulated when rail travel was a luxury and when an old lady fell off the train because the platform was too short immunity from luability was found on page 562 of the Conditions of Carriage. Time came when so many were committing "non-payment of fare" offences that the mag courts were getting clogged and they then delegated the generating of paperwork to "approved prosecutors" e.g. LUL's Prosecutions Department. Either S5(3)(a) is an offence of strict liability requiring no proof of intent or i
  10. I took great care to ensure that I HAD followed and exhausted the proper procedures ... problem is that in the particular circumstances LUL doesm't have any, and they refused to set up an ad hoc one and nobody took ownership of my complaints. An internal investigation was set up in July but nothing has resulted from it. Aware of the complexities - particularly JR - arguments sorted, papers in order and being lodged next week. Re taxpayer funding ... So far, in the pursuit of 90-pence it has cost LUL £4000-odd in unrecoverable direct costs and about 1000 management man-hours at a ver
  11. As a 75-year-old OAP living by myself I'm not all that fussed about my future credit rating ...!!! So to solve my £20K debt problem I filed for bamkcruptcy - got the 360 quid on an overdraft anyway .... Was discharged in April last year, and quite frankly I sleep very well at nights. As a council tenant they couldn't re-possess and my car was only worth £499(!). Never had so much spare dosh before. Obviously this solution doesn't suit everybody miromike
  12. I've battling now since 2007 to get my daughter's name cleared. I'm now so fed up I'm finally doing the following 1 Lodging Judicial Review papers within the next 7 - 10 days for the manner in which the dsecision to prosecute was arrived at, but more importantly, the cover-up by the very top people in LU. Two Human Rights issues also included ; 2 I've already sent a Letter before Action to the relevant manager for misfeasance in public office. If no response is received within the next 9 days I will join him with another senior manager in a High Court Claim for ar
×
×
  • Create New...