Locked in car park

[bedlington83]

what happened when the driver before Fred tried to leave the car park that morning.

This isn't on the Youtube clip but have you seen footage of the car(s) prior to Fred's?

[banker_rhymes_with]

All this gets me to wondering whether last weeks mysterious silver BMW driving visitor to Freds house was not a burglar but actually a representative of this large and highly regarded national firm of solicitors who do after all have a branch just a mile or so away from Freds home, and might they have actually been conducting a driveby valuation of Freds assets in an attempt to see what might be chargeable (or not) in the event they have to plough a further large sum of money into prosecuting this case for their clients?

I think it may be worth taking a closer look at the Solicitor's Car Park, to see if Fred or Patma or any local assets at their disposal, can spot that car languishing at rest in there during the working day...or entering/leaving if easy visual inspection is not easy from public land.

 

If you do spot it, then hang around to see who gets into it at the end of the day, or who climbs out of it at the start of the next.

 

Not directly of relevance to the issues, but it might be useful to identify exactly who that was. If this happens again, or anything like it, then a potential Harassment complaint may be possible. A complaint made to, let's see, the Police for example.

 

Some nice clear images of bloke sat in/driving his BMW would be nice to have too, ready for the media...when that time comes!

 

You never know, you may even see that BMW parked in a PCAD Car Park most days!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Toulose LeDebt]

This isn't on the Youtube clip but have you seen footage of the car(s) prior to Fred's?

 

No. And that's probably the point we're making. Neither have the police seen it which tbh is a bit of an error on their behalf, it is difficult to prove somebody caused damage if it cannot be proven that the item damaged was undamaged before the person arrived on the scene.

 

With hindsight much finger pointing can be done at all parties involved in the original arrest and caution, Freds solicitor should have been a bit sharper and recently an 'empowered' Fred has been back in touch with the duty solicitor that day, much to the embarressment of said representative. Of course the behaviour of the police at that time is already the subject of an internal investigation and review.

 

There will in due course be a lengthy and rather hard hitting complaint made to the Information Commisioners Office about the way in which this data (CCTV) has been handled by the college. I'm sure we can all identify offences under the data protection Act 1998 in respect of the colleges handling of this data.

[bedlington83]

No. And that's probably the point we're making. Neither have the police seen it which tbh is a bit of an error on their behalf, it is difficult to prove somebody caused damage if it cannot be proven that the item damaged was undamaged before the person arrived on the scene.

Of course to a certain extent its irrelevant anyway as far as Fred is concerned. The barrier is at least not functioning correctly when Fred arrived. It didn't raise when Fred drove over the sensors and it was hanging out of its cradle.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Of course to a certain extent its irrelevant anyway as far as Fred is concerned. The barrier is at least not functioning correctly when Fred arrived. It didn't raise when Fred drove over the sensors and it was hanging out of its cradle.

 

Exactly. My understanding of it is that in such circumstances raising the barrier to a great enough angle triggers the automatic reset cycle.

Now how interesting would it be if the previous car to exit the car park contained two people and the passenger held up the barrier just enough for the driver to exit but not high enough to engage the reset cycle? Fred on the other hand being alone had to raise the barrier past the level of the roof of his car in order to reach the point where it stayed up. By design the fact that it stayed up means that he had reached the required elevation for the reset cycle to be engaged which explains why after a delay the barrier descended as normal into the cradle upon Freds exit. (Not in youtube clip but in full copy given to Fred).

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

You never know, you may even see that BMW parked in a PCAD Car Park most days!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Wouln't surprise me in the slightest. Apparently the super duper £3500 top of the range RIB barrier which the college installed is now so poorly maintained and broken that it has no arm so I guess anyone could park their car in there nowadays......

EDIT Of course the photograph of the security sign supplied by the claimant as proof the sign existed also showed the barrier was lacking its arm. It seems to be a long term breakage (or maybe that photo was taken more recently than the claimant would have us believe)?

Edited August 2, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

Good morning, I'm busily preparing Mondays little or not so little bundles of documents that are going up to Leamington Spa and another one going closer to home to The Chief Super. Another day, another dossier, what a busy life,but all in a good cause.

[Patma]

Oh dear msutn't forget something for the court as well.

TLD, you know the document Fred wrote that I sent you, do you think it's time to send that in yet too?

[Patma]

Sent you an email, TLD:D

[Toulose LeDebt]

Oh dear msutn't forget something for the court as well.

TLD, you know the document Fred wrote that I sent you, do you think it's time to send that in yet too?

 

I'll go through the latest one and we'll make a decision on that tonight.

[Annoying Twit]

On that evidence Fred was advised to accept the caution and be done with it by his solicitor.

 

I'm reminded of Prince Charles' lawyer in Su Townsend's book "The Queen and I".

[Patma]

I'll go through the latest one and we'll make a decision on that tonight.

Thanks, I've sent you version 3 now and have confiscated, Fred's writing equipment.

Please don't work too hard.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Patma
typo

[loopinlouie]

Just to say been watching this thread for quite some time, good luck in taking them on.

[Yorky2008]

Apparently the super duper £3500 top of the range RIB barrier which the college installed is now so poorly maintained and broken that it has no arm so I guess anyone could park their car in there nowadays......

 

All ammunition for Fred! It obvious that either the estate manager is either not doing his job or PCAD is not interested in spending the required dosh to keep the thing maintained - either way its not good for PCAD.

 

Might be worth putting this info into the bundle to show PCAD attitude to maintaining is assets!

 

Yorky.

[Annoying Twit]

In signing the caution, what did Fred actually admit to? Is it specific concerning the damage caused, or did he admit only to raising the barrier?

[Patma]

In signing the caution, what did Fred actually admit to? Is it specific concerning the damage caused, or did he admit only to raising the barrier?

I'm not sure what the actual words were, Annoying Twit, but I'll see what I can find out.

I do know he insisted that he had done nothing deliberately or maliciously.

[Annoying Twit]

I'm not sure what the actual words were, Annoying Twit, but I'll see what I can find out.

I do know he insisted that he had done nothing deliberately or maliciously.

 

I'm sure you can guess what I'm thinking, and have thought of that and prepared for it already.

 

But I was thinking that in one simple way of looking at things, the caution is the key to the whole thing. Because when accepting the caution, Fred admitted guilt. But, he admitted guilt of what exactly? "Damaging the barrier"? Just lifting the barrier? There must be some wording there, which may or may not be compatible with the civil case being brought by PCAD.

[Patma]

I'm sure you can guess what I'm thinking, and have thought of that and prepared for it already.

 

But I was thinking that in one simple way of looking at things, the caution is the key to the whole thing. Because when accepting the caution, Fred admitted guilt. But, he admitted guilt of what exactly? "Damaging the barrier"? Just lifting the barrier? There must be some wording there, which may or may not be compatible with the civil case being brought by PCAD.

Good thought Annoying Twit. I think I'm right in saying he would only admit to lifting the barrier. He has told me that when he argued about guilt, they just (police and duty solicitor) said he'd have to go back in the cells for a few more hours until they decided what to do next. He'd already spent some hours there and just didn't know what to do for the best.

[JonCris]

The threat of cell time is regularly used in obtaining 'confessions' & his duty solicitor should have been much more proactive in arguing against this abuse of the system I ask you why would it be suddenly necessary to put him back in a cell, what purpose would it serve other than to intimidate him

 

As is often the case with 'duty' solicitors they have their police accreditation to safeguard - Suspect when sorted a compliant about the lawyers conduct would be in order

[Patma]

The threat of cell time is regularly used in obtaining 'confessions' & his duty solicitor should have been much more proactive in arguing against this abuse of the system

 

As is often the case with 'duty' solicitors they have their police accreditation to safeguard - Suspect when sorted a compliant about the lawyers conduct would be in order

Fred has recently been back in touch with this solicitor who has written to him suggesting an appeal against the caution might be in order. Even he now is having second thoughts. I agree he deserves a complaint against him.

[JonCris]

Then the bleeding solicitor should get off his butt & help Fred pro bono

[Patma]

Then the bleeding solicitor should get off his butt & help Fred pro bono

That would be very nice, but I can't see it happening.

Pro bono support seems thin on the ground round our way.

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'm not sure what the actual words were, Annoying Twit, but I'll see what I can find out.

I do know he insisted that he had done nothing deliberately or maliciously.

 

 

Well in that case the police were not allowed to caution him in the first place and should have known this.

 

2.4. There may be occasions where a caution has been given incorrectly or inappropriately, these may include where:

 

• 
  
  • The facts do not amount to an offence in law;
    
  • The admission is equivocal;
    
  • A lawful defence was not taken into consideration, etc.
    

   

 

I make that one more for the Chief Superintendents list of reasons why the caution should not have been issued in the first place.

 

We're at a stage now where every visit from the postman, every click of the 'send and receive' button and every casual comment no matter how innocently made just seems to lend more and more weight to Freds case.

 

It's become like some kind of perverse Matryoshka doll where each layer of complicity we strip reveals another slightly smaller yet just as perfectly formed layer beneath. As with the Matryoshka we do know that sooner or later we shall eventually reach the last layer at some stage but unlike the doll where we would expect to find a tiny solid core piece I have the feeling this one is going to prove to be empty.

 

Still the claimant has their very own version of this simile, it's called 'pass the parcel' and the final wrapper in their version of the game will be slipped off to reveal what can only be described as a particularly hot potato.

(I wonder who will be holding this parcel when that happens?)

Edited August 3, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

The threat of cell time is regularly used in obtaining 'confessions' & his duty solicitor should have been much more proactive in arguing against this abuse of the system I ask you why would it be suddenly necessary to put him back in a cell, what purpose would it serve other than to intimidate him

 

As is often the case with 'duty' solicitors they have their police accreditation to safeguard - Suspect when sorted a compliant about the lawyers conduct would be in order

 

You in particular JonCris will be shocked to learn that no disclosure was sought by this solicitor and maybe not quite as shocked to learn that none was offered by the police other than one short film clip which by no means represented a true copy of the full evidence contained within the cctv footage. There was 'other' evidence but nobody involved could be bothered to make sure that Fred even knew of its existence let alone follow procedure and allow him to see it and thus make an informed decision on whether to accept the caution.

[Annoying Twit]

This is too late for Fred, as he accepted the caution, but I note with interest the following from the description of the offence of criminal damage.

 

Criminal Damage: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

 

Mens Rea

 

(Archbold 23-8 to 23-12)

After the House of Lords decision in R v G [2004 1 A.C. 1034 the mens rea for criminal damage is no longer as stated in Caldwell.

Recklessness for the purposes of the Criminal Damage Act is now defined as follows:

A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to:-

i) A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;

ii) A result when he/she is aware of a risk that it will occur;

And it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.

If the barrier lifted easi ly without force, then I personally wouldn't expect damage to occur. Hence had it been me, therefore, there wouldn't be Mens rea. If I had to use force, then it could be said (I believe) that I had been reckless, as force can break things. But without force, I, and possibly other "reasonable" people, might not have expected damage. If I remember correctly, Fred in the video carefully lifts the barrier first to see if it raised easily. Surely that would count against recklessness...

 

Also, I wonder whether Fred had "Lawful Excuse". The advice on that concentrates on people who damage car clamps removing them. And it says that Lawful Excuse does not apply when someone knowingly parks somewhere where they know that clamping is likely to occur. Since Fred had no reason to expect that the carpark would be shut and the intercom unmanned, could it be that he had lawful excuse to take actions to get his car out of the park?

 

http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Criminal%20Damage%20Act%201971%20(1971%20c%2048).htm

 

5 “Without lawful excuse”

 

(1) This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or under his control so to destroy or damage property.

 

(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

 

(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

 

(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—

 

(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

 

(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

 

(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

 

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

 

(5) This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.

Certainly I wouldn't want to leave my car stuck in a college car park over the weekend, there would be considerable risk of vandalism. And I would honestly believe that lightly lifting the barrier would be a reasonable measure to protect my car. Edited August 3, 2009 by Annoying Twit