Locked in car park

[hightail]

Fred may wish to check his credit files

[Annushka]

Hi to all the wonderful people on this forum. I expect you've seen me viewing this thread a lot and I haven't said anything because I don't have anything useful to add, but as Patma's daughter and as I know Fred very well I have a personal interest in this case.

 

It certainly is a bit of a roller-coaster and full of twists and turns. The things that have come to light haven't ceased to gob smack me and the whole saga is a bit like peeling an onion.

 

The contributors to this thread have been such good supportive people and I enjoy their humour immensely.

 

I have especially high regard for the tenacious TLD. I'm sure all would agree that to have him onside is the most amazing bonus and you certainly wouldn't want to be on the other team when TLD comes out to bat. It's sixes all the way.

 

Best of luck to Mum and Fred. XXX

[Toulose LeDebt]

Breaking News!!

 

One of our highly trained deep undercover field agents has just relayed a message from Fred and Patma at Devon and Cornwall Police HQ in Exeter.

 

The bad news first: Due to the police struggling to find the relevant records in time it is now extremely unlikely if not impossible that the caution will be expunged before the 2nd of September 2009 the hearing date.

 

On the plus side:

 

The head of the Police Legal team has reviewed the video evidence and sees no unreasonable behaviour being committed by Fred.

He has also contacted the Chief Constable to make him aware of the issues.

He has proven very helpful to Fred and his intervention might be critical to Freds defence.

He has confirmed as 'true' what we spotted last night which actually makes the 'bad news' mentioned above wholly obsolete.

 

Apologies that I cannot tell you more at the moment, please just believe me when I say that this constitutes extremely good news for Fred, you will be shocked when you do eventually hear the explanation and if Lyons Davidson thought the latest order made by the Court in this matter was bad news then they aint seen nothing yet!!!!!:D

Edited August 20, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Annushka]

LOL, I'm not all that highly trained and I think I just broke my cover.

[Toulose LeDebt]

LOL, I'm not all that highly trained and I think I just broke my cover.

 

:cry:

 

I guess there's always Beaumont Consultancy then........

[foolishgirl]

 

I have especially high regard for the tenacious TLD. I'm sure all would agree that to have him onside is the most amazing bonus...

 

Best of luck to Mum and Fred. XXX

 

How lovely to see Patma & Fred have your support too Annushka, I'm sure it means a lot to them both.

 

Your comments re. TLD have been echoed frequently on CAG & there are several members who have cause to be very grateful for his expertise & dedication. To save his blushes I won't say more..

 

 

 

Apologies that I cannot tell you more at the moment, please just believe me when I say that this constitutes extremely good news for Fred, you will be shocked when you do eventually hear the explanation and if Lyons Davidson thought the latest order made by the Court in this matter was bad news then they aint seen nothing yet!!!!!:D

 

We'll take your word for it TLD...

[Annoying Twit]

Gosh, so much happening. I've actually been working today and hadn't checked the thread.

 

A belated good luck to Fred & Patma for today.

 

And the caution might not be admissible evidence? That would really be a major turnaround. And raises many questions as to why they would amend the POCs to add it back in.

[noomill060]

*waves at guests*-getting really scary now, guys-eh?"

 

You werent expecting this, were you?

 

You have sown the wind and will soon reap the tornado.

Edited August 20, 2009 by noomill060

[Annoying Twit]

This might not be the best source, as bits and pieces are missing. But it will be a start.

 

What is a "subsisting conviction"? Edit: Oh, one that has not been quashed. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tno1bCUOrEwC&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=subsisting+conviction&source=bl&ots=-SOaFpfDHi&sig=YnWlfXnqMDIxhNwzAcJBxqZxcmA&hl=en&ei=F3KNSpTdA4WZjAfi8M3jDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=subsisting%20conviction&f=false)

 

11 Convictions as evidence in civil proceedings

 

(1)In any civil proceedings the fact that a person has been convicted of an offence by or before any court in the United Kingdom or by a court-martial there or elsewhere shall (subject to subsection (3) below) be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving, where to do so is relevant to any issue in those proceedings, that he committed that offence, whether he was so convicted upon a plea of guilty or otherwise and whether or not he is a party to the civil proceedings; but no conviction other than a subsisting one shall be admissible in evidence by virtue of this section.

(2)In any civil proceedings in which by virtue of this section a person is proved to have been convicted of an offence by or before any court in the United Kingdom or by a court-martial there or elsewhere—

(a)he shall be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is proved; and

(b)without prejudice to the reception of any other admissible evidence for the purpose of identifying the facts on which the conviction was based, the contents of any document which is admissible as evidence of the conviction, and the contents of the information, complaint, indictment or charge-sheet on which the person in question was convicted, shall be admissible in evidence for that purpose.

(3)Nothing in this section shall prejudice the operation of section 13 of this Act or any other enactment whereby a conviction or a finding of fact in any criminal proceedings is for the purposes of any other proceedings made conclusive evidence of any fact.

(4)Where in any civil proceedings the contents of any document are admissible in evidence by virtue of subsection (2) above, a copy of that document, or of the material part thereof, purporting to be certified or otherwise authenticated by or on behalf of the court or authority having custody of that document shall be admissible in evidence and shall be taken to be a true copy of that document or part unless the contrary is shown.

(5)Nothing in any of the following enactments, that is to say—

(a)[F1section 14 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000](under which a conviction leading to F2. . . discharge is to be disregarded except as therein mentioned);

(b)[F3section 191 of the M1Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975] (which makes similar provision in respect of convictions on indictment in Scotland); and

©section 8 of the M2Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 (which corresponds to the said section 12) or any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland for the time being in force,

shall affect the operation of this section; and for the purposes of this section any order made by a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland under [F3section 383 or section 384 of the said Act of 1975] shall be treated as a conviction.

(6)In this section “court-martial ” means a court-martial constituted under the M3Army Act 1955, the M4Air Force Act 1955 or the M5Naval Discipline Act 1957 F4. . . , and in relation to a court-martial “conviction ”, F5. . . , means a finding of guilty which is, or falls to be treated as, the finding of the court, and “convicted ” shall be construed accordingly.

[royboy68]

A thought occurs to me (that TLD might like to consider) about the admissibilty of an caution, as section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 provides only for admissibility of convictions "by or before a court"

 

This is something that has been bothering me as well. My son got a caution a few years ago. Im nearly sure that the caution was not for what he actually did but for his future conduct and if he got into any more trouble then he could get prosecuted for that offence as well. The police have no power to convict, just to put evidence before a court. Even if it had gone to court at the time, there is no guarantee that it would have led to a conviction especially with the lack of evidence.

[Annoying Twit]

Here's something that I've been wondering. The trial now seems to be little about the actual claimed "damages" done, but "costs". Could the court make a decision that Fred only did 50p damage, order him to pay that, but because Fred has "lost" the case, award costs against Fred?

[royboy68]

Here's something that I've been wondering. The trial now seems to be little about the actual claimed "damages" done, but "costs". Could the court make a decision that Fred only did 50p damage, order him to pay that, but because Fred has "lost" the case, award costs against Fred?

 

I cant see that happening AT. Fred is fighting a claim of 5K+. If the judge orders Fred to pay a small amount then effectively he has won.

If someone scratches my car and I go out and buy a brand new one to replace a 10 year old one and claim it of the offender, a judge would physically throw me out of court.

[foolishgirl]

Here's something that I've been wondering. The trial now seems to be little about the actual claimed "damages" done, but "costs". Could the court make a decision that Fred only did 50p damage, order him to pay that, but because Fred has "lost" the case, award costs against Fred?

 

He either damaged it or he didn't AT & they have to prove that he did & that whatever damage they claim he did warranted an expensive repair or new barrier. Even the DJ can't turn round & say 'well, you only removed the manufacturer's label ;)from the barrier so you owe PCAD 50p & BTW they want trillions in costs'. That's not what was on the POC.

[Annoying Twit]

This is something that has been bothering me as well. My son got a caution a few years ago. Im nearly sure that the caution was not for what he actually did but for his future conduct and if he got into any more trouble then he could get prosecuted for that offence as well. The police have no power to convict, just to put evidence before a court. Even if it had gone to court at the time, there is no guarantee that it would have led to a conviction especially with the lack of evidence.

 

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I can see, section 11 of the act only talks about convictions before a court being sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. Unless that conviction has been quashed, or can be disproved with other evidence.

 

I would vaguely guess, that means that the caution is not sufficient in itself to serve as proof that Fred committed criminal damage. However, I don't think that means that the caution is not admissible, or can't be used as evidence. Just that it is not the very strong evidence that a conviction in front of a court would be.

 

Aren't civil cases judged on the balance of probabilities?

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'd be amazed if fred was ordered to pay any costs, traditionally that burden falls upon the loser.

[royboy68]

Its an interesting point AT made though. Would a partial amount constitute a victory for the claimant.

[Annoying Twit]

He either damaged it or he didn't AT & they have to prove that he did & that whatever damage they claim he did warranted an expensive repair or new barrier. Even the DJ can't turn round & say 'well, you only removed the manufacturer's label ;)from the barrier so you owe PCAD 50p & BTW they want trillions in costs'. That's not what was on the POC.

 

As I said, I'm no lawyer. But, costs can be awarded in cases. And the judge can decide to award a lesser amount of damages than is claimed in the POC. As far as I know, it's not just a case where the DJ has to award the damages claimed on the POC, or nothing.

[bedlington83]

Thanks for the update TLD. I'm extremely intrigued as to what this smoking gun that you've found may be but understand why we have to wait. (I bet you're busting a gut to tell us too).

 

Was there any confirmation, or an indication of likeliness, that the caution would be expunged eventually, albeit not by 02/09/09?

[Annoying Twit]

I'd be amazed if fred was ordered to pay any costs, traditionally that burden falls upon the loser.

 

Aha, but the whole point of a Devil's Advocate is to assume the opposite of the "good" outcome!

 

As Roy says, if there's a reduced, even severely reduced, award, who is judged as the loser in terms of costs?

 

Yes, I do know that the judge can decide not to award costs, but I think it's worth considering various eventualities.

[bedlington83]

As far as I know, it's not just a case where the DJ has to award the damages claimed on the POC, or nothing.

You're right. I recently won a small claim but wasn't awarded the full amount that I was claiming. Instead the judge awarded a figure plucked out of the air that was around 40% of what I asked for. As a result of not getting everything I claimed he also knocked my costs down.

Edited August 20, 2009 by bedlington83
Spelling

[royboy68]

Is this one of the reasons why they offered Fred that deal. Partial victory and then can claim costs.

[noomill060]

Shocking waste of public funds.

 

Those responsible for this blatent misuse of authority should be held personally responsible and have their assets sequestrated to cover the waste.

 

Those senior public servants who have made this a personal vendetta against fred should suffer, personally.

 

I suspect that they will soon be spending more time with their families.

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

Was there any confirmation, or an indication of likeliness, that the caution would be expunged eventually, albeit not by 02/09/09?

 

Well the police were of the opinion that Freds behaviour was entirely reasonable and thus any caution issued upon the facts presented within the video would be unjust. But getting it expunged isn't going to be very easy.

[Annoying Twit]

Shocking waste of public funds.

 

Those responsible for this blatent misuse of authority should be held personally responsible and have their assets sequestrated to cover the waste.

 

Those senior public servants who have made this a personal vendetta against fred should suffer, personally.

 

I suspect that they will soon be spending more time with their families.

 

Isn't it only £80 that the college has to pay? Surely anyone else involved is a private company.

[foolishgirl]

Is this one of the reasons why they offered Fred that deal. Partial victory and then can claim costs.

 

What partial victory royboy? They still wanted him to pay them!