Locked in car park

[Patma]

Patma

 

Just looking at that letter from LD. It states that Fred admitted to recieving a caution at the 1St of July hearing. There is no mention of that in your summary of what happened but unless my mind is going, I do recall somewhere along the line that it was mentioned by a LD representative that Fred didnt respond to. I know how meticulous you are at reporting the facts and this kind of stuck in my mind. What other dates has Fred had direct personal contact with LD.

Hi Royboy,Fred has never denied being cautioned, but he has always believed he was wrongly cautioned. At the outset if you remember he applied for a stay in proceedings in order to challenge the caution.

That application was never responded to by the Judge and he asked the Judge about the outcome of that application at the Directions Hearing.

LD's representative pretended to know nothing of this or of the caution and insisted she needed to know what Fred was referring to.(despite the fact that LD had known for some 7 months at that point that no evidence of any caution existed.)

She tried to twist things to get him to admit causing criminal damage and he was very clear in telling the court that he did not accept that he had caused damage. The Directions Hearing was the only time so far that Fred has had personal contact with anyone from Lyons Davidson.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

[Patma]

Isnt there some sort of abuse of process rule that would cover this?

 

They are demanding Fred PAY for them to prove THEIR case against him to the court.

 

Ok there's a mystery prize for the first person to find an abuse of process rule we can get them for on this:D:D

[Yorky2008]

Blimey, been away all week and returned to a few developements!!!

 

Firstly I would write to LD and state that its upto them to provide evidence and you have no intention of contributing to their case fees!

 

Secondly, I would have thought tht even if Fred thought he had been given a caution,

1) he doesnt necessarily agree with it and can, as now, fight it in court. 2) without evidence that once was actually given then Fred is obviously mistaken

 

Yorky

[caledfwlch]

Also, does the fact that they are suddenly demanding Fred contribute to their evidence costs suggest that someone at the college has had a look at LD's bill

[Patma]

Blimey, been away all week and returned to a few developements!!!

 

Firstly I would write to LD and state that its upto them to provide evidence and you have no intention of contributing to their case fees!

 

Secondly, I would have thought tht even if Fred thought he had been given a caution,

1) he doesnt necessarily agree with it and can, as now, fight it in court. 2) without evidence that once was actually given then Fred is obviously mistaken

 

Yorky

HI Yorky, glad to see you back.

I agree you're absolutely right. We didn't ask them to contribute to the cost of our transcript. They can just fork out for it when they lose the case:p

Your second point expresses the situation in a nutshell.

[Patma]

Also, does the fact that they are suddenly demanding Fred contribute to their evidence costs suggest that someone at the college has had a look at LD's bill

Now that's a very good point caledfwlch. I hadn't thought of that as a possibility, but by sheer coincidence our letter to the Principal was delivered on Wednesday 14th October, maybe she took exception to a bill of £10,500 and rising.:eek:

[caledfwlch]

Now that's a very good point caledfwlch. I hadn't thought of that as a possibility, but by sheer coincidence our letter to the Principal was delivered on Wednesday 14th October, maybe she took exception to a bill of £10,500 and rising.:eek:

 

Did you make her aware that even if her college WINS they will be massively out of pocket, since most of that would be unclaimable against Fred.

[Alphageek]

This therefore means that they either received their copy of the order before Fred did or they already knew about it some other way.

 

This is highly irregular and I would be tempted to write to the court manager and ask him/her how the situation arose.

 

It could happen if LD received the Court's order via DX and were on the ball with their reply, also served via DX.

 

I'd want to know if I were Fred.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what the gem of a letter from Lyons Davidson says :rolleyes:.......

 

"We refer to the Court order dated 15th October . We are prepared to request a transcript of the Directions Hearing in which you admit you received a caution for causing criminal damage to the claimant's barrier, on the basis that you are prepared to incur half the cost of that document.

Please confirm that you are prepared to pay your contribution towards the cost of the transcript and we will contact the court in order to obtain it."

 

It is signed by undecipherable squiggle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Unfortunately

 

Dear LD,

 

Thank you for your letter dated XXXX, the content of which is noted.

 

In an attempt to help you avoid further unnecessary costs, I suggest you contact Devon and Cornwall Police as they may supply the evidence you seek free of charge.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Fred.

[Patma]

This is highly irregular and I would be tempted to write to the court manager and ask him/her how the situation arose.

 

It could happen if LD received the Court's order via DX and were on the ball with their reply, also served via DX.

 

I'd want to know if I were Fred.

Thanks for mentioning that Alphageek. We've been concerned about that and also about the length of time it typically takes for Fred's applications to get a response as opposed to LD's. These last two for instance were handed in to the court on 1st October and the response arrived on 17th. We still don't have an answer though because the claimants have till 2nd November to make representations. Presumably shortly after that the judge will make a decision, but by then the bundle for the final hearing will have had to have been sent in.

[Patma]

It could happen if LD received the Court's order via DX and were on the ball with their reply, also served via DX.

LD's letter to Fred which arrived at the same time as the court order came by normal first class post. Is DX a sort of private courier service?

[royboy68]

LD's letter to Fred which arrived at the same time as the court order came by normal first class post. Is DX a sort of private courier service?

 

DX is just the same as fax.

[Patma]

DX is just the same as fax.

Ah right thanks.

[Alphageek]

Yes, sorry. It stands for Document eXchange.

[raydetinu]

they do use very fast courier service between various solicitors and court in city centres.

[ScarletPimpernel]

they do use very fast courier service between various solicitors and court in city centres.

 

aka the Old Boy Network?

[Patma]

they do use very fast courier service between various solicitors and court in city centres.

 

In this case Lyons Davidson's office dealing with the case is in Bristol and the court is in Plymouth.

[Bookworm]

I'm not totally au fait with police terminology, but surely there is a huge difference between "being cautioned" as in "you have the right to remain silent, etc..." and "receiving a caution" as in "you've been a bad boy, next time it won't go so smoothly and this goes on your record, we're just not going to prosecute"???

 

In no 1, it is your legal right and protection, in the other it is the lower rung of punishment.

 

Discuss and demolish as you want.

 

Edit: sorry, I wasn't just being random, I meant that maybe Fred confused the 2. When interviewed, he would have been interviewed under caution, but it doesn't mean he would have received a caution. If that makes sense. ;-)

Edited October 19, 2009 by Bookworm

[Patma]

aka the Old Boy Network?

 

That sounds about right.

[2Grumpy]

I thought that cautions were delivered formally by a relatively high ranking police officer, they would be presented with the details & would then would go & formally caution

 

So even if you agree to be cautioned, that might get turned down a short time later & it gets referred to the CPS, or the caution is delivered, or the senior guy realises that its a load of rubbish & the person is let out without realising that everything was dropped and the caution never given

[middenmess]

Have a read of this from the Home Office--all you need to know about cautions,

 

 

 

Cautions, penalty notices and other alternatives | Home Office

[Patma]

Bookworm and 2Grumpy, you both make very good points.

In Fred's case he believes he received a caution. The Duty solicitor present with him believes Fred received a caution and the Police must have believed they'd cautioned Fred because they informed Plymouth College of Art that Fred had been cautioned and they then wrote to Fred demanding he pay them the money in view of the fact that he'd received a police caution.

In January 2008 Lyons Davidson wrote to the police asking for documentation for the caution so they could use it against Fred in their planned court claim, but it didn't work out because the police wrote back unable to find it.

Correspondence ensued through 2008 culminating in a final definitive letter from the police stating there was no record of any caution on paper, or on computer and they can still find no record of it or any evidence.

[MrShed]

Interesting from that link, that you can only receive a caution if you admit the offence....

 

Did Fred ever admit to the offence of criminal damage?

[royboy68]

From the link that middenmess posted, there are 4 things that need to happen before a simple caution can be given.

there's evidence an offender is guilty

the offender is 18 years of age or over

the offender admits they committed the crime

the offender agrees to be given a caution – if the offender does not agree to receive a caution then they may be charged instead

The evidence was not conclusive

Fred did not admit the offence

Fred did not agree to a caution

The only thing they have going for them is hes over 18

[Patma]

Have a read of this from the Home Office--all you need to know about cautions,

 

 

 

Cautions, penalty notices and other alternatives | Home Office

 

That's an interesting read middenmess. Fred allegedly received a Simple Caution, but the conditions were certainly not complied with by the police.

 

there's evidence an offender is guilty There was no evidence of guilt, all physical evidence of the damaged barrier had already been removed by the time the police were involved and the new barrier had already been installed. Fred was shown only edited cctv footage of him raising the barrier.The police did not visit the scene.

the offender is 18 years of age or over

the offender admits they committed the crime Fred insisted he had not damaged the barrier only lifted it to exit the car park. He also pointed out that the video was edited.

the offender agrees to be given a caution – if the offender does not agree to receive a caution then they may be charged instead if the conditions listed weren't complied with.Fred only reluctantly agreed as he was given to understand at the time that strong evidence of damage had been presented to the police. He was worried and thought they would keep him locked up if he didn't agree. The solicitor encouraged him to accept a caution and get it over with.

[Patma]

Interesting from that link, that you can only receive a caution if you admit the offence....

 

Did Fred ever admit to the offence of criminal damage?

No he never admitted causing criminal damage. He always insisted he only carefully raised the barrier. Anyone who has seen the unedited cctv footage can see the truth of that.