Some time when I use my windows
10 computer, I cannot get the links to open in word after download, how to
resolve.
Method 1
Go to your download location and
right click on the file then go to property’s afterwards click on unblock “next
to read only and hidden.”
Method 2
Complete fix for all files
https://appuals.com/fix-this-file-came-from-another-computer-and-might-be-blocked/
If you click on a Docx file and
Word just opens with an error, check in you download location and following the
instructions above!
--
https://serverone.hopto.org/accpersonpowers%20Community%20Officers%20Si%20Mod/
https://serverone.hopto.org/Community%20safety%20accreditation%20scheme%20Si%20Mod/
https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20community%20support%20officer%20Si%20Mod/
https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20Reform%20Act%202002%20Si%20Made/
Still to fix
Audio Files
https://serverone.hopto.org/Audio%20Files%20Link/
If you click on a Docx file and
Word just opens with an error + you can’t see the download link, check in you
download location on your pc and following the instructions above!
P.s Use
the Index file for an Index
TABLE OF UK CRIMINAL OFFENCES
TABLE OF UK OFFENCES
https://www.horrificcorruption.com/some-uk-laws-an-indexed-table
Maximum Sentences for Criminal
Offences Table List
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php
Magistrates’ Court Sentencing
Guidelines
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/
|
Suitable for Press? |
Yes www.Horrificcorruption.com
home page and any other gazette. 13/03/2021 |
Intentional or Reckless Sexual
Transmission of Infection
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/intentional-or-reckless-sexual-transmission-infection
Ř The
Enfield Council “I
put an FOI in and am waiting for 2021 policy & all underwriting of all the
policies” Enfield council hired DAC Beachcroft see audio files below Index
folder for more information. (1)
Enfield Letter 27.08.19 Insurance
details and claim process MR S CORDELL (2)
Enfield Insurance Incident report
form 2013 - 2020 https://serverone.hopto.org/Enfield%20Insurance%20Incident%20report%20form%202013%20-%202020/ Ř
The Metropolitan Police Force 2012 “I am going to put an FOI in for the
policies” 11/03/2021 (1)
Police policy 2012 https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20policy%202012/ (2)
Police PL Primary summary 2012 https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20PL%20Primary%20Summary%202012/ (3)
Police PL Excess layer Swiss 2012 https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20PL%20Excess%20layer%20Swiss%202012/ (4)
Published
items https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/af/accessing-information/published-items/?q=insurance (5)
Published
items Personal Insurance Indemnity - Policy https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20Zurich%20personal-insurance-indemnity---policy/ (6)
Published
items Information Rights Unit MPS Insurance
2019 https://serverone.hopto.org/Information%20Rights%20Unit%20Mps%20Insurance%202019/ (7)
NHS Resolution = All Doctors and
GPS (a)
01m. Mental Health Resolution (2) 04
11 2019 aaaaaaaaaa.WMA (b) 01m. Mental Health Resolution (3) 04
11 2019.WMA (c)
01m. Mental Health Resolution (4) 04
11 2019.WMA (d) 01m. Mental Health Resolution (6) 04
11 2019.WMA (e)
01m. Mental Health Resolution (7) 04
11 2019.WMA NHS
Insurance Info dh_117480 https://serverone.hopto.org/NHS-Indemnity/ NHS-Indemnity https://serverone.hopto.org/NHS-Indemnity/ NHS
Resolution “Direct Link” Member
of Parliament UK http://www.w4mp.org/w4mp/w4mp-guides/your-office/insurance-for-mps/ Member
of Parliament UK -Handbook – Insurance Page 40 = intranet.parliament.uk/insurances https://serverone.hopto.org/Member%20of%20Parliament%20Uk-handbook/ MPs FOI
Information https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/ MPs Office Costs Quick
Guide_2.pdf Employers\xd5 Liability
Insurance Bureau Bill (parliament.uk) Enfield
Neighbourhood Team Insurance Details Letter of Claim PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE THIS
EMAIL. BELOW IS A DRAFTE D LIST OF
PARTICULARS OF MY CLAIMS. WHAT ARE FOR AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT (OUT OF COURT)
DUE TO INCIDENTS THAT THE LISTED BELOW ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR. I
Mr. Simon Cordell have gotten asked to clarify why I am lodging insurance
claims against the listed companies and civilians. This
is not a conclusive summery of the Listed -- Listed Number 1 of 5 Company & Branch The Enfield Council Dates; From 2013 till date of 25/01/2021 Team Members Names 1. 2. 3. 4. Notes; (a) The
Forged Asbo “Held
responsible” Dates (b) The Forged
Possession Order 1 “Held
responsible” Dates (c)
The Forged 1st Injunction Order “Held responsible” Dates (d) The
Forged 2nd Injunction Order “Held
responsible” Dates (e)
The Forged Possession Order 2 “Held responsible” Dates ----- Listed Number 2 of 5 Company & Branch The Enfield Homes Dates; From 2006 till date of 25/01/2021 Team Members Names 1. 2. 3. 4. Notes; Ř Housing
disrepair = (Right to Repair) “Held responsible” ----- Listed Number 3 of 5 Company & Branch The Enfield
Neighbourhood Watch Dates; From 2013 till date of 25/01/2021 Team Members Names 1. 2. 3. 4. Notes; (a) The
Forged Asbo “Held responsible” Dates (b) The
Forged Possession Order 1 “Held responsible” Dates (c) The
Forged 1st Injunction Order “Held responsible” Dates (d) The
Forged 2nd Injunction Order “Held responsible” Dates (e) The
Forged Possession Order 2 “Held responsible” Dates ----- Listed Number 4 of 5 Company & Branch The Metropolitans Police Constabulary’s Edmonton
and Woodgreen Dates; From 2013 till date of 25/01/2021 Team Members Names 1. 2. 3. 4. Notes; (a) The
Forged Asbo “Held responsible” Dates (b) The
Forged Possession Order 1 “Held responsible” Dates (c) The
Forged 1st Injunction Order “Held responsible” Dates (d) The Forged
2nd Injunction Order “Held responsible” Dates (e) The
Forged Possession Order 2 “Held responsible” Dates ----- Listed Number 5 of 5 Company & Branch The Enfield, Barnet & Harringay Mental Health
Unit “The Enfield Team Dates; From 2013 till date of 25/01/2021 Team Members Names 1. 2. 3. 4. Notes; ---- Re:
myself: -- Mr. Simon Paul Cordell LETTER
OF CLAIM I ‘am as named above am making this
claim in regards to; Damages As
I can prove the Listed 1,2,3,4,5 companies’ staff have acted (a)
Bios and unreasonable while taking on
running companies’ activities in the public domain. (b) Them
involved staff have caused and are causing a Poor reaction times to public
concerns. (c)
Negligence (d) Gross
Misconduct (e)
A large amount Criminal Offences And
in a knock-on effect their reckless behaviour has caused me to suffer by ways
such as; General
damages = General damages relate to the impact
on my life when referring to such issues as: (a)
Pain and suffering caused by the
Listed 1,2,3,4,5 (b) Forced
changes to my lifestyle. (c)
Mental trauma. Special
damages = Special damages relate to the impact
on my life when referring to such issues as: (a)
Loss of earnings. (b) My
future loss of earnings. (c)
Medical treatment. (d) Future
medical treatment. (e)
Transport expenses relating to forged
court case (f)
Changes to my living environment. That are in connection with; (1)
Joint Enterprise / Joint Circular (a)
Joint Enterprise Ř Demeanour (a) Joint
enterprise is a doctrine of criminal law which permits two or more defendants
to be convicted of the same criminal offence in relation to the same
incident, even where they had different types or levels of involvement in the
incident. (b) Is
joint enterprise still a law UK? In
February 2016, the court ruled in Jogee's favour,
resetting the law of joint enterprise. Ř Law Charging
group assaults Where
a death or serious assault occurs at the hands of a group or gang,
prosecutors should seek to determine the exact role played by each suspect
and select charges that differentiate the roles. However,
prosecutors should be mindful, when selecting charges, not to overly
complicate the presentation of a case. This includes a consideration of the
directions of law that the indictment will require as a result. In
homicide cases, it is not always possible to identify who are the killer(s)
or principal offender(s) and who are the secondary parties. R v Jogee confirms that it is not necessary to prove
whether a defendant is a principal or an accessory [88] (provided he is one
or the other), and in a multi-handed assault it will often be the case that
no-one can say whose hand did the act which proved fatal. What is necessary
is that someone (identified or not) is shown to have committed murder or
manslaughter. In
such cases, it is permissible to prosecute the participants to the offence as
principals, without necessarily differentiating roles. However, alternative
charges may be put on the indictment, to allow the jury to convict D of a
lesser offence, where it is not satisfied that D was responsible for the more
serious offence. Ř Secondary
Liability Under Subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5 Key
Points: • The Court held that a defendant’s act of sending
emails drafted by another, that the defendant understood to contain material
untruths, was sufficient to establish that the defendant employed a “device,”
“scheme,” or “artifice to defraud” or an “act, practice or course of
business” that “operates ... as a fraud or deceit” under Rule 10b-5(a) and
(c), § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act, and § 17(a)(1)
of the Securities Act. • The Court’s decision has implications for any party
involved in the “dissemination” of information to investors, regardless of
whether he or she “made” the statement. This is of particular
significance to bankers and other investment professionals who may “cut
and paste” the statements of others. However, the decision does not
affect the requirement that to be liable for securities fraud, the person
disseminating the information must have intent to defraud. • The Court noted
that its 2011 Janus1 ruling may remain relevant (and preclude liability) if
“an individual neither makes nor disseminates false information — provided,
of course, that the individual is not involved in some other form of fraud.”
• The Court recognized that applying Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) may “present
problems of scope in borderline cases,” creating the likelihood of intense
factual inquiry in lower courts. Ř The securities exchange act of 1934 “USA” The Securities
Act of 1933 was the first federal legislation used to regulate the stock market. ... The Securities Act of 1933 is governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was created a year
later by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ř Accessories
and Abettors Act 1861 “UK” The
starting point is at Section
8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. This provides that
whoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable
offence shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal
offender. Historically the position at common law was that aiders and abettors
were said to be principals in the second degree and were actually or
constructively present at the time the offence was committed by the
principal. By contrast, counsellors and procurers were accessories before the
fact whose presence at the time of the offence was not necessary. The current
position is that the four varieties of conduct overlap and they cover any
form of assistance or encouragement. (The position in relation to summary
offences is governed by the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980,
section 44, which is in all material respects identical to section 8.) Ř It
has been held by the Court of Appeal that there is no violation of Article
6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights when the prosecution alleges
that D is party to an offence but cannot specify his precise role: R v.
Mercer [2001] EWCA Crim. 638. Ř In
the case of joint enterprise liability, D and P embark on a joint venture to
commit an offence, and, in the course of the joint venture, P commits another
offence. For example, D and P agree to commit burglary. If P commits the
offence while D acts as a lookout, no difficulty arises. But what if P
commits another offence which is in addition to or instead of the agreed
offence? For example, D and P agree to commit burglary. They are disturbed by
the householder; V. D knows that P is armed with a knife. P uses the knife to
stab and kill V. D is guilty of murder if he foresaw that P, as an incident
of the joint venture might commit that offence: Chan Wing-Siu [1985]
A.C. 168; Powell and Daniels [1999] 1 A.C. 1. The rationale for the
joint enterprise liability rule is that D, by attaching himself to the
venture to commit one offence, consciously accepts the risk that a
co-adventurer might commit another offence. Ř D's State of Mind in Relation to The Commission of The Offence By P In Johnson v. Youden [1950] 1
K.B. 544, Lord Goddard C.J. said: "Before a person can be
convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence, he must at
least know the essential matters which constitute the principal offence."
This statement of principle was subsequently approved by the House of Lords
in two cases: Churchill [1967] 2 A.C. 224
and Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350. It is therefore necessary to establish what is
meant by the "essential matters" and what is meant by "know." In their report on secondary participation, the
Law Commission concluded that the essential matters are fourfold: (a)
D must "know" that
P is going to do an act which satisfies the conduct element of the offence
(but not necessarily the details of the act). (b)
D must "know" of
the circumstances necessary to constitute the offence. (For example, D sells
P a hammer believing that P will use it to cause damage to property belonging
to P. One circumstance that must be present in the offence of criminal damage
is that the property belongs to another person. If P uses the hammer to
damage property belonging to V, D is not guilty, as a secondary party, to P's
offence of causing criminal damage.) (c)
As a general rule D must "know"
the consequence element of the offence. But an exception arises if the
principal's liability for the consequence is 'constructive.' For
example, D assists P to assault V. Both D and P intend to cause V only minor
harm. P hits V and V falls over and dies. P is guilty of manslaughter. So too
is D. (d)
D must "know" that
P will act with the fault element required in relation to the principal
offence. For example, D assists P to appropriate property belonging to
another. P does so dishonestly and with an intention permanently to deprive
that other person of the property. D is guilty as a secondary party if he 'knew'
that P would act with that state of mind. Ř 'Knowledge'
The Law Commission concluded that the requirement of knowledge
is satisfied if D knows or believes that:
(a) P is committing or will
commit the conduct element of the offence; (b) P is doing or will do so in
the circumstances and with the consequences, proof of which is required for
conviction of the offence. As
the Law Commission noted, despite what was said by Lord Goddard in Johnson
and Youden and
despite the fact that that case was approved by the House of Lords on two
occasions, there are decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal
which appear to dilute the requirement of knowledge. These cases provide some
support for four possible tests: (a) D must believe that P would
or might commit the conduct element of the offence: Blakely
& Sutton v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1991]
RTR 405; (b) D must foresee the risk of a
strong possibility that P will commit the offence: R v. Reardon [1999]
CLR 392; (c) D must contemplate the risk
of a real possibility that P will commit the offence: R v. Bryce [2004]
EWCA Crim. 1231; (d) D must foresee that it is
likely that P will commit the offence: R v. Webster [2006]
EWCA Crim. 415. Ř The Serious Crime Act 2007 The common law principles relating to secondary party liability must
now be read together with the Serious Crime Act 2007, which came into effect
on 1st October 2008. The
2007 Act creates three new offences: (a) Intentionally
encouraging or assisting an offence (section 44); (b) Encouraging
or assisting an offence, believing it will be committed (section 45); (c) Encouraging
or assisting offences, believing one or more will be committed (section
46). Ř Penalty Ř Joint
Enterprise (b) Joint
Circular Ř Demeanour Ř Law Ř Penalty ·
Temp Location for Now Ř INDEX (A)The 1st
Asbo Folder 1st Index Original (B)1ST
Asbo Folder “For Magistrates Court Highbury” (C)Asbo “Rip
apart File” (D)The 2nd
Asbo Folder 1st Index Original (E)2nd
Asbo Added Bits Only in the Appeal Stage1 (F)2nd
Asbo Folder “For Crown Court Woodgreen” (G)XXXX (H)The
Prosecutions Skeleton Argument is not INDEXED (I)The
Prosecutions Skeleton Argument “For the Asbo” (J)My 1st
Asbo Response Bundle INDEX (K)My
Response Bundle “For the Asbo” (L)1st Housing
Possession Order Book INDEX (M)Email Book
Walking to the 1st Housing Possession Order INDEX (N)1st
Possession Order “Dated: 19th July 2017” (O)The
1st Injunction Order INDEX (P)1st
Injunction Order Statements Getting Ripped (Q)1ST
Injunction Order Dated: 10/08/2017 (R)The
2nd Injunction Order INDEX (S)The
2nd Injunction Order Statements Getting Ripped (T)2nd
Injunction Order (U)The 2nd
INJUCTION FOLDER INDEXED Original made by Enfield Council When Ordered to by
the Judge Original (V)All in One
2nd Injunction Order Judge Indexed (W)2nd
Injunction Order “Indexed by Order of the Judge” (X)A Second
Housing Possession Order Served & Dated: 06/02/2019 Till 10/06/2019 INDEX (Y)2nd
Possession Order (Z)Freedom
of Information “Enfield Councils Computer System - Index” (AA)Freedom
of Information “Enfield Councils Computer System” (BB)Doctors
NHS & Private “RIO” INDEXED (CC)Freedom
of Information “NHS Computer System” (DD)Correspondents
sent by Email “Index” (EE)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 1 = 0 to 1000 Pages” (FF)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 2 = 1000 to 2000 Pages” (GG)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 3 = 2000 to 3000 Pages” (HH)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 4 = 3000 to 4000 Pages” (II)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 5 = 4000 to 4542 Pages” (JJ)Dentist (A)The 1st
Asbo Folder 1st Index Original https://serverone.hopto.org/1st%20Asbo%20Index%20Orig/
(B)1ST
Asbo Folder “For Magistrates Court Highbury” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2046/ (C)Asbo “Rip
apart File” https://serverone.hopto.org/Asbo%20Rip%20Apart%201/
(D)The 2nd
Asbo Folder 1st Index Original https://serverone.hopto.org/The%202ND%20Asbo%20Folder%201st%20Index%20Original/
(E)2nd
Asbo Added Bits Only in the Appeal Stage1 https://serverone.hopto.org/2nd%20Asbo%20Added%20Bits%20Only%20In%20the%20Appeal%20Stage1/
(F)2nd
Asbo Folder “For Crown Court Woodgreen” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2019/ (G)Below
Playground Rip Apart! (H)The
Prosecutions Skeleton Argument No Index /
Not Worth it. (I)The
Prosecutions Skeleton Argument “For the Asbo” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%208/ (J)My 1st
Asbo Response Bundle INDEX https://serverone.hopto.org/1st%20Asbo%20Responce%20Bundle/
(K)My
Response Bundle “For the Asbo” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%209/ (L)1st Housing
Possession Order Book INDEX https://serverone.hopto.org/1st%20Housing%20Possession%20Order%20Book%20%20INDEX/
(M)Email Book
Walking to the 1st Housing Possession Order INDEX (N)1st
Possession Order “Dated: 19th July 2017” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2010/ (O)The
1st Injunction Order INDEX https://serverone.hopto.org/Index%2011/
(P)1st
Injunction Order Statements Getting Ripped https://serverone.hopto.org/1st%20Injunction%20Order%20Statements%20Getting%20Ripped/ (Q)1ST
Injunction Order Dated: 10/08/2017 https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2011/ (R)The
2nd Injunction Order INDEX https://serverone.hopto.org/Index%2012/
(S)The
2nd Injunction Order Statements Getting Ripped https://serverone.hopto.org/The%202nd%20Injunction%20Order%20Statements%20Getting%20Ripped/
(T)2nd
Injunction Order https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2012/ (U)The 2nd
INJUCTION FOLDER INDEXED Original made by Enfield Council When Ordered to by
the Judge Original https://serverone.hopto.org/Index%2013/ (V)All in One
2nd Injunction Order Judge Indexed https://serverone.hopto.org/All%20in%20One%202nd%20Injunction%20Order%20Judge%20Indexed/
(W)2nd
Injunction Order “Indexed by Order of the Judge” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2013/ (X)A Second
Housing Possession Order Served & Dated: 06/02/2019 Till 10/06/2019 INDEX https://serverone.hopto.org/Index%2015/
(Y)2nd
Possession Order https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2015/ (Z)Freedom
of Information “Enfield Councils Computer System - Index” https://serverone.hopto.org/Enfield%20Councils%20Index/
(AA)Freedom
of Information “Enfield Councils Computer System” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2016/ (BB)Doctors
NHS & Private “RIO” INDEXED https://serverone.hopto.org/Index%2018/
(CC)Freedom
of Information “NHS Computer System” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2018/ (DD)Correspondents
sent by Email “Index” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%200/
(EE)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 1 = 0 to 1000 Pages” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2051/ (FF)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 2 = 1000 to 2000 Pages” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2052/ (GG)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 3 = 2000 to 3000 Pages” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2053/ (HH)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 4 = 3000 to 4000 Pages” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2054/ (II)All
Correspondents sent by Email “Version 5 = 4000 to 4542 Pages” https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2055/ (JJ)Dentist https://serverone.hopto.org/Email%20Book%2017/ (2)
Kidnapping and/or False Imprisonment / Unlawful Detention (a) Kidnapping
and false imprisonment are both common law offences. They are defined in case
law, and not in legislation. (b) Kidnapping
is taking someone away by force or fraud without their consent on any lawful
excuse. (c)
False Imprisonment is detaining someone against
their will (d) Both are
classed as very serious offences, with each carrying the potential for life
imprisonment on conviction. Ř Elements
of the offence In R
v Rahman (1985) 81 Cr App Rep 349 it was held that, on a charge of
false imprisonment, the prosecution must prove: The
unlawful (a) Intentional
behaviour (b) Reckless
behaviour (c) The
restraint of a victim's freedom of movement from a particular place Ř Restraint
of a victim's freedom of movement False
imprisonment at common law involves an act of the defendant which directly
and intentionally (or possibly negligently) causes the confinement of the
claimant within an area delimited by the defendant. Ř The elements
of the existing offence of false imprisonment, as stated above, are that: (a)
D’s conduct results in the restraint of V’s
freedom of movement from a particular place. (b) D intends
the conduct to have this result, or is reckless as to whether it will or not. (c)
The restraint is unlawful, in the sense that it
was without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. (As with kidnapping, a
mistaken belief in the existence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse can
be an excuse in (d) Itself.) Ř
Cooksey [2019] EWCA Crim 1410
where false imprisonment occurred within the context of coercive and
controlling behaviour in a domestic setting. Ř
Ward [2018] EWCA Crim 414
where the court identified aggravating factors for the particular case;
gratuitous degradation of the victim; abuse of power over the victim in his
own home; previous violence or threats towards the victim in the context of a
series of offences; threats made to stop the victim reporting the offending. Ř The
Law Commission (LAW COM No 355) SIMPLIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW: KIDNAPPING
AND RELATED OFFENCES (3)
Offences
against the Person Act 1861 s.18 Ř Homicide 4. Conspiring or soliciting to commit murder. Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to
persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether
he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s
dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted
thereof shall be liable Ř Acts
causing or tending to cause Danger to Life or Bodily Harm 20. Inflicting
bodily injury, with or without weapon. Whosoever
shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm
upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument,
[F2shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.] Ř
Assaults 42. Persons committing any common assault or battery
may be imprisoned or compelled by two magistrates to pay fine and costs not
exceeding 5 l. Ř Wounding
or grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm “117
Burncroft Avenue stabbing me with a Knife” because the local Authority’s
allowed them to continue victimising myself. “Section 1 of the
Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession
in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or
excuse.” Ř Assault
occasioning bodily harm. Whosoever
shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual
bodily harm shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years
and whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment for a common assault
shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any
term not exceeding [two years] Ř What is
the definition of battery in law? Definition.
1. In criminal law, this is a physical act that results in harmful or
offensive contact with another person without that person's consent. 2. In tort law, the intentional causation of harmful or offensive
contact with another's person without that person's consent. Ř How is offensive contact defined? A contact
is offensive within the meaning of § 101(c)(ii) if: 2. (a) The contact is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity;
or. 3. (b) The contact is highly offensive to the other's unusually sensitive. Ř Offences
against the Person Act 1861 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents
(4) Ill-treatment
of patients / Mental Health Act 1983 s.127 Ř Understanding
the Laws There
are two specific pieces of legislation that govern how people with mental
health conditions receive care and treatment. They are the Mental
Health Act 1983 (updated by the 2007 Act) and the Mental
Capacity Act 2005, including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Ř Demeanour
(2) It
shall be an offence for any individual to ill-treat or wilfully to
neglect a mentally disordered patient who is for the time being
subject to his guardianship under this Act or otherwise in his
custody or care (whether by virtue of any legal or moral obligation
or otherwise). Ř Law Ř 127Ill-treatment of patients. (a) It
shall be an offence for any person who is an officer on the staff of or
otherwise employed in, or who is one of the managers of, a hospital [F1,
independent hospital or care home]— (b) To ill-treat
or wilfully to neglect a patient for the time being receiving treatment for
mental disorder as an in-patient in that hospital or home; or (c) To
ill-treat or wilfully to neglect, on the premises of which the hospital or
home form’s part, a patient for the time being receiving such treatment there
as an out-patient. (d) It
shall be an offence for any individual to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect a
mentally disordered patient who is for the time being subject to his
guardianship under this Act or otherwise in his custody or care (whether by
virtue of any legal or moral obligation or otherwise). Ř Penalty (2A)F2. Any
person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable— (a)
On summary conviction, to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding
the statutory maximum, or to both; (b) On
conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F3five
years] or to a fine of any amount, or to both. Ř Mental
Health Act 1983 s.127 Ř Combo
(Index of Mental Capacity Act 2005 & More.) “Below the audio recorder!”
Ps. It might take a few seconds to load https://www.horrificcorruption.com/doctors
Ř Mental Capacity Act 2005 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/pdfs/ukpga_20050009_en.pdf
(5) Breaches
of the DPA – “Data Protection Act 1998” / GDPR 2016 – “General Data
Protection Regulation” DPA 1998 (a)
Got superseded by the Data Protection
Act 2018 (DPA 2018) on 23 May 2018 (b) Was
a United Kingdom Act of Parliament designed to protect personal data stored
on computers or in an organised paper filing system. It enacted the EU Data
Protection Directive 1995's provisions on the protection, processing and
movement of data. Ř GDPR (a)
The GDPR was adopted on 14 April
2016, and became enforceable beginning 25 May 2018. GDPR will levy harsh
fines against those who violate its privacy and security standards, with
penalties reaching into the tens of millions of euros. Ř The
consequences of breaching the Data Protection Act 1998 / GDPR (b) The
Information Commissioner has the power to issue fines for infringing on data
protection law, including the failure to report a breach. The specific
failure to notify can result in a fine of up to 10 million Euros or 2% of an
organisation's global turnover, referred to as the 'standard maximum. (c)
GDPR is a legal framework that sets
guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information of
individuals within the European Union (EU). It is brought in to UK Law by
means of Part 2 of the DPA 2018 (d) Personal
data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable living
individual. An identifying
characteristic could include a name, ID number or location data. Ř The
GDPR provides the following rights for individuals: (a)
The right to be informed (b) The
right of access (c)
The right to rectification (d) The
right to erasure (e)
The right to restrict processing (f)
The right to data portability (g)
The right to object (h) Rights
in relation to automated decision making and profiling Ř Section
132: Prohibition placed upon the Commissioner, or the Commissioner’s staff
against disclosing information obtained in the course of their role (which is
not available to the public) Section
132 replaces section 59 DPA 1998 and criminalises action by former or current
ICO staff who disclose data obtained during the course of their duties.
Section 132 (2) clarifies the circumstances in which disclosure – with lawful
authority – may be made. Section 132 (3) however confirms that it is an
offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to disclose information in
contravention of subsection (1). Ř Section
144: False statement made in response to an information notice It is an offence for a person, in response to information
notice from the Commissioner, to make or recklessly make, a statement which
they know to be false in a material respect. Ř Section
148: Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc Under Section 148 (2) (a) it is an offence for a
person to destroy or otherwise dispose of, conceal, block or (where relevant)
falsify all or part of the information, document, equipment or material.
Section 148 (2) (b) makes to cause or permit the actions set pout in the
previous subsection. Ř Section
170: Unlawful obtaining etc of personal data Section 170 of the Act builds on section 55 DPA
1998 which criminalised knowingly or recklessly obtaining, disclosing or
procuring personal data without the consent of the data controller, and the
sale or offering for sale of that data. The provision was most
typically/commonly used to prosecute those who had accessed healthcare and
financial records without a legitimate reason. Section 170 adds the offence
of knowingly or recklessly retaining personal data (which may have been
lawfully obtained) without the consent of the data controller. There are some
exceptions: for example, where such obtaining, disclosing, procuring or
retaining was necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime.
Section 170 (2) and (3) set out the defences to Section 170 (1). Ř Section
171: Re-identification of de-identified personal data Section 171 - a new offence - criminalises the
re-identification of personal data that has been ‘de-identified’
(de-identification being a process - such as redactions - to remove/conceal
personal data). Section (5) states that it is an offence for a person
knowingly or recklessly to process personal data that is information that has
been re-identified. Sections 171 (3) and (4) set out the defences to Section
171 (1) – for example, the re-identification was necessary for the purposes
of preventing or detecting crime. Sections 171 (6) and (7) set out the
defences to Section 171 (5). Ř Section
173: Alteration etc of personal data to prevent disclosure to data subject Section 173 relates to the processing of requests
for data from individuals for their personal data. Section 173 (3) makes it a
criminal offence for organisations (persons listed in Section 173 (4)) to
alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal information with the
intention of preventing disclosure. It builds on an offence under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000. Possible defences to an offence under section 173
(3) are set out in Section 173 (5). Ř Section
184: Prohibition of requirement to produce relevant records Section 184 (1) makes it an offence for a person
to require another to provide them with or give them access to a relevant
record linked to the employment, continued employment of one of their
employees or a contract for the provisions of services to them. Section 184
(2) makes it an offence for a person to require another to provide them with
or access to a relevant record if the requestor is involved in the provision
of goods, facilities or services to the public or the requirement is a
condition of providing or offering to provide goods, facilities or services
to the other person or a third party. Section 184 (3) details the possible
defences to offences under subsection 184 (1) or (2). Ř
Data Protection Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents Ř General Data
Protection Regulation 2016 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation
(6) Freedom
of Information Act 2000 Ř Demeanour (a) The Freedom
of Information Act 2000 provides public access to information held by public
authorities. It does this in two ways: public authorities are obliged to
publish certain information about their activities; and. members of the
public are entitled to request information from public authorities. (b) You
normally have 20 working days to respond to a request. For a request to be
valid under the Freedom of Information Act it must be in writing, but
requesters do not have to mention the Act or direct their request to a
designated member of staff. (c) A
subject access request (SAR) is simply a written request made by or on behalf
of an individual for the information which he or she is entitled to ask for
under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The request does not
have to be in any particular form. Ř Law An
Act to make provision for the disclosure of information held by public
authorities or by persons providing services for them and to amend the Data
Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Act 1958; and for connected
purposes. Ř Penalty The
penalty is a fine. There are no financial or custodial penalties for failure
to provide information on request or for failure to publish information. But
you could be found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a decision
notice, enforcement notice, or information notice. Ř Freedom
of Information Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents
(7) Defamation of Character Act 2013 - “Slander” Ř Demeanour If
lies about you have appeared about you or your business on social media,
a website or in print, or in the case of slander they had been
spoken, and you reasonably believe that your reputation has suffered as a
result, then potentially you are a victim of defamation of character and you
have a claim against the author, the publisher, and anyone else involved in
the publication. Ř Law (a)
The Defamation Act 2013 came into
force on 1 January 2014. (b) Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken
defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it
is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person
who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages. (c)
A claimant must satisfy the court
that the defamation is sufficiently serious and that the imputation, extent
and/or nature of the word’s publication is such that real reputational damage
has been suffered. (d) An additional test applies to a body trading for profit, namely a
requirement to show that a statement has caused, or is likely to cause,
serious financial loss. Ř
To prove prima facie defamation, a
plaintiff must show four things: (1) A false statement purporting to be fact; (2) Publication or communication of that statement to a third person; (3) Fault amounting to at least negligence; and (4) Damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the
subject of the statement. Ř To establish a character defamation case, you must show: (a)
The statement was not substantially
true. (b) You can identify who made the false statement. (c)
The person knowingly or recklessly
made a false statement. (d) The statement was published (verbally or in writing) to someone other
than you. (e)
The false statement harmed you. Ř Judgment
in Lachaux -v- Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 https://www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/defamation-test-serious-harm
(8) Housing
disrepair = (Right to Repair) “UK” Regulations 1994; -- Housing Act 1985 “The
Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities” Ř EXPLANATORY
NOTE OF (Right to Repair) “UK” Regulations 1994 (a) These
Regulations give secure tenants of local housing authorities rights relating
to Repairs to their homes which their landlords are obliged, under repairing
covenants, to carry out. Such a tenant is given the right, if the first
contractor does not complete qualifying repairs within specified time limits,
to require the landlord to appoint a second contractor to carry out the
repairs. The tenant is also given a right to compensation from his landlord
if the repairs are not carried out within specified time limits after he has
asked for a second contractor to be appointed. (b) Regulation
2 Contains definitions and provides that landlords
themselves are included in references to contractors in the Regulations. (c) Regulation
3 Describes the circumstances in which the rights apply. A
repair must be within a description of repair prescribed by regulation 4. (d) Regulation
5 Sets out the procedure the landlord should follow if a
tenant asks for a repair to be carried out. If the repair is a qualifying
repair and is not carried out within specified time limits, regulation 6
entitles the tenant to require the landlord to appoint a different contractor
to do the repair. If the repair still is not completed within specified time
limits, the tenant may be entitled to compensation from the landlord under
regulation 7. (e) Regulation
8 Suspends, in exceptional circumstances, the specified
time limits and regulation 11 extends the limits in the transitional cases
described. (f) Regulation
9 Provides that notices may be served by post and regulation
10 provides that disputes may be determined by the county court Ř The
Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations
1994 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/133/made
Entitlement
1. 3.—
(1) Subject to and in accordance with these Regulations, secure tenants whose
landlords are local housing authorities are entitled— (a) To
have qualifying repairs carried out, at their landlords' expense, to the
dwelling-houses of which they are such tenants; and (b) To
receive compensation from their landlords if qualifying repairs are not
carried out within a prescribed period. Ř Repair
notice 5.— (1) (b) If the landlord is satisfied that
the repair is not a qualifying repair, it shall notify the tenant of that and
explain why it is so satisfied and give the tenant an explanation of the
provisions of these Regulations; and (c) If the landlord is satisfied that
the repair is a qualifying repair, the landlord shall issue a repair notice
to a contractor and give to the tenant a copy of the notice and an
explanation of the provisions of these Regulations. (2) A repair notice shall contain a
reference sufficient to identify the completed notice and shall specify— (a) The name of the secure tenant; (b) The address of the dwelling-house; (c) The nature of the repair; (d) The name, address and telephone
number of the contractor who is to carry out the repair; (e) The arrangements made for the
contractor to obtain access to the dwelling-house; and (f) The last day of the first prescribed
period. Ř Substitute
Contractor 6.— (1) Subject to paragraph (3) and regulation 8, if— (a) The qualifying repair has not been
carried out within the first prescribed period, and (b) The tenant notifies the landlord that
he requires another contractor to carry out the qualifying repair, the landlord, where it is reasonably practicable,
shall issue a further repair notice to another contractor and give a copy of
the notice to the tenant. (2) The further repair notice shall contain a reference sufficient
to identify it and specify the matters referred to in regulation 5(2)(a) to
(e) and the last day of the second prescribed period. (3) Paragraph (1) does not apply if compliance with that paragraph
would infringe the terms of a guarantee for work done or materials supplied
of which the landlord has the benefit. Ř Compensation 7.— (1) Subject to regulation 8, the landlord shall pay the specified
sum to the secure tenant if the qualifying repair has not been carried out
within the second prescribed period. (2) In paragraph (1), “specified sum” means the lesser of Ł50 and
Ł10 + (Ł2 X n) where N is the number of days (counting part of a day as a
complete day) in the period starting on the day after the second prescribed
period ends and ending on the day on which the qualifying repair is
completed. Ř SCHEDULE
Ř Housing
Act 1985 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/section/96
(9) Interference with the course of justice 1963 / Perjury
Act 1911 Ř Demeanour
What
is classed as perverting the course of justice? Elements
of the offence of perverting the course of justice (a) Acts
tending (and intended) to obstruct, divert or disrupt criminal proceedings or
police investigations generally may suffice—the offence does not need to have
taken place in respect of a particular trial or investigation. (b) Perverting
the course of justice is a serious criminal offence that can carry a sentence
of up to life in prison and whilst life imprisonment is unlikely,
it is unusual for the court to impose a penalty other than a prison sentence. (c) Obstruction
of justice is an offense that criminalizes any conduct in which a person
wilfully interferes with the orderly administration of justice. Ř What
does it mean to defeat the ends of justice? Definition. Consists in unlawfully and
intentionally engaging in conduct which defeats or. obstructs the course or
administration of justice. Elements. Ř Law (1)
THE LAWCOMMISSION OFFENCES RELATING TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE
Ř Extract 1.9 (a)
Person should be regarded as intending
a particular result of his conduct if, but only if, either he actually
intends that result or he has no substantial doubt that the conduct will have
that result; (b) A
person should be regarded as knowing that a particular circumstance exists
if, but only if, either he actually knows or he has no substantial doubt that
that circumstance exists; (c)
A person should be regarded as being
reckless as to whether a particular circumstance exists if, but only if, (i) he realises at the time of that conduct that there is
a risk of that circumstance existing and (ii) it is unreasonable for him to
take that risk. The question whether it is unreasonable for him to take the
risk is to be answered by an objective assessment of his conduct in the light
of all relevant factors, but on the assumption that any judgment he may have
formed of the degree of risk was correct. PART II: PERJURY Ř PRESENT LAW AND WORKING PAPER PROPOSALS (2)
The present law as to perjury in
judicial proceedings is to be found in the Perjury Act 1911 (hereafter
"the 1911 Act"). Section I of the Act provides that if a person
lawfully sworn as a witness or interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully
makes a statement material in that proceeding which he knows to be false or
does not believe to be true he shall be guilty of perjury. By virtue of
section 1(5) the offence extends to such statements made by persons lawfully
sworn under the authority of an Act of Parliament (a) In
any part of H.M.'s dominions or (b) Before
a British tribunal or officer in a foreign country. Certain statements not
made before a court are by section 1(3) treated as being made in judicial proceedings. 2.2 The 1911 Act deals not only with
perjury in judicial proceedings but also with statements on oath otherwise
than in judicial proceedings (a)
(section 2),
False oaths or statements with reference to marriage (b) (section
3), False declarations or statements in relation to
births and deaths (c)
(section 4),
False statutory declarations and other oral declarations required under an
Act of Parliament (d) (section
5), And false declarations to obtain registration
for carrying on a vocation (e)
(section 6).
Finally, (f)
(section 7(1)
Deals with aiding, abetting or suborning a person to commit an offence under
the Act and section 7(2) with inciting or attempting to procure or
suborn a person to commit an offence under the Act. Subornation is no more
than another name for procuring an offence, whilst the other ancillary offences
in this section add nothing to the general law to be found in section 8 of
the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 and the common law. Also
see (10)
(2) Public Justice Offences
incorporating the Charging Standard https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
Ř Extract AAAA (11)
Disclosure Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) Ř Demeanour
“Fairness
ordinarily requires that any material held by the prosecution which weakens
its case or strengthens that of the defendant, if not relied on as part of
its formal case against the defendant, should be disclosed to the defence.
Bitter experience has shown that miscarriages of justice may occur where such
material is withheld from disclosure. The golden rule is that full disclosure
of such material should be made.” (R v H [2004] UKHL 3; [2004] 2 Cr.
App. R. 10, House of Lords). Ř The Law on Disclosure is found here The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) Part I Disclosure and Part II Criminal Investigations contains the main statutory disclosure provisions. Additional guidance for the proper disclosure of unused material can
be found in: (a)
CPIA Code of Practice, issued under s.23 CPIA (the Code of Practice); (b) Judicial Protocol on the Disclosure
of Unused Material in Criminal Cases (the Judicial Protocol); (c)
Attorney-General’s Guidelines on
Disclosure - For Investigators, Prosecutors and Defence Practitioners
(the A-G’s Guidelines); (d) Criminal Procedure Rules (Crim PR)
Part 15. (e)
Protocol and Good Practice Model on
the Disclosure of Information in cases of Alleged Child Abuse and linked
Criminal and Care Directions (the Child Abuse Protocol) (f)
The Better Case Management (BCM)
Handbook (the BCM Handbook) - in particular paragraph 3.20 Ř The Duty to Disclose Commences when: -- The statutory duty under the CPIA commences once the defendant (in the
Magistrates’ Court) has pleaded not guilty and the case has been adjourned
for trial or (for cases going to the Crown Court) once the case has been sent
for trial to the Crown Court (see s.1 CPIA). It lasts until the end of the trial (see s.7A CPIA; R (on the
application of Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and another
[2014] UKSC 37; [2014] 2 Cr. App. R. 22; [2015] Crim. L.R. 76;
see also section 7 of the Code of Practice). Before this time there is a common law duty of disclosure requiring
the prosecution to disclose material reasonably thought capable of assisting
a defendant, for example in bail applications or where it would be helpful in
allowing a defendant to prepare his case. Ř Disclosure
under “Abuse
of Process.” https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/abuse-process
Non-disclosure by
prosecutor Failure on the part of the prosecution to comply
with its disclosure obligations may amount to an abuse of process. Some of the relevant factors to be taken into
account when deciding whether non-disclosure amounts to abuse of process were
considered in Salt [2015] 1 WLR 4905. They included: (a) The
gravity of the charges; (b) The
denial of justice to the complainants; (c) The
necessity for proper attention to be paid to disclosure, the nature and
materiality of the failures; (d) The
conduct of the defence; (e) The
waste of court resources; (f) The
effect on the jury; (g)
The availability of sanctions other than halting proceedings. However, in DPP v Petrie [2015]
EWHC 48 (Admin), it was noted that in some cases: “A wholesale failure on
the part of the prosecution to comply with its disclosure obligations may
require the prosecution to offer no evidence, in accordance with the
professional code for prosecutors and the guidance set out in the CPS/ACPO
Disclosure Manual”. “The possibility of such
an outcome serves to illuminate that only rarely will recourse to an abuse of
process argument be necessary or appropriate”. However, see the section
on Prosecution Failures, later in this guidance. (12)
Abuse of Process / Malicious
Prosecution Ř Demeanour
What
is the difference between abuse of process and malicious prosecution? The
primary difference between the two legal actions is
that malicious prosecution concerns
the malicious or wrongful commencement of an action,
while, on the other hand, abuse of process concerns the improper
use of the legal process after process has already been
issued and a suit has commenced. Ř Law (1) Abuse
of process has been defined as "something so unfair and wrong that the
court should not allow a prosecutor to proceed with what is in all other
respect a regular proceeding" (2) Both
the Crown Courts and magistrates' courts have discretion to protect the
process of the court from abuse. This includes protecting the accused person
from oppression or prejudice. The courts have often emphasised that the power
to stay a case for an abuse of process is an exceptional power to be
exercised sparingly A
case might form an abuse of process where: (a) The
defendant would not receive a fair trial; and/or (b) It
would be unfair for the defendant to be tried. (3) The
traditional view has been that the burden of proof is on the defence to show
that the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process. The standard of
proof is the balance of probabilities. However, the decision to stay
proceedings as an abuse of process is an exercise in judicial assessment
based on judgment, rather than on any conclusion as to fact based on
evidence, and use of terms such as 'burden of proof' and 'standard of proof'
has the potential to mislead (4) There
is no exhaustive list of situations where a court might halt a case for an
abuse of process but the specific categories below are the most common
situations where arguments arise. (1) R v Derby Crown Court ex p Brooks: “It may be an abuse of process if
either (a)
The
prosecution has manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to
deprive the defendant of a protection provided by law or to take unfair
advantage of a technicality, or (b) On the balance of probability, the
defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the preparation or conduct of
his defence by delay on the part of the prosecution which is unjustifiable”
“The ultimate objective of this discretionary power is to ensure that there
should be a fair trial according to law, which involves fairness both to the
defendant and the prosecution ….” (2) R v Martin (Alan): „No single formulation will readily
cover all cases, but there must be something so gravely wrong as to make it
unconscionable that a trial should go forward, such as some fundamental
disregard for basic human rights or some gross neglect of the elementary
principles of fairness. ‟ Ř Two
Categories of Abuse In
considering the development of case law it is clear that the Higher Courts
will sometimes use the abuse of process jurisdiction to effectively ‘punish’
the police or prosecution for errors or faults. This ‘serious fault’ limb of
the abuse of process jurisdiction highlights the way abuse applications fall
into two broad categories; (a)
Category 1
cases where the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, and (b) Category
2 cases where it would be unfair for the defendant to be
tried: see R v Beckford (1996) 1 Cr App R 94, 101. Thus, if
evidence that should have been seized by the police but now cannot be
obtained, but would have been helpful to the defence, then that is a
‘Category 1’ situation and the Judge could, exceptionally, stay the trial on
the basis that the defendant could not get a fair trial. Ř
If, however, the police had the
material but maliciously destroyed it, then that would be a ‘Category 2’ case
and even though the defendant could get a fair trial it would be unfair to
try him – in as much as it would offend our sense of justice and bring the
administration of the criminal justice system into disrepute to do so, see
e.g., R v Mullen [1999] 1 AC 42, HL. Ř Abuse
of Process https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/abuse-process
Ř Lawsuits
for Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process (13)
Criminal damage Act 1971 Ř Demeanour
The
offence of criminal damage is committed when a person destroys
or damages property belonging to another person without lawful
excuse, in contravention of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
The damage caused as a result of the offence does not have to be
permanent. Ř Law Other than Aggravated Criminal Damage) (a) Section
1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys
or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage
any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be
destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence. Ř Aggravated
Criminal Damage and Aggravated Arson (a) Aggravated
criminal damage is set out at s.1(2) and aggravated arson is at s.1(2) and
(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971. The aggravated offences require proof of an
intent to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any
property would be destroyed or damaged; and intending by the destruction or
damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the
life of another would be thereby endangered. (b) Section
4 Criminal Damage Act 1971 sets out a maximum penalty of life imprisonment
for aggravated criminal damage and aggravated arson. The offences are only
triable on indictment. (c) If
the damage is committed by fire, the offence is charged as arson with intent
or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby
endangered. (d) Where
the aggravated form of damaging property/arson is charged, specific counts
should be preferred, as follows: (e) Intending
to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether property would be
destroyed/damaged and intending to endanger the life of another; or (f) Intending
to destroy/damage property or being reckless as to whether property would be
destroyed/damaged and being reckless as to whether life would be endangered. Ř
See
further R
v Hoof (1981) 72 Cr App R 126 and R v Hardie (1984) 3 All ER 848. Although both cases
involved arson, the comments on charging practice are equally applicable
where the damage is caused other than by fire. Ř Penalty
4
Punishment of offences. (a)
A person guilty of arson under
section 1 above or of an offence under section 1(2) above (whether arson or
not) shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life. (b) A
person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall on conviction on
indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Ř Criminal
damage Act 1971 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/pdfs/ukpga_19710048_en.pdf
(14)
Discrimination = Race relations Act
1976 (Repealed) Race relations Act 2000 / to the Equality Act 2010 Ř Demeanour (a)
The Act banned racial discrimination in public places and made the promotion of
hatred on the grounds of 'colour, race, or ethnic or national origins' an offence. (b) It requires all public functions to be
carried on without racial discrimination and imposes on
certain specified bodies general and specific duties to promote racial equality. It also gives the Commission of Racial Equality (“CRE”) enhanced powers to issue statutory
guidance and enforce the specific duties Ř Category (a)
Racially-aggravated assault (b) Racially-aggravated
criminal damage (c)
Racially-aggravated
harassment/putting another in fear of violence (d) Racially-aggravated
public order offence Ř Law 1.
Racial discrimination (1)
A person discriminates against another
in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act
if— (a)
On racial grounds he treats that
other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or (b) He
applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would
apply equally to persons not of the same racial group as that other but— (I)
Which is such that the proportion of
persons of the same racial group as that other who can comply with it is
considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group
who can comply with it: and (II)
Which he cannot show to be
justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or
national origins of the person to whom it is applied; and (III)
Which is to the detriment of that
other because he cannot comply with it. (2)
It is hereby declared that, for the
purposes of this Act, segregating a person from other persons on racial
grounds is treating him less favourably than they are treated. 2.
Discrimination by way of
victimisation (1)
A person (" the discriminator
") discriminates against another person (" the person victimised
") in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of
this Act if he treats the person victimised less favourably than in those
circumstances he treats or would treat other persons, and does so by reason
that the person victimised has— (a)
Brought proceedings against the
discriminator or any other person under this Act; or (b) Given
evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person
against the discriminator or any other person under this Act; or (c)
Otherwise done anything under or by
reference to this Act in relation to the discriminator or any other person;
or (d) Illegal
that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which
(whether or not the allegation so states) would amount to a contravention of
this Act, (e)
or by reason that the discriminator
knows that the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or
suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do, any of them. (2)
Subsection (1) does not apply to
treatment of a person by reason of any allegation made by him if the
allegation was false and not made in good faith. 3.
Meaning of " racial
grounds", " racial group " etc. (1)
In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires— ·
" Racial grounds " means
any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or
national origins; ·
" Racial group " means a
group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic
or national origins, and references to a person's racial group refer to any
racial group into which he falls. (2)
The fact that a racial group
comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from
constituting a particular racial group for the purposes of this Act. (3)
In this Act— (1)
References to discrimination refer to
any discrimination falling within section 1 or 2; and (2)
References to racial discrimination refer
to any discrimination falling within section 1, and related expressions shall
be construed accordingly. (4)
A comparison of the case of a person
of a particular racial group with that of a person not of that group under
section 1(1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are
the same, or not materially different, in the other. 29. Discriminatory
advertisements (1)
It is unlawful to publish or to cause
to be published an advertisement which indicates, or might reasonably be
understood as indicating, an intention by a person to do an act of
discrimination, whether the doing of that act by him would be lawful or, by
virtue of Part II or III, unlawful. (2)
Subsection (1) does not apply to an
advertisement— (a)
if the intended act would be lawful
by virtue of any of sections 5, 6, 7(3) and (4), 10(3), 26, 34(2)(b), 35 to
39 and 41; or (b) if
the advertisement relates to the services of an employment agency (within the
meaning of section 14(1)) and the intended act only concerns employment which
the employer could by virtue of section 5, 6 or 7(3) or (4) lawfully refuse
to offer to persons against whom the advertisement indicates an intention to
discriminate. (3)
Subsection (1) does not apply to an
advertisement which indicates that persons of any class defined otherwise
than by reference to colour, race or ethnic or national origins are required
for employment outside Great Britain. (4)
The publisher of an advertisement made
unlawful by subsection (1) shall not be subject to any liability under that
subsection in respect of the publication of the advertisement if he proves— (a)
that the advertisement was published
in reliance on a statement made to him by the person who caused it to be
published to the effect that, by reason of the operation of subsection (2) or
(3), the publication would not be unlawful; and (b) that
it was reasonable for him to rely on the statement. (5)
A person who knowingly or recklessly
makes a statement such as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a) which in a
material respect is false or misleading commits an offence, and shall be
liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Ł400. 32. Liability
of employers and principals (1)
Anything done by a person in the
course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act
(except as regards offences thereunder) as done by his employer as well as by
him, whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval. (2)
Anything done by a person as agent
for another person with the authority (whether express or implied, and
whether precedent or subsequent) of that other person shall be treated for
the purposes of this Act (except as regards offences thereunder) as done by
that other person as well as by him. (3)
In proceedings brought under this Act
against any person in respect of an act alleged to have been done by an
employee of his it shall be a defence for that person to prove that he took
such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from doing
that act, or from doing in the course of his employment acts of that
description. 48. Power
to conduct formal investigations (1)
Without prejudice to their general
power to do anything requisite for the performance of their duties under
section 43(1), the Commission may if they think fit, and shall if required by
the Secretary of State, conduct a formal investigation for any purpose
connected with the carrying out of those duties. (2)
The Commission may, with the approval
of the Secretary of State, appoint, on a full-time or part-time basis, one or
more individuals as additional Commissioners for the purposes of a formal
investigation. (3)
The Commission may nominate one or
more Commissioners, with or without one or more additional Commissioners, to
conduct a formal investigation on their behalf, and may delegate any of their
functions in relation to the investigation to the persons so nominated. Ř Penalty
Maximum sentence and racially and/or
religiously aggravated assaults
Common
assault, battery and offences contrary to sections 47 and 20 OAPA are capable
of being charged as racially and/or religiously aggravated assaults, where
the provisions of s.28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are met. This results in a
different sentencing framework, as follows:
Ř Race relations Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted Ř Statutory CODE OF PRACTICE ON RACIAL
EQUALITY IN EMPLOYMENT Ř Equality
Act 2010: guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance As
you grow up, you may see racism, you may have racist things happen to you or
to people you care about. It is important to know what racism is and what to
do about it because no one should be treated badly because of how they look,
the language they speak or where their family is from. Samir Jeraj, Race Equality Foundation (15)
Violent
Disorder Public Order Act 1986 s.2 Ř Demeanour Violent Disorder (a)
Where
3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct
of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable
firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety, each of the
persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent (b) Section 3
of the Public Order Offences Act 1986, affray is a criminal
offence, committed when someone threatens violence toward another person, and
behaves in such a manner that other people are fearful of their personal
safety. (c)
Section
4 of the Public Order Act. This offence is referred to as Threatening Behaviour or intending
to cause someone to fear or to provoke violence. Ř Public Order Offences Ř Law \18 Use of words or behaviour or display of
written material. (1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or
behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or
insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a)
He intends thereby to stir up
racial hatred, or (b)
Having regard to all the circumstances
racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. (2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a
private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or
behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside
a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or
another dwelling. Ř 19 Publishing or distributing written material. (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is
threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if— (a)
He intends thereby to stir up
racial hatred, or (b)
Having reg Ř 20 Public performance of play. (1) If a public performance of a play is given which involves the use of
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, any person who presents
or directs the performance is guilty of an offence if— (a) He intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) Having regard to all the circumstances (and, in particular, taking Ř 21
Distributing, showing or playing a recording. (1) A
person who distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or
sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence
if— (a) He intends thereby to stir up racial
hatred, or (b) Having regard to all the
circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. (2) In
this Part “recording” means any record from which visual images or sounds
may, by any means, be reproduced; and references to the distribution, showing
or playing of a recording are to its distribution, showing or playing of a
recording are to its distribution, showing or playing to the public or a
section of the public. (3) In
proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused
who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he
was not aware of the content of the recording and did not suspect, and had no
reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting. (4) This section does not apply to the
showing or playing of a recording solely for the purpose of enabling the
recording to be included in a programme service]. Ř 22
Broadcasting or including programme in cable programme service. (1) If
a programme involving threatening, abusive or insulting visual images or sounds
is included in a programme service], each of the persons mentioned in
subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if— (a) He intends thereby to stir up racial
hatred, or (b) Having regard to all the
circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. (2) The persons are— (a) The person providing the programme
service, (b) Any person by whom the programme is
produced or directed, and (c) Any person by whom offending words
or behaviour are used. (2) If
the person providing the service, or a person by whom the programme was
produced or directed, is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred,
it is a defence for him to prove that— (a) He
did not know and had no reason to suspect that the programme would involve
the offending material, and (b) Having
regard to the circumstances in which the programme was included in a
programme service], it was not reasonably practicable for him to secure the
removal of the material. (4) It
is a defence for a person by whom the programme was produced or directed who
is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he did
not know and had no reason to suspect— (a) That the programme would be included
in a programme service], or (b) That the circumstances in which the
programme would be . . . F8so included would be such that racial hatred would
be likely to be stirred up. Ř Penalty
Ř Public
Order Act 1986 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18?view=plain
Ř Public
Order Act 1986 CHAPTER 64 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/enacted/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true (16)
Harassment and Stalking 1997 Ř Demeanour Harassment
and stalking are classed as offences under the Protection from Harassment Act
1997 and (where the offending is racially or religiously aggravated) the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Both offences relate to behaviour that is
repeated and unwanted. Harassment
is behaviour intended to cause a person alarm or distress. The behaviour must
occur on more than one occasion but it does not have the be the same kind of
behaviour on each occasion. Common harassment incidents include: (a)
Texts, voicemails, letters or emails (b) Comments
or threats (c)
Standing outside someone’s house or driving past
it Ř
Harassment involving putting people in fear of violence is a
more serious offence. It involves two or more harassment incidents that leave
the victim fearing that violence will be used against them. Ř
Stalking involves persistently following someone. It does
not necessarily mean following them in person and can include watching,
spying or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including
through social media. Stalking involving
fear of violence or serious alarm or distress is a more serious offence. It
involves two or more occasions that have caused the victim to fear violence
will be used against them or had a substantial adverse effect on their
day-to-day activities, even where the fear is not explicitly of violence.
Evidence that the stalking has caused this level of fear could include the
victim: (a)
Changing their route to work, work patterns or
employment to avoid contact with the stalker (b) Putting
additional home security measures in place (c)
Moving home (d) Suffering
physical or mental ill-health For both
harassment and stalking, the offence is more serious if it is racially or
religiously motivated, that is carried out because of someone’s racial or
ethnic origin or their religion or lack of religion. Ř Sentencing Parliament
sets the maximum (and sometimes minimum) penalty for any offence. When
deciding the appropriate sentence, the court must follow any relevant
sentencing guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. Ř Penalty What is
the maximum sentence for harassment or stalking? Ř If the
offence is harassment or stalking: (a)
The maximum sentence is six months’ custody (b) If
racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is two years’
custody Ř
If the offence is harassment (putting people in fear
of violence) or stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or
distress): (a)
The maximum sentence is 10 years’ custody (b) If
racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is 14 years’ custody Ř How is the
sentence worked out? Sentences are calculated by an assessment of culpability and harm. Ř Culpability
is a measure of how responsible the offender was for the harassment or
stalking. An indicator of high culpability would be if the harassment was
sophisticatedly planned. An indicator of lesser culpability would be if the
harassment was limited in scope and did not last for long. Ř Harm is a
measure of the distress caused to the victim as a result of the harassment or
stalking. This could be evidenced by the victim having to make considerable changes
to their lifestyle. Ř Aggravating
factors may increase the severity of the sentence. Examples include: (a)
The offender has relevant previous convictions (b) The victim
is particularly vulnerable Ř Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40
(17)
Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud company Act 2006 – Ř Demeanour Fraud is a deliberate act (or failure to act) with the intention
of obtaining an unauthorized benefit, either for oneself or for the
institution, by using deception or false suggestions or suppression of truth
or other unethical means, which are believed and relied upon by others. Ř Law (a)
Section 2 (evasion of liability by deception). (b) Section
1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing
it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4. (c) Fraud by false representation (Section 2); (d) Fraud by failure to disclose information when
there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and (e) Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4) (f) The defendant's conduct was dishonest; (g) His/her intention were to make a gain; or cause a
loss or the risk of a loss to another. No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.
Ř The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment. Ř The defendant: Had possession or control of; an article; Ř For use in the course of or in connection with
any fraud. (a)
The wording
draws on Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. The proof required is that the
Defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be
used in the course of or in connection with an offence Ř The defendant: Ř Makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any
article; (a)
For use in
the course of or in connection with fraud; (b) Knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in
the course of or in connection with fraud (Section 7 (1) (a)) or (c)
Intending it
to be used to commit or assist in the commission of fraud (Section 7 (1) (b). Ř Fraudulent Concealment Under contract law, a plaintiff can recover from a
defendant on the grounds of fraudulent concealment where the defendant (1) Concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) Had knowledge of this material fact; (3) That this material fact was not within
reasonably diligent attention, observation, and judgment of the plaintiff; (4) That the defendant suppressed or concealed this
fact with the intention that the plaintiff be misled as to the true condition
of the property; (5) That the plaintiff was reasonably so misled; and
(6) That the plaintiff suffered damage as a result. Ř Possession of Articles for use in Fraud (a) Is governed by Section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006
which states: A person is guilty of Possession of Articles for use in Fraud
if he: had possession or control of. ... for use in the course of or in
connection with any fraud. (b) Possession of articles for use in
frauds Fraud Act 2006 (section 6) Triable either
way. Maximum: 5 years' custody. Offence range: Band A fine – 3 years' custody. Ř Fraud by failing to Disclose Information (Section
3) (a)
A person is
guilty of fraud by failing to disclose information if he: failed to disclose
information to another person. when he was under a legal duty to disclose
that information. dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or
cause a loss. The defendant: (b) Failed to disclose information to another person
when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information dishonestly
intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss. Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is
entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to
disclose information provided, he was under a legal duty to do so, and that
it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the
deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is
deceived or any property actually gained or lost. Ř Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4) The defendant: (a)
Occupies a
position in which he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the
financial interests of another person abused that position dishonestly
intending by that abuse to make a gain/cause a loss. The abuse may consist of an omission rather than
an act. Like the other two Section 1 offences, Section 4
is entirely offender focused. It is complete once the Defendant carries out
the act that is the abuse of his position. It is immaterial whether or not he
is successful in his enterprise and whether or not any gain or loss is
actually made. Ř Possession etc of articles for use in frauds
Fraud Act 2006 s.6 A person is guilty of
Possession of Articles for use in Fraud if he: (a) Had
possession or control of (b) An
article (c) For
use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. Ř Penalty Sentencing guidelines for Possession of Articles for the use in Fraud Maximum Sentence: 5 years imprisonment Ř Making
or supplying articles for use in frauds Fraud Act 2006 s.7 A
person is guilty of making or supplying articles for use in Fraud if he: (a) Makes,
adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article. (b) For
use in the course of or in connection with fraud. (c) Knowing
that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with
fraud. Ř Penalty Sentencing guidelines for making or supplying
articles for use in Fraud Maximum Sentence: 10 years imprisonment Ř Participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc.
Fraud Act 2006 s.9 Participation by sole trader in fraudulent
business (Section 9) Section 9 makes it an offence for a person knowingly to
be a party to the carrying on of a fraudulent business where the business is
not carried on by a company. ... with intent to defraud creditors of any
person; or. for any other fraudulent purpose.16 Jul 2020 Ř Penalty (a) The
maximum penalty for offences under Sections 1, 7 and 9 and is 12 months'
imprisonment on summary conviction and 10 years' imprisonment on conviction
on indictment. (b) Section
10 of the Act increases the maximum penalty for offences contrary to Section
458 of the Companies Act 1985 to 10 years' imprisonment. (c) The
maximum penalty for an offence under Sections 6 and 11 is 12 months'
imprisonment on summary conviction and 5 years' imprisonment on conviction on
indictment. Ř
Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud company Act
2006 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents (18)
Hate Crime Act 1998 = Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 Ř Demeanour (a) The
term 'hate crime' can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where
the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards
the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender
identity. (b) These
aspects of a person's identity are known as 'protected characteristics'. A
hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment,
assault and bullying, as well as damage to property. The perpetrator can also
be a friend, carer or acquaintance who exploits their relationship with the
victim for financial gain or some other criminal purpose. Ř Law Primary
legislation Ř
These
strands are covered by legislation (sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 and sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) which
allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of
a hate crime. Ř Penalty (5) A
person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary
conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine
not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both. Ř Hate Crime Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/contents Ř Simon Perfect explains The Law “Hate Crime” (19)
Admitting
Evidence Under Sections 9 and 10 Criminal Justice Act 1967 - Updated 2 August 2018 Ř Demeanour (a) Section
10 admission. A section 10 admission is conclusive evidence
of the facts admitted. ... Evidence of the defendant's bad character or the
bad character of a person other than a defendant such as a prosecution
witness may be adduced by way of a s 10 admission. (b) Section
9
statements can, providing they have been accepted by the defence, be relied
upon in court as evidence, without the witness attending court to give
evidence; (c) Section
20(2)(j) gives you the power to require a person to sign a
declaration of truth. Ř Law Principle (a)
Sections 9 and 10 Criminal Justice Act 1967 (CJA)
provide for evidence to be tendered by way of written statement or formal
admission. References
in this guidance to a section number are to the CJA, unless otherwise
specified. The
Criminal Procedure Rules govern the use of Sections 9 and 10 and make
specific reference to written statements and admissions. The response of a
party to the use of Sections 9 and 10 is subject to the general requirement
in Part One of the Rules to prepare and conduct the case efficiently and
expeditiously. Ř Used
properly, the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 have the following benefits: (a)
Witnesses can be spared the inconvenience of
unnecessary attendance at Court (b) Evidence
can be presented simply and clearly; (c)
Trials can be shortened; (d) Costs can
be saved Ř Section 9 In any
criminal proceedings, Section 9 provides that a written statement is
admissible in evidence to the same extent as oral evidence. Ř Requirements The use of
the provision requires compliance with certain formalities set out in Section
9(2) and the Criminal Procedure Rules: (a)
The statement must be signed by the witness. (b) There must
be a declaration of truthfulness. (c)
The statement must be served properly on other parties
(unless agreed before or during the hearing). (d) There must
be no objections to the tendering of the statement in evidence. (e)
The statement must contain the witness' age at
the beginning of the document, if they are under 18. (f)
If the witness cannot read the statement, a
signed declaration by the person who read the statement to the witness must
be provided. ---- Ř To do this: (a)
All parties
must agree to the statement being used; and (b) The form of the statement must comply with
section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (CJA 1967). Statements taken using
powers under section 20(2)(j) (form LP7) do not comply with these
requirements and cannot therefore be used in this way. Guidance on the
requirements is set out in the paragraphs below. Ř The use of this procedure saves time and
facilitates the progress of the prosecution but, as it does not allow the
witness to be cross-examined, it is unlikely to be appropriate where the
content of the statement is contentious or the evidence is central to the
prosecution’s case. Ř The procedure is particularly suitable for the
admission of certain types of factual evidence that are not in dispute, for
example: (a) Evidence of employment; (b) Evidence that an accident occurred; or (c) Non-contentious laboratory evidence. Ř The procedure may also be used if it is likely to
be difficult to bring a witness to court Ř Editing statements All editing of witness
statements should be carried out in accordance with the Criminal Practice
Direction, which can be accessed here. (a) Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions
in force 6th October 2014 (b) Criminal Practice Directions - October 2015 (c) Criminal Practice Directions - amended April,
October & November 2016 (d) Criminal Practice Directions - February, April,
August, October & November 2017 (e) Criminal Practice Directions - April &
October 2018 (f) Criminal Practice Directions - April 2019 (g) Criminal Practice Directions - 5 October 2020 (h) Criminal Practice Directions - Last updated 8
February 2021 It should always be done
by a Crown Prosecutor, not by a police officer. The Practice Direction envisages two types of
statements: Single statements. Composite statements which combine two or more
earlier statements from a witness. If a composite statement is prepared, Prosecutors
must make sure that it complies with the provisions of Section 9 and that it
is signed afresh by the witness. The Prosecutor must disclose to the Defence,
as unused material, copies of the statements combined in the composite
statement, unless there are grounds for withholding disclosure. Refer to the
Disclosure Manual for further guidance. The Prosecutor can edit
the evidence in a single witness statement in one of two ways: By marking a copy in a way which indicates the
passages on which the Prosecution does not seek to rely; By obtaining a new statement, omitting any
inadmissible, prejudicial or irrelevant material, applying the procedure for
composite statements above. If Prosecutors edit by marking, they must mark a
copy, not the original. The Prosecutor can deal with the relevant sections of
the statement in the following ways: (a) Lightly strike through (b) Bracket (c) Lightly strike through and bracket. Ř Penalty ? Ř What is the meaning of conclusive? (a) conclusive, decisive, determinative, definitive
mean bringing to an end. conclusive applies to reasoning or logical proof
that puts an end to debate or questioning. conclusive evidence decisive may
apply to something that ends a controversy, a contest, or any uncertainty. Ř Admitting Evidence Under Sections 9 and 10
Criminal Justice Act 1967 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/9
(20)
False statement tendered under
section 5B of Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 “Section 106” Ř Demeanour False written statements tendered in evidence Ř Law 106 False
written statements tendered in evidence. [F1(1)
If any person in a written statement [F2admitted] in evidence in criminal
proceedings by virtue of [F2section 5B] above wilfully makes a statement
material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe
to be true, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both. (2) The
M1Perjury Act 1911 shall have effect as if this section were contained in
that Act.] Ř Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/contents Ř Section
5B of Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 “Section 106” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/106 (21)
Fabrication of evidence with intent
to mislead a tribunal “Criminal Code 12.9 INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE” Ř Demeanour False written statements tendered in evidence Ř Law 129.
Fabricating evidence Any person who, with intent to mislead any
tribunal in any judicial proceeding — (1) Fabricates evidence by any means
other than perjury or counselling or procuring the commission of perjury; or (2) Knowingly makes use of such
fabricated evidence; is guilty of a crime, and is liable to
imprisonment for 7 years. [Section 129 amended by No. 119 of 1985 s. 30;
No. 51 of 1992 s. 16(2).] Ř THE
LAWCOMMISSION OFFENCES RELATING TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF JUSTICE (22)
Section 17: Offenses against the
Administration of Justice 1696 / 1985 Ř Demeanour ·
The first group (a) The
first group of crimes against the administration of justice, essentially official
crimes, includes instituting criminal proceeding against a person known to be
innocent; knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, decision, ruling, or
decree; arrest or detention known to be illegal; and forcing a person to give
evidence. ·
The second group may be broken down
into three subgroups. (a) The
first subgroup includes crimes that obstruct the investigation of crimes and
the hearing of civil and criminal cases, such as giving information or
testimony known to be false, the refusal of a witness or victim to give
testimony or of an expert to give his findings, compelling a witness or
victim to give false testimony or an expert to give false findings (or
bribing these persons), divulging information from the preliminary
investigation or inquiry, and embezzling, transferring, or concealing
property subject to attachment. (b) The
second subgroup includes acts that prevent the carrying out of a judgment,
such as escape or the unauthorized return of a deportee to places where he is
forbidden to live. (c) The
third subgroup consists of such crimes as being an accessory after the fact
or failing to report a crime. Ř Law
Ř Penalty Perverting
the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice
from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales,
it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Ř Section
17: Offenses against the Administration of Justice 1696 / 1985 “As above.” https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section17.pdf
Ř Administration
of Justice / 1985 / 1696 / https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/61/contents
(23)
Malfeasance in Public Office Ř Demeanour Misfeasance
is Defined as While
misfeasance in public office involves a public officer knowingly acting in an
unlawful manner, malfeasance is an unlawful, intentional act of misconduct.
In law, malfeasance is regarded as more severe than misfeasance and
nonfeasance, which is a failure to act when there is a duty to do so. Misfeasance
is
often confused with negligence, whereby an individual does not carry out
their role or responsibilities with a correct level of care which results in
harm to another. Negligence Generally,
involves harm to another as a result of carelessness, error or lack of
judgement, whereas misfeasance requires a greater degree of culpability on
the part of the person concerned, often when the person has intentionally
committed an act that would be to the detriment of another and often where
there has been an abuse of that person’s power or position of responsibility. Ř The
legal definition of malfeasance? (a) Intentional
conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, especially by officials or public
employees. Malfeasance is at a higher level of wrongdoing than nonfeasance
(failure to act where there was a duty to act) or misfeasance (conduct that
is lawful but inappropriate). (b) The
tort of misfeasance in a public office was originally developed during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for the benefit of electors who were
wilfully denied the right to vote by a returning officer. It was little used
for some considerable time afterwards. More recently the value of this tort
has been recognised as a broader remedy for abuse of administrative power.
Over the last ten years it has come to be increasingly deployed in claims
against the police. The rationale of the tort is that executive or
administrative power ‘may be exercised only for the public good’ and not for
ulterior or improper purposes. However,
the fact that an official act in excess of his or her powers does not always
give rise to a monetary remedy. The elements of the tort of misfeasance in a
public office were clarified by the House of Lords in Three Rivers DC v
Bank of England (No 3 f° as follows: •
The conduct must be that of a public
officer, exercising power in that capacity. •
The officer must either intend to
injure the claimant by his or her acts or knowingly/recklessly act beyond his
or her powers. •
And thereby cause damage to the
claimant. •
In circumstances where he or she knew
the act would probably cause damage of this kind. Misconduct
in a public office can also amount to a criminal offence. ·
A public officer / MP / Council
Officer / Doctor A
police officer / MP / Council Officer / Doctor who abuses his or her position
will certainly fulfil the first element of the tort. A civilian
employed by police or another authority is also likely to be a public officer
for these purposes, as the comparable offence of misconduct in a public
office applies to every person who is appointed to discharge a public duty
and is paid to do so. A decision made by an employee of the
Crown Prosecution Service in relation to 1.
Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1
WLR 54, 85F. 2.
[2003] 2 AC 1, HL. 3.
In Att-Gen’s Reference No 3
of2003 (2004) 2 Cr App R 23 the Court of Appeal considered
the ingredients of the criminal offence; they are similar, but not identical
to the elements of the tort of misfeasance. 4.
R v Bowden [1995] 4 AUER 505. an
actual or prosecution can also ground a claim in misfeasance (if the other
elements of the tort are satisfied) Ř Examples
of public officials in the UK include: (a) Members
of the police force (b) Members
of the armed forces (c) Government
ministers (d) Local
government officials (e) Civil
servants (f) Prison
officers (g) Security
agencies including immigration and border control Ř Law
For a case of misfeasance to be proven and
prosecuted, two factors must be present: (a) The
misconduct was carried out by a public officer (b) The
misconduct resulted in personal injury, financial loss or damage to your
reputation Ř For the case to be successful the case must demonstrate that the
public official: (a)
Intended to cause the damage, loss
or injury (b) Had no concern for the third party in respect of the damage, loss or
injury Ř Penalty The
Sentence for Misfeasance in Public Office under UK law is If
found guilty of misfeasance in public office, the maximum penalty is life
imprisonment, albeit the court has a wide range of discretion and much will
depend on the harm caused and the position and level of responsibility
exercised by the official in question. Ř Case
Study Lord
Steyn said in Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3)18 That
the tort’s rationale is that in a legal system based on the rule of law
executive or administrative power ‘may be exercised only for the public good’
and not for ulterior and improper purposes. ... The tort bears some
resemblance to the crime of misconduct in public office. Ř Chief
officer’s liability It
is sometimes suggested on behalf of defendants that the act of alleged
misfeasance is, by its nature, beyond anything contemplated by the officer’s
position and as such outside the scope of the chief officer’s liability for
the actions of officers of the force. However, the usual principles of
vicarious liability apply, the chief officer of the relevant force will
generally be held legally responsible for acts committed in the officer’s
capacity as a constable, albeit that he or she has exceeded the powers of
that office. 1.
Watkins v Secretary of State for the.
Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 966. 2.
See Marsh v Chief Constable of
Lancashire Constabulary [2003] EWCA Civ 284 and
Weir i> Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
[2003] ICR 708, Ř Horrific -
Corruption-com – “Constables Protection Act
1750” Constables Protection Act 1750 Ř Malfeasance
in Public Office https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2016/01/apb_tort.pdf
(24)
Targeted malice Ř Demeanour (a) Targeted
malice by a public officer. This is conduct specifically intended to injure
someone. It involves bad faith in the sense of the exercise of public power
for an improper or ulterior motive. (b) Malfeasance
is a comprehensive term used in both civil and CRIMINAL LAW to describe any
act that is wrongful. It is not a distinct crime or TORT, but may be used
generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives
rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person. (c) Primary
tabs. Intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, especially by
officials or public employees. Malfeasance is at a higher level of wrongdoing
than nonfeasance (failure to act where there was a duty to act) or
misfeasance (conduct that is lawful but inappropriate). Ř Law Ř Penalty (25)
Malicious Prosecution Ř Demeanour Some
of the context is at the bottom of this document for now! Malicious
process is a civil Wong, separate from malicious prosecution, which entails
instituting a legal process short of prosecution without reasonable and
probable cause and with malice. “The two most Common examples are
applications for arrest warrants and search Warrants. In
relation to such applications there are four ingredients of the tort that the
claimant must establish, namely: ·
a successful application for the
warrant was made; there was a lack of reasonable and probable cause for
making the application. it
was made maliciously; and there was resultant damage. Proving
a lack of reasonable and probable cause and proving malice have been
described in detail under the preceding section on malicious prosecution. In
relation to proceedings that the claimant has no right to attend, such as
applications for warrants, it need not be shown that they terminated in his
or her favour.66 67 68 Damage for these purposes is not as
strictly confined as under the tort of malicious prosecution and encompasses
all forms of recognised damage." If
the ingredients of a malicious process claim are proved, the claimant will
overcome the difficulty that otherwise arises because of the Constables Protection
Act 1750 in suing in relation to arrests or searches undertaken in obedience
to a warrant If the claimant cannot prove a lack of reasonable and probable
cause and/or malice, in some circumstances an action in negligence may lie if
the warrant was obtained on the basis of inaccurate information. Ř Law 1.
Roy v Prior [1970] 2 All ER 729, HL;
Gibbs v Rea [1998] AC 78G, PC. 2.
For other instances of malicious
process see Clayton and Tomlinson Civil Actions Against the Police (3rd
edition, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, 2004) 3.
Keegan v Chief Constable of
Merseyside Police [2003] 1 WLR 2187. 4.
However, if the form of process under
challenge involves the attendance of both parties, such as a complaint of
breach of the peace, then in the claimant’s favour termination must be shown. 5.
See the discussion of permitted heads
of tortious damage in relation to misfeasance in a public office and in
relation to negligence respectively. 6.
Hough v Chief Constable of the
Staffordshire Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 39. Ř Penalty Being
the subject of a malicious prosecution can cause a wide range of injuries,
whether it's from unsubstantiated criminal charges or a bogus civil claim. In
either case, the plaintiff may claim compensatory and sometimes
punitive damages (26)
Malicious Process Ř Demeanour Some of the context is at the bottom of this
document for now! (a)
A vital question in relation to the
tort of misfeasance is its inter-relationship with the tort of malicious prosecution
in circumstances where a claimant wishes to sue in respect of a failed
prosecution brought against him or her. (b) A
successful claim in malicious prosecution requires proof that the criminal
proceedings against the claimant lacked reasonable and probable cause. (c)
A prosecution supported by sufficient
evidence to amount to reasonable and probable cause may nonetheless be
tainted by false evidence. Ř Law 1. Masters
v Chief Constable of Sussex [2002] EWCA Civ 1482. 2. [2002]
EWCA Civ 1482. 3. (1996)
8 Admin LR 633. Ř Penalty (27)
Misconduct in Public Office Ř Demeanour The
offence requires that: A public
officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or
wilfully misconducts him or herself; to such a degree as to amount to an
abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse
or justification. What
is criminal misconduct? In
law, misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by
premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the
consequences of one's acts. ... "Gross misconduct" can lead to
immediate dismissal because it is serious enough and possibly criminal. Ř Law Examples
of behaviour that have in the past fallen within the offence include: (a) Wilful
excesses of official authority; (b) 'Malicious'
exercises of official authority; (c) Wilful
neglect of a public duty; (d) Intentional
infliction of bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury upon a person; (e) Frauds
and deceits. (f) Corruption
is a form of dishonesty or criminal offense undertaken by a person or
organization entrusted with a position of authority, to acquire illicit
benefit or abuse power for one's private gain. ... Strategies to counter
corruption are often summarized under the umbrella term anti-corruption. Ř Wilful
neglect or misconduct Nature
of the neglect or misconduct The
wilful neglect or misconduct can be the result of a positive act or a failure
to act. In the case of R v Dytham [1979] QB
722, for example, a police officer was held to have been correctly
convicted when he made no move to intervene during a disturbance in which a
man was kicked to death. Ř Penalty Misconduct in public
office “Penalty.” Misconduct
in public office is an offence at common law and carries a maximum sentence of
life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office
holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a
way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office. Ř Misconduct
in Public Office https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office
(28)
Putting people in fear of violence /
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s. 4(1) Ř Demeanour This
section creates the offence of "putting people in fear of violence"
where a person "causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that
violence will be used against him" provided "he knows or ought to
know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of
those occasions". (a) Amended
by: Police Reform Act 2002; Serious ... (b) Relates
to: Stalking Protection Act 2019 Ř Law 4
Putting people in fear of violence. (a)
A person whose course of conduct causes
another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used
against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his
course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions. (b) For
the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in
question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will
be used against him on any occasion if a reason (c)
able person in possession of the same
information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to
fear on that occasion. Ř Protection
from Harassment https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/4
Ř Penalty (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section
is liable— (a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F1ten
years], or a fine, or both, or (b) on
summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a
fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. (29)
Tort of nuisance Act 1893 Christie v
Davey Ř Demeanour (a) Nuisance
in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private
nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial
and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or
enjoyment of that land",[1] and public nuisance, where the defendant's
actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of
life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects (b) public
nuisance is also a crime. (c) Each
tort requires the claimant to prove that the defendant's actions caused
interference, which was unreasonable. Ř Law ·
The Tort of Nuisance http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Nuisance.php ·
Tort Law http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Tort-law.php (a) Private
nuisance was defined in Bamford v Turnley, where George
Wilshere, 1st Baron Bramwell defined it as "any continuous activity or state
of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a
[claimant's] land or his use or enjoyment of that land." (b) Private
nuisance, unlike public nuisance, is only a tort, and damages for personal
injuries are not recoverable. Only those who have a legal interest in the
affected land can sue; an exception was made in Khorasandjian v
Bush, where the Court of Appeal held that a woman living in
her mother's house was entitled to an injunction to prevent telephone
harassment despite having no legal interest in the property. (c)
The
liable party under private nuisance is the creator, even if he is no longer
in occupation of the land or created a nuisance on somebody else's land.
In Sedleigh-Denfield v
O’Callaghan, it was
held that the defendant was liable for a nuisance (a set of water pipes) even
though he had not created it, because he had used the pipes and thereby
"adopted" the nuisance. (d) There
is a general rule that a landlord who leases a property is not liable for
nuisances created after the occupier takes control of the land. There is an
exception where the lease is granted for a purpose which constitutes a
nuisance, as in Tetley v Chitty, or where the nuisance is
caused by their failure to repair the premises, as in Wringe v
Cohen. The landlord is also liable were the nuisance existed before
the land was let, and he knew or ought to have known about it. Ř SIMPLIFICATION
OF CRIMINAL LAW:PUBLIC NUISANCE AND OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY Ř Penalty (a) Court
proceedings for public nuisances are generally instigated by local
authorities through the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court. On conviction,
the defendant can be ordered to pay a fine and/or receive a
prison sentence (b) Public
nuisance is triable either way: that is to say, either in the Crown Court or
in a magistrates’ court. As in all common law offences where statute does not
provide to the contrary, when it is tried in the Crown Court there is an
unlimited power of imprisonment. Ř
Christie v Davey http://e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Christie-v-Davey.php
(30)
Prevention
of Corruption Act 1998 / 2018 Ř Demeanour (a) The
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was enacted to prevent corruption
in Government departments and to prosecute and punish public… (b) An
Anti-Corruption Policy establishes controls to ensure our employees behave
ethically and with integrity. ... These policies are set to help our
employees to identity which corrupt business practices are prohibited in
their day-to-day work so that corruption is avoided. Ř Law ·
The Public
Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c.69) ·
The Prevention
of Corruption Act 1906 (6 Edw.7 c.34) ·
The Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (6 & 7 Geo.5 c.64) ·
The Prevention of
Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 is the collective title of the Public Bodies Corrupt
Practices Act 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1916. These Acts were repealed by Schedule 2 of
the Bribery Act 2010. Ř Penalty The
penalty for an individual convicted of any of the general offences under the
Act is a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. A
commercial organisation convicted under the Act faces an unlimited fine. Ř Prevention
of Corruption Act 2018? five
years Whoever
convicted of an offence under this Act subsequently commits an offence
punishable under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to ten years and
shall also be liable to fine.”. Ř Prevention of Corruption Act
1906 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/6/34/contents/enacted
Ř Public
Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/69/contents/enacted (31)
Torture “Criminal Justice Act s.134” Ř Demeanour Torture
(from Latin tortus: to twist, to torment) is the
act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on
someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfil some desire of the
torturer or force some action from the victim. Ř
Law
134Torture.
Ř A
public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his
nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or
elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in
the performance or purported performance of his official duties. Ř A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if— (a) in
the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or
suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence— (i)
of a public official; or (ii) of a person acting in an official capacity; and (b) the
official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official
duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or
acquiesces in it. Ř
It is immaterial whether the pain or
suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an
omission. Ř It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct. Ř For
the purposes of this section “lawful authority,
justification or excuse” means— (a) in
relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom, lawful
authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United
Kingdom where it was inflicted; (b) in
relation to pain or suffering
inflicted outside the United Kingdom— (I) if
it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the
United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law,
lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law; (II) if
it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any
part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity
under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of
the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and (III) in
any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of
the place where it was inflicted. Ř A
person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on
indictment to imprisonment for life. Ř Penalty The maximum sentence is life imprisonment (CJA s134(6)). Ř Torture
“Criminal Justice Act s.134” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/134
(32)
Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (“GCA”)
“Not relevant for myself in these circumstances.” Ř
Demeanour The
Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols is a body of Public
International Law, also known as the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts,
whose purpose is to provide minimum protections, standards of humane
treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become
victims of armed conflicts. Ř Law Under
each convention is an Article (50, 51, 130 & 147 respectively) which sets
out the “grave breaches” – acts such as: (a) wilful
killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments,
wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected
person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile
Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and
regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of
hostages, and extensive destruction and appropriation of
property Ř where
those acts are “not justified by military necessity and carried out
unlawfully and wantonly”. Offences
under the Geneva Convention are crimes of universal jurisdiction, meaning
they can be tried anywhere, regardless of the nationality of the alleged
offender, or where the alleged crimes were committed. In the UK, they
are triable on indictment only, i.e., in the Crown Court. However, the consent
of the Attorney General must be sought before a prosecution is brought under
the GCA. (GCA s1A(3)(a)). Ř Penalty The
Geneva Convention is a standard by which prisoners and civilians should be
treated during a time of war. The document has no provisions for punishment,
but violations can bring moral outrage and lead to trade sanctions or other
kinds of economic reprisals against the offending government. Ř
Geneva Conventions Act 1957 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/52/contents Ř
Geneva Conventions Act, 1957 -
National Implementation of IHL (33)
International Criminal Court Act
2001 (“ICCA”) Ř Demeanour (a) The
ICC is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to
prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. (b) Crimes
against humanity are certain acts that are purposely committed as part of a
widespread or systematic policy, directed against civilians, in times of war
or peace. They differ from war crimes because they are not isolated acts
committed by individual soldiers, but are acts committed in furtherance of a
state policy. (c) The
crimes against humanity entail: -- (1) Extermination (2) Murder (3) Enslavement (4) Torture (5) Imprisonment (6) Rape (7) Forced
abortions other Sexual violence (8) Persecution
on political, religious, racial and gender grounds (9) The
forcible transfer of populations (10) The
enforced disappearance of persons (11) The
inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation. (d) Also
see: -- Article 70 Offences against the administration of justice Ř Law ·
This legislation incorporates the
offences in the Rome Treaty of the ICC into our domestic law so that the UK
is in a position to investigate and prosecute any ICC crimes committed in the
UK or committed overseas by a UK national, a UK resident or a person subject
to UK service jurisdiction. ·
Under s51(1) to the ICCA (I)
“It is an offence against the law
of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against
humanity or a war crime.” The offences are defined at s50(1) and Schedule 8 Articles 6, 7 &
8.2 respectively. Each offence covers a vast range of behaviours, but broadly can be
summarised as follows: (a)
“Genocide” is defined as a range of acts “committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group”. (b)
A “crime against humanity”
is a range of acts “intentionally causing great suffering, or serious
injury to body or to mental or physical health, when committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attach directed against a civilian population, with
knowledge of the attack.” (c)
“War crimes” means “grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions”, “other
serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international
armed conflict” and various other violations of the laws of armed
conflict, whether of an international nature of otherwise (but excluding
certain internal disturbances such as riots or isolated and sporadic acts of
violence). Ř
The offences are triable in the
Crown Court only and the Attorney General’s consent is required to prosecute
(ICCA s53(3)). Sentencing is the same as for GCA offences (see ICCA
s53(3) and (6)). Ř Penalty Powers
of the Court Life Imprisonment Ř International
Criminal Court Act 2001 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/17/contents
(34)
Attempted Murder Criminal Attempts
Act 1981 Ř Demeanour Attempted
Murder is the crime of simultaneously preparing to commit an unlawful killing
and having a specific intention to cause the death of a human being under the
Queen's Peace. Ř Law Ř Attempted
murder, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (I) The
required intent for murder is either intent to kill or intent to cause really
serious injury. (II) The
required consequence of the act is death. Accordingly, for a charge of
attempted murder to be made out the intent which must be proved is intent to
kill: see R v Whybrow (1951) 35 CAR 141. Ř
This offence is committed when a
person does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of an
offence of murder, and at the time the person has the intention to kill. It
is an indictable only offence, which carries a maximum penalty of
imprisonment for life. Ř
Unlike murder, which requires an
intention to kill or cause GBH, attempted murder requires evidence of an
intention to kill alone. Ř
Courts will pay particular attention
to counts of attempted murder and any such count merits scrutiny to ensure it
is only pursued where there is clear evidence of an intention to kill. Evidence
of the following factors may assist in proving the intention to kill: (a) Calculated
planning; (b) Selection
and use of a deadly weapon; (c) Threats; (d) Severity
or duration of attack; (e) Relevant
admissions in interview. Ř Penalty An "attempt", attempted
murder is an offence under section 1(1) of the
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and is an indictable offence which
carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (the same as the
mandatory sentence for murder). Ř Attempted
Murder Criminal Attempts Act 1981 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47/contents
(35)
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 s.1 Ř Demeanour Protection
from Eviction Act 1977 (c 43) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom
protecting people renting accommodation from losing their homes without the
involvement of a court. Ř Law Unlawful
eviction and harassment of occupier. Ř
In this section “residential
occupier”, in relation to any premises, means a person occupying the premises
as a residence, whether under a contract or by virtue of any enactment or
rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the
right of any other person to recover possession of the premises. Ř
If any person unlawfully deprives the
residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any
part thereof, or attempts to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence unless
he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the
residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises. Ř
If any person with intent to cause
the residential occupier of any premises— (a) to
give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or (b) to
refrain from exercising any right or
pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof; does acts calculated to interfere with the peace
or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or
persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation
of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence. [F1(3A) Subject to subsection (3B)
below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord
shall be guilty of an offence if— (a) he does acts likely to interfere
with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his
household, or (b) he persistently withdraws or
withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in
question as a residence, and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable
cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential
occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to
refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the
whole or part of the premises. Ř
Where an offence
under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any
neglect on the part of, any director, manager or secretary or other similar
officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in any
such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Ř Penalty A
person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable— (a)
On summary conviction, to a fine not
exceeding [F2the
prescribed sum] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6
months or to both; (b) On
conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 2 years or to both. Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/43 (36)
Criminal Law Act 1967 – “Concealing an arrestable
offence.” Ř Demeanour In criminal
law, the deliberate concealment of a criminal, as well as of instruments and
means of committing a crime, traces of a crime, or articles criminally
acquired. To hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from
sight: Ř Law 5 Penalties
for concealing offences or giving false information. Ř
Where a person has committed [F1a
relevant offence], any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence
or some [F2other relevant offence] has been committed, and that he has
information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution
or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not
disclosing that information any consideration other than the making good of
loss or injury caused by the offence, or the making of reasonable
compensation for that loss or injury, shall be liable on conviction on
indictment to imprisonment for not more than two years. Ř
Where a person causes any wasteful
employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report
tending to show that an offence has been committed, or to give rise to
apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or tending to show
that he has information material to any police inquiry, he shall be liable on
summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or to a fine
of not more than [F3level 4 on the standard scale] or to both. Ř
No proceedings shall be instituted
for an offence under this section except by or with the consent of the
Director of Public Prosecutions. F4(4)
Ř
The compounding of an offence other
than treason shall not be an offence otherwise than under this section. Ř Concealing
an arrestable offence https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
In R
v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where the
prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is
required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it
should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that
she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested. The offence of
perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting
to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the
acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed
when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. The
words "attempting to" should not appear in the charge. It is
charged contrary to common law, not the Criminal Attempts Act 1981: R v
Williams 92 Cr. App. R. 158 CA. The offence of perverting the course
of justice overlaps with a number of other statutory offences. Before
preferring such a charge, consideration must be given to the possible
alternatives referred to in this Charging Standard and, where appropriate,
any of the following offences: (a) Corruption:
Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act
1889; (b) Agreeing
to indemnify a surety: s.9 Bail Act 1976; (c) Making
false statement: s.89 Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.106 Magistrates' Courts
Act 1980 and s. 11(1) European Communities Act 1972; (d) Using
documents with intent to deceive: s.173 Road Traffic Act 1988; (e) Impersonating
a police officer: s.90 Police Act 1966; (f) Acknowledging
a recognisance or bail in the name of another: s.34 Forgery Act 1861; and (g) Concealing
an arrestable offence: s.5 Criminal Law Act 1967. Ř Assisting
offenders What
does assist an offender mean? An
Assisting Offender is a suspected or convicted criminal in the United
Kingdom, who has agreed to assist the investigation or prosecution of other
criminals in return for some form of sentence reduction on their own criminal
history. Ř Penalty Concealing
an arrestable offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a
fine. ... Act 1861; and; concealing an arrestable offence: s.5 Criminal Law
Act 1967. Ř Concealing
an arrestable offence https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/5 (37)
Oaths Act 1868 Ř Demeanour Types of oaths ·
Hippocratic Oath, an
oath historically taken by physicians and other healthcare professionals
swearing to practice medicine honestly. ·
Oath of allegiance, an
oath whereby a subject or citizen acknowledges a duty of allegiance and
swears loyalty to monarch or country. ·
Oath of citizenship, an
oath taken by immigrants that officially naturalizes immigrants into
citizens. ·
Oath of office, an
oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an
office. ·
Pauper's oath, a
sworn statement or oath by a person that he or she is completely without any
money or property. ·
Veterinarian's Oath, an
oath taken by veterinarians as practitioners of veterinary
medicine in a manner similar to the Hippocratic Oath. Ř A
reserved legal activity The
administration of oaths is a “reserved legal activity” for the purposes of the
Legal Services Act 2007, so it is an offence to carry on the activity unless
entitled. A person authorised to administer oaths by a relevant regulator
(the BSB in the case of barristers) may use the title “Commissioner for
Oaths”. Ř Not
a profitable activity There
is power in the Legal Services Act 2007 for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe
a fee to be charged for administering oaths. Whilst that power has not yet
been exercised expressly, commencement provisions for the 2007 Act (article 9
of SI 2009/3250) have the effect of resuscitating provisions in SI 1993/2298
(made under the pre-existing law) which provided that the following fees
(inclusive of VAT) “shall be charged” by Commissioners for Oaths: (a) For
taking an affidavit, declaration or affirmation, for each person making the
same: Ł5.00. (b) For
each exhibit therein referred to and required to be marked, or for each
schedule required to be marked: Ł2.00. (1) Promissory Oaths Act 1868 (2) Commissioners
for Oaths Act 1889 A
Commissioner for Oaths is a person who is authorised to verify affidavits,
statutory declarations and other legal documents. ... A Commissioner for
Oaths is appointed by the Chief Justice and is usually, though not
necessarily, a solicitor. All practicing solicitors can also administer oaths The Oaths Act 1888 The Oaths Act 1888 (51 &
52 Vict. c. 46) was an Act of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom providing that all required oaths may be solemnly affirmed
rather than sworn to God. The Act was the culmination of a campaign by the
noted atheist and secularist MP Charles Bradlaugh
to take his seat (3)
Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 Under
the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, members of both Houses of Parliament are required
to take an Oath of Allegiance upon taking their seat in Parliament, after a
general election, or by-election, and after the death of the monarch. ...
While the oath is taken, the new member holds a copy of a sacred text. They
do this before taking their seats in Parliament. MPs
cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until
taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined Ł500 and have their
seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempted to do so. The
same rule applies to Members of the Lords. The
wording of the oath comes from the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The form and
manner of giving the oath are set out in the Oaths Act 1978. MPs
take the oath by holding the sacred text in their uplifted hand and saying
the words of the oath: I
(name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors,
according to law. So help me God. Oath in court UK "I do solemnly, sincerely
and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth The solemn affirmation Members may make a solemn
affirmation instead of taking the oath, using the words: I (name of Member) do solemnly,
sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors,
according to law. The Office of Constable
“Police” “I do solemnly and sincerely
declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office
of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding
fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that
I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and
prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue
to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge
discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.” Other Methods and form for
oaths Beyond this, the legislation
leaves the important topic of the procedure for taking an oath remarkably
vague, perhaps because Parliament considered it appropriate to leave the
formalities to religious authorities and customs. The usual customs for some
other religions are: (a) For
a Hindu: on the Gita using the words “I swear by the Gita that ...”. (b) For
a Muslim: on the Koran using the words “I swear by Allah that ...”. (c) For
a Sikh: on the Adi Granth using the words “I swear
by Guru Nanak that ...”. Ř Law ·
Perjury Act 1911 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/1?view=plain
Ř Penalty (a) What happens if you break an oath in court? Lying
under oath, or, perjury, is a federal crime. Although the civil court has
limited power to punish your spouse for perjury, the judge can forward the
case to the prosecutor for criminal enforcement. Punishment for committing
perjury could result in probation, fines, or a prison sentence up to 5 years. (b)
What happens if
you break oath? God
does not hold you responsible for the mere utterance
of oaths; He holds you responsible
for your actual intentions. If you violate
an oath, you shall atone by feeding ten poor people from the
same food you offer to your own family, or clothing them,
or by freeing a slave. Ř Promissory Oaths Act 1868 https://www.horrificcorruption.com/copy-of-treaties-of-rights-to-the-p-1
Ř Promissory Oaths Act 1868 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/72/contents
(1)
Commissioners For Oaths Act
1889 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/10/contents
(2) Parliamentary
Oaths Act 1866 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/29-30/19/contents
Ř The
Office of Constable “Police” https://www.polfed.org/media/14239/the-office-of-constable-with-links-2018.pdf
(38)
Civil Evidence Act 1968 / 1995 Ř Demeanour (a) An
Act to provide for the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the proof of
certain documentary evidence and the admissibility and proof of official
actuarial tables in civil proceedings; Rand for connected purposes. (b) It
sets out rules for oaths and affirmation and provides for the court to
control the questioning of witnesses. The court's discretion as to how it
deals with witnesses is wide and intended to ensure that the examination of
witnesses in proceedings does not undermine fairness in the trial. Ř Law Ř What
is inadmissible evidence UK? The
general rule is that any statement, other than one made by a witness while
giving evidence in the proceedings, is inadmissible as evidence of the facts
stated. However, this rule only applies if the statement is given as evidence
of the truth of its contents. The rule applies to both oral and written
statements. Ř Penalty Ř Civil
Evidence Act 1968 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/64/contents
Ř Civil
Evidence Act 1995 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/38/contents
(39)
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 /
1898 Ř Demeanour The
purpose of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was to
unify police powers under one code of practice and to balance
carefully the rights of the individual against the powers of the police. Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Criminal
Evidence Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/61-62/36/contents
(40)
Crime and disorder Act 1998 /
1ST Asbo Ř Demeanour Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Crime
and Disorder Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/contents
(41)
Public Interest Disclosure Act
1998 / 2013 Ř Demeanour 1998 The
Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) 1998 provides protection to
"workers" making disclosures in the public interest and allows such
individuals to claim compensation for victimisation following such
disclosures. 2013 An
Act to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the
public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of
victimisation; and for connected purposes. Whistleblowing
is an ethical thing to do. It addresses wrongdoing and allows justice to
reach the depths of companies that otherwise may remain unexposed. ...
Whistleblowing is vitally important in protecting a company's customers and
in directly protecting your organisation through combatting fraud and misconduct. Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Public
Interest Disclosure Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/23/contents (42)
Conflict of Interest Act 1998 Ř Demeanour (a) A
conflict of interest means a situation where your separate duties to act in
the best interests of two or more clients in the same or a related matter
conflict. For this situation to happen, you must be currently acting, or
intending to, act for two or more clients (b) Section
175 of the Act covers the duty to avoid a conflict of interest, and states
that "a director of a company must avoid a situation in which he has, or
can have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or possibly may
conflict, with the interests of the company". Ř Law Updated
23 February 2021 ... This allows DAO to identify, manage and
mitigate conflict of interest. ... staff and key
suppliers/contractors working with DAO who have a legal obligation, under the
GCoR , to act in the best interest
of DAO , and in ... Reporting conflicts of interest Ř All
conflicts of interest forms and conflicts as they arise are to be reported to
the DAO Compliance Manager/Development Manager: ·
All new DAO members of staff will be
required to complete the CoI form during their
induction process ·
External Quality Assurers will be
issued with a CoI form on an annual basis when
annual contracts are received. The completed forms should be returned to DAO ·
Staff, agents, contractors and delivery
partners are required to declare conflicts of interest at the soonest
opportunity and review/update their CoI form on an
annual basis. The CoI form must be completed and
returned within 10 working days from the date of issue ·
Any forms received by the DAO will be
forwarded to the DAO Compliance/ Development Manager for the assessment of
risk. High risk conflicts will be further reviewed by the Head/Responsible
Officer of DAO as to the implications for organisational risk ·
All conflicts are recorded and awarded
a risk level that is monitored at the DAO Assurance Meeting. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dao-policies/dao-conflict-of-interest-policy
Ř ENFIELD
COUNCIL & THE MET POLICE “Working together for a safer London.” IT
IS HEREBY CERTIFIED by the LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD (‘the Local
Authority’) and the METROPOLITAN POLICE ('the Police’) as required by
S.1(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that: (1) On
the: The Local Authority and the
Police held a Consultation meeting together with other relevant organisations
to discuss issues concerned in the case of: (name)... Simon CORDELL of
(address). 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield EN3. and to reach a decision on
action to be taken in this matter. (2) There Is no conflicting work in progress with the above-named which conflicts with the aim
of an application under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. (3) Consultation
having taken place; the applicant Is entitled to apply for the order sought
The Metropolitan Police certify that they are in full support of the
application. Dated
this day of Signed:
Signed: For
and behalf of the London Borough of Enfield For and behalf of the Metropolitan
Police Ř Penalty Ř Is a
conflict-of-interest illegal? Having a
conflict of interest is not illegal. ... Simply put, a public official has a “conflict
of interest” when his or her ability to be an objective decision-maker is
impaired by his or her own interests, or the interests of family members or
business associates. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/175
175.
Duty to avoid conflicts of interest (1) A
director of a company must avoid a situation in which he has, or can have, a
direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or possibly may conflict, with
the interests of the company. (2) This
applies in particular to the exploitation of any property, information or
opportunity (and it is immaterial whether the company could take advantage of
the property, information or opportunity). Ř Conflicts
of Interest and Confidential Information Act 1998 (43)
The Prosecution of Offences
Act 1985 Ř Demeanour Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř The Prosecution
of Offences Act 1985 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23/contents
(44)
Company Limited by Guarantee
Act 1989 Ř Demeanour Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Company
Limited by Guarantee Act 1989 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/40/contents
(45)
Not having a Share Capital Act
2006 Ř Demeanour ·
A corporation without share capital
is composed of members rather than shareholders. The Act does not limit the
number of members. ·
Company law throughout the United
Kingdom is now governed by the Companies Act 2006, which received Royal
Assent on 8 November 2006, and which was commenced in stages between then and
1 October 2009. ·
Certain aspects of the Companies Act
1985 have not been replaced by the Companies Act 2006, and they will remain
in force: (a) company
investigations (b) orders
imposing restrictions on shares following an investigation (c) Scottish
floating charges and receivers. Ř Law ·
What is Memorandum of Association of
a company? The memorandum
of association of a company is an important corporate document
in certain jurisdictions. It is often simply referred to as
the memorandum. ... It is the document that regulates
the company's external affairs, and complements the articles
of association which cover the company's internal constitution The
memorandum of association is the document that sets up the company and the
articles of association set out how the company is run, governed and owned.
The articles of association include the responsibilities and powers of the
directors and the means by which the members exert control over the board of
directors. ·
The articles of association are
technically the constitution of a limited company and contain a number of
pages outlining this “company constitution”. This document is very much a company
guide and rulebook that outlines the ways in which a company should be
structured and managed in relation to the following: (a) Decision
making (b) Members’
rights, duties, and liabilities (c) Directors’
duties, responsibilities and powers (d) Share
capital (issuing and transferring shares) (e) Profit
distribution (f) Director
appointment and removal (g) Decisions
regarding the appointment of company secretary (h) Administrative
issues Unless
a company chooses to create their own articles of association, the model
articles from Companies House under the Companies Act 2006 are considered the
default articles. Ř How
can I get memorandum and articles of association of a company? Where
can I get a copy of my company's memorandum and articles of association? You
can download a copy of your memorandum and articles of association online via
Companies House. Ř
The Enfield Council Memorandum of
Association & Articles of Association I
could never find it?! Enfield
Homes Memorandum of Association & Articles of Association https://governance.enfield.gov.uk/documents/s2715/Appendix%20C.3%20-%20M%20Articles%20of%20Assoc.pdf Ř Enfield Homes
will manage all of the Enfield Council's Stock ·
Enfield Homes will manage all of
the Council's housing stock. ... 7.2 The Memorandum and
Articles of Association and the Management Agreement are ... https://governance.enfield.gov.uk/documents/s6774/Appendix%203%20-%20ALMO.pdf
Horrific
Corruption https://www.horrificcorruption.com/copy-of-c Ř The
Enfield Council Statement of accounts https://new.enfield.gov.uk/services/your-council/statement-of-accounts/ I found the vat number here https://new.enfield.gov.uk/terms-of-use/
Then searched for info here And Found this London Borough of Enfield Treasury Management, 4Th
Floor, London Borough Of Enfield, Civic Centre Enfield, Middlesex, EN1
3XF -- I still can’t find the company
registration number -- The Licensing Desk Highway Services Enfield
Council B Block North Civic Centre, Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XD -- I will work it out latter lol Ř Si Note “I got lots of document
related to FECA work because of the community aspect for the festival.” Enfield Homes is the Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO)
being set up by the ... FECA = Old News Waste Management “not relevant?” ENFIELD INNOVATIONS LTD - PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3XA https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09248324/filing-history
Ian John DAVIS? Director of Civic Centre maybe Ř Penalty (46)
Trustee Act 1925 as amended
Act 2000 Ř Demeanour Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Trustee
Act 2000 Ř https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/29/pdfs/ukpga_20000029_en.pdf
(47)
Lease holds Reforms Act 1967 /
2020 / 2021 “Right to Buy” Ř Demeanour The
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gave long leaseholders of houses the right to buy
their freehold ('enfranchisement') or to extend their lease. ... If the sale
price cannot be agreed between the freeholder and the leaseholder, an
application can be made for the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to
determine the price. Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Leasehold
Reform Act 2021 Lease
extension solicitors publish summary of Government leasehold reform press release
of 7th January 2021. ... and made a wide range of recommendations for reforms
of legislation covering leasehold property ownership Ř Leasehold
Reform Act 2000 What
is the Leasehold Reform 2020? Under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban
Development Act 1993, the government has been proactively giving leaseholders
protection against short leases, by giving them the right to extend their
lease or the right to buy the property. Ř Leasehold
Reform Act 1967 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/88/contents/enacted (48)
The local government Act 2000 Ř Demeanour (1) They
define the purposes and functions of local government as well as providing
the legal framework for establishing and administering Councils. (2) The
Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) is an Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom that reformed local government in England and Wales. Its principal
purposes are: to give powers to local authorities to promote economic, social
and environmental well-being within their boundaries. Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Local
Government Act 2000 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/22/contents
(49)
Fraudulent breach of trust
1980 /// Trusts of Land and
Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 // Limitation Act 1980 Ř Demeanour An act
of a trustee that violates the trustee's duties or the terms of a trust. A
breach of trust need not be intentional or malicious; it can be due to
carelessness or negligence. contracts. Ř Law Ř Penalty 406.
Punishment for criminal breach of trust. —Whoever commits criminal breach of
trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/21
(50)
Fiduciary Duty Companies Act
2016 (“Companies Act”) (formally section 132 of the Companies Act 1965) Ř Demeanour Ř Law Ř Penalty (51)
Companies Act 2006 “Directors'
Duties” Ř Demeanour Ř Law Ř Penalty (52)
The Company Acts 1985 Ř Demeanour The Companies Act 1985 (c.6) is an Act of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
enacted in 1985, which enabled companies to be formed by
registration, and set out the responsibilities of companies, their directors
and secretaries. Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř The
Company Acts https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/6/contents (53)
Making False Statement to Obtain Interim
Possession Order Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.75(1) also see Housing
Act 1988: -- Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994 = “Raves Bill Act 1994!” (a) Ground 63. Powers to remove persons attending or preparing for
a rave. (b) Ground 64. Supplementary powers of entry and seizure. (c) Ground 65. Raves: power to stop persons from proceeding. (d) Ground 66. Power of court to forfeit sound equipment. Ř Interim
Possession Order Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 An
owner/landlord seeking to evict squatters can apply for an interim possession
order under Part 55 as an additional measure to an ordinary possession order,
although interim possession orders cannot be used against the majority of
squatters (see below). Ř “Housing
Act 1988” The
grounds for possession fall into two categories: mandatory, where the tenant
will definitely be ordered to leave if the landlord can prove breach of
contract, and discretionary, where the court can decide one way or the other. Ř Ground 8 is a
'mandatory' ground for possession. Ř Ground 10 is a
'discretionary' ground for possession Ř Ground 12 – This
ground covers tenants in breach of their contractual (lease or tenancy)
agreement conditions, other than rent payments. Ř Ground 13 – This
ground covers waste, neglect or default concerning damage to the tenant’s
accommodation or common parts. This ground also covers the acts of
sub-tenants, lodgers, tenant’s family or visitors. Ř Ground 14 – The
landlord can seek possession where a tenant, sub-tenant, lodger or visitor is
causing a nuisance to neighbours or is using the property for illegal or
immoral purposes. The ground also covers cases of domestic violence where one
partner has left and is unlikely to return. Ř Ground 17 of
Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988) which ... the landlord was induced to
grant the tenancy by a false statement. https://www.landlordzone.co.uk/news/grounds-for-possession/
Ř Case Study Lords’
amendment: No. 70, in page 56, line 19, at end insert— (“(A
person commits an offence if, for the purpose of resisting the making of an
interim possession order, he— Toggle
showing location of Column 344 (a)
makes a statement which he knows to be false or misleading
in a material particular; or (b) recklessly
makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material
particular.") Mr.
Michael I beg to
move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Madam
Deputy Speaker With this,
it will be convenient to take Lord’s amendments No. 71, Lords amendment No.
72, amendments (a) and (b) thereto and Lords amendment No. 73. Mr.
Michael As I
understand it, the effect of this group of amendments will be that a person
will commit an offence if he or she makes a false statement to resist the
making of an interim possession order. In a sense, it is the mirror
image of the offence of obtaining an interim possession order using a false
statement. (54)
Assisting or Encouraging Crime
- Serious Crime Act 2007 Ř Demeanour In criminal
law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit
a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement
may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense,
where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred. Ř Law Part
2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 creates, at sections 44 to 46, three inchoate offences of
intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence; encouraging or assisting
an offence believing it will be committed; and encouraging or assisting
offences believing one or more will be committed. Ř
Conspiracy; (a)
A conspiracy is an agreement where two or more
people agree to carry their criminal scheme into effect, the very agreement
is the criminal act itself: Mulcahy v. The Queen (1868) L.R. 3 H.L.
306; R v Warburton (1870) L.R. 1 C.C.R. 274; R. v. Tibbits and Windust [1902] 1 K.B. 77 at 89; R. v. Meyrick and Ribuffi, 21 Cr.App.R. 94, CCA. Ř Penalty Conspiracy
to commit an offence punishable by life imprisonment (or for which the
penalty is at large) is itself punishable by life imprisonment. However, in
cases of conspiracy to murder, a life sentence is only discretionary. The
cases of McNee [2008]
1 Cr App R (S) 24 (108) and Barot [2008]
1 Cr App R (S) 31 (156) illustrate the principles round sentencing
for conspiracy to murder. In
other cases, the maximum term of imprisonment may not exceed that for the
relevant offence, or for whichever of two or more relevant offences carries
the highest maximum sentence. Where a relevant offence is not punishable by
imprisonment, a conspiracy is punishable by a fine - s. 3(1)(b) of the
Criminal Law Act 1977. Ř Inchoate
offences https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/inchoate-offences
Ř Serious
Crime Act 2007 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/contents
(55)
Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice Ř Demeanour PACE sets
out to strike the right balance between the powers of the police and the
rights and freedoms of the public. Maintaining that balance is a central
element of PACE. Ř Law The PACE codes of practice cover: (a)
Stop and search (b) Arrest (c)
Detention (d) Investigation (e)
Identification (f)
Interviewing detainees Ř (PACE)
codes of practice https://www.gov.uk/guidance/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-codes-of-practice
Ř Penalty (56)
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Ř
Si Note: Please
pay attention to the table below “Intrusive Surveillance”
Ř The Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act 2000 (c.23) (RIP or RIPA) is an Act of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom, regulating the powers of public bodies
to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of
communications. It was ostensibly introduced to take account of technological
change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill
was introduced in the House of Commons on 9 February 2000 and completed its
Parliamentary passage on 26 July. Following a public consultation and Parliamentary
debate, Parliament approved new additions in December 2003, April 2005, July
2006 and February 2010. A draft bill was put before Parliament during 4
November 2015. Ř Contents Ř 1 Summary Ř 2 Powers Ř 3 Agencies
with investigative powers Ř 3.1 Communications
data Ř 3.2 Directed
surveillance and covert human intelligence sources Ř 3.3 Directed
surveillance Ř 4 Controversy Ř 4.1 Accusations
of oppressive use Ř 4.2 Identification
of journalists' sources Ř 5 Prosecutions
under RIPA Ř 6 Investigatory Powers Tribunal Ř 7 See also Ř 8 References Ř 9 External links Ř Summary RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public
bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person's electronic
communications. The Act: (a)
Enables certain
public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's
communications in secret. (b) Enables mass surveillance of communications in
transit. (c)
Enables certain
public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance. (d) Enables certain public bodies to demand that
someone hand over keys to protected information. (e)
Allows certain
public bodies to monitor people's Internet activities. (f)
Prevents the
existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from
being revealed in court. Ř Powers
Ř To
See this webpage in a none edited format please click on the link below: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 Last
checked as a working webpage with the same information 28/02/2021. (57)
Statutory Conspiracy; Criminal
Law Act 1967 Ř Section
1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 states: “If a person agrees with any other person or persons that
a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if
the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either will
necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by
one or more of the parties to the agreement, or would do so but for the
existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the
offences impossible, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or
offences in question.”. (58)
Criminal Liability; Criminal Law Act 1967 Ř An Act to
amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into
felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of
matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to
do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes
together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes
connected therewith. Criminal Law Act 1967 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/contents
(59)
Civil Law Ř Definitions of civil proceeding 1.
A lawsuit or non-criminal legal action started by an
individual or company in court against someone that they say caused them some
loss, harm, or injury etc. "The case against Matthew Rushin
is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one." Ř What kinds of cases do civil courts handle? (1) Money and debts. (2) Property. (3) Housing – such as eviction, foreclosure or to fix bad living
conditions. (4) An injury – such as from a car accident, medical malpractice or
environmental harm. (5) Marriage and children – such as divorce, child
custody, child support, or guardianship. Ř What is an example of a civil case? Examples are murder, assault, theft,
and drunken driving. Civil law deals with behaviour that
constitutes an injury to an individual or other private party, such as a
corporation. Examples are defamation (including libel and
slander), breach of contract, negligence resulting in injury or death, and
property damage. Ř These are some of the most common
types of cases to appear in civil court. (1) Contract Disputes. Contract disputes occur when one or more parties who
signed a contract cannot or will not fulfil their obligations. ... (2) Property Disputes. ... (3) Torts. ... (4) Class Action Cases. ... (5) Complaints Against the City. Ř Can a
Civil Case turn Criminal? (1) Yes,
a civil case can turn criminal in the respect that the evidence uncovered in
a civil case can prompt a criminal investigation. When the civil trial
reveals information that one of the parties may have committed a crime, a
criminal case might begin. https://www.askadamskutner.com/personal-injury/case-both-criminal-and-civil/
(60)
Compensation Act 2006 Ř Demeanour (a) An Act
to specify certain factors that may be taken into account by a court
determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty; to make
provision about damages for mesothelioma; and to make provision for the
regulation of claims management services. Citation. 2006 c 29. The act of law
ensures that claims management
companies are able to provide a fair service to those with a valid claim. (b) To
succeed in an action for negligence at common law a claimant has to establish
that: The defendant owed a duty to the claimant. The defendant breached the
duty owed to the claimant. The defendant's breach of duty caused the claimant
to suffer recoverable loss. Ř Law (a)
Part 1 - Standard of care (b) Part 2 -
Claims Management Services (c)
Part 3 - General (d) Part Claims
Management Regulations Ř Penalty Ř Compensation
Act 2006 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/contents
(61)
Intent Criminal Justice Act
1967 Ř Demeanour (a)
What is the meaning of mens rea? Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The
literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. ... The prosecution typically must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable
state of mind. (b) In criminal law, intent is
one of three general classes of means rea-necessary to constitute a
conventional, as opposed to strict liability, crime. A more formal,
generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of
wrongdoing. Ř
purpose; the phrase
`with a view to' means `with the intention of' or `for the purpose
of' will. a fixed and persistent intent or purpose. Ř
Type of: end, goal.
the state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when
achieved) terminates behaviour intended to achieve it. Ř Three
types of criminal intent exist: (a)
General intent, which is presumed
from the act of commission (such as speeding); (b) Specific intent,
which requires preplanning and predispositions (such as burglary); and (c)
Constructive intent, the
unintentional results of an act (such as a pedestrian death resulting from. Ř Law Ř Penalty Ř Criminal
Justice Act 1967 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/contents
Also see Ř Criminal
Law Act 1967 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/contents
(62)
Police (efficiency)
Regulations Act 1999 + Ř Demeanour Ř Law
i. Police (efficiency) Regulations Act 1999 + These
Regulations shall not apply in relation to— (a)
A chief constable or other officer above
the rank of superintendent; (b) An
officer of the rank of constable who has not completed his period of
probation. The Assistant
Commissioner”, in relation to the metropolitan police force, means the
assistant commissioner for the time being authorised under section 8 of the
Metropolitan Police Act 1856. Circumstances
in which a first interview may be required 4.
Where the reporting officer for a
member of a police force is of the opinion that the performance of that
member is unsatisfactory, he may require the member concerned to attend an
interview (in these Regulations referred to as a first interview) to discuss
the performance of the member concerned.
ii. The Police (Efficiency) (Amendment) Regulations
2003 How
to inform the member concerned in what respect his performance is considered
unsatisfactory; These
Regulations may be cited as the Police (Efficiency) Regulations 1999 and
shall come into force on 1st April 1999. Ř
Amendment 2003 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/528/contents/made Ř Penalty Ř WHAT IS
MOOTING? https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/current-students/mooting-oxford/mooting-what-it-and-why-take-part
These violations have arisen out of
incident that are dated as listed above. Ř
The Forged Asbo
– Dated; At six different locations. Ř
Gazebo Case - Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Driving Ban one - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban two - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban three - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban four - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban five - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban six - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban seven - Dated; “Overturned
at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban eight - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban nine - Dated;
“Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Forged Possession Order 1 – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Forged 1st Injunction Order – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Forged 2nd Injunction Order – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Forged Possession Order 2 – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Incidents took place when I was not
on curfew. at six different locations. Ř
The Forged Asbo
– Dated; At six different locations. Ř
Gazebo Case – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Driving Ban one - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban two - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban three - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban four - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban five - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban six - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban seven - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban eight - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Ř
Driving Ban nine - Dated;
- At one location. “Overturned at Crown Court” Incidents have taken place while I
have been in my rented home that is addressed as above of this letter. Ř
Forged Possession Order 1 – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Forged 1st Injunction Order – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Forged 2nd Injunction Order – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
Forged Possession Order 2 – Dated;
- At one location. “Won at Court” Ř
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Soon to be updated “Go to Headers or Diary Below and
or Audio Above!” 1. The circumstances of the Gazebo Case are: - A.
On
9 June 2004 at about 11pm B.
1.1. Police “Gazebo Case” Link: Sub Documents\Police Gazebo Case.docx 1.2.1st Curfew dates 1.3.The
reasons why I ‘am alleging fault in respect of the
Gazebo Case is: A. On
9 June 2004 at about 11pm B. Soon to be updated “Go to Headers or Diary Below and
or Audio Above!” 2. Met Police HQ 11 Met Police Scotland Yard 2.1. Met Police Station Edmonton 2.2. Met Police Station Wood Green Courts 2.3. Edmonton Lower Court 2.4. Highbury Islington Lower Court 2.5. Wood Green Crown Court Asbo 2.6. CPS Michael Carrols Solicitor Firm Tottenham Branch 3. Michael Carrols Tottenham Branch 4. Police “Isle Wight Case” Link: Sub Documents\Police “Isle Wight Case”.docx 5. Tape Recording 5.1. Enfield Civic Centre / Call Centre & Whistle
Blowing Lines 5.2. Met Police CCC - Call Centre’s/Lambeth/Bow/ Hendon 5.3. Video Recordings 6. My Other Witness and or Victims = 7. Take a look at Herpes 7.1. Edmonton Green Evergreen Sex
Clinic NHS –Mental Health Doctors
Departments) – GP - Enfield 8. Doctors (Barnet Harringay and
Enfield Mental Health Departments) 8.1. Mental health Department St
Ann’s Hospital 8.2. Mental health Department 65C
Park Avenue, Bush Hill Margaret 8.3. Mental health Department Chase
Farm Hospital 8.4. Mental health Department
Edmonton Lucas House Department 8.5. Mental health Department
Enfield Triangle Team 25 Crown Lane 8.6. Mental health Department
Murphy Physiotherapy Clinic 18 Lowther Dr 8.7. Mental health Department
Resolution NHS 8.8. Mental health Department
Silver Street Department Trying to take my life &
Harm me 9. Mathiyalagan
Family 9.1. Debra Andrews “Responsible” 9.2. Stain Curtis / Fisher
“Responsible” 6. The new Second Tenancy Holder
of 117 since 01/03/2019 till 07/06/2019 9.3. The new Third Tenancy Holder
of 117 since 11/06/2019 9.4. John Irvin “Responsible” Home
Owner of 117 Burncroft Avenue 6. George Quinton “Responsible” 9.5. Ambrose Tariq “Responsible” 9.6. Ozzie “Responsible” 9.7. Christine “Responsible” 9.8. Carron Dunno 6. Christine “Responsible” 6. Christine “Responsible” 6. Christine “Responsible” 6. Christine “Responsible” Asbo 6. Police & Enfield Council”
= 1st Asbo Link: Sub Documents\Police & Enfield Council = 1st Asbo.docx 6. Police & Enfield Council”
= 2nd Asbo Link: Sub Documents\Police & Enfield Council = 2nd Asbo.docx 7. Response Bundle (For the First
ASBO) 6. Queen JR Asbo 6. Tyrone Brother (Motor Bike
“CRASH”) Link: Sub Documents\Tyrone Brother (Motor Bike “CRASH”).docx 1st Possession
Order 6. Enfield Civic Centre /
Possession Order one 2nd Possession Order
Two 6. Enfield Civic Centre
Possession Order Two 1st Injunction
Order 6. Enfield Civic Centre / 1 of 2
Injunction Order Lemmy 6. Enfield Civic Centre / 2 of 2
injunction Order Lemmy Driving Bans 6. Police = Driving Ban 1 6. Police = Driving Ban2 6. Police = Driving Ban3 6. Police = Driving Ban 4
“Blakey’s House” Link: Sub Documents\Police P1 Driving Ban 4 “Blakey’s
House”.docx 6. Police = Driving Ban5 6. Police = Driving Ban 6 Getting
Pulled Over in a petrol station 6. Police = Driving Ban 7 Getting
Pulled Over in Brixton 6. Driving Ban 8 Insurance
Company “Broadsure Direct” 8 Link: Sub Documents\Driving Ban 8 Insurance Company “Broadsure Direct” 8.docx 6. Police = Driving Ban 9 Dagenham “Flex Nightclub 6. Police Dagenham “Flex
Nightclub” Link: Sub Documents\Police Dagenham Flex Nightclub.docx 6. Police (HERTFORDSHIRE
CONSTABIARY (some accused shop) 6. Police (HERTFORD SHIRE CONSTABULARY
some accused shop into Police “West Midlands “Birmingham” car case Link: Sub Documents\Police “West Midlands Birmingham car
case.docx 7. Trailer Case 6. MP’s 0.y Kemp Hall Community Hall 0.y Family Stuff 0. Too Smooth 0. Deans Painting Company 0. My Printers 0. Horrific Corruption Defense Link: 0. Enfield Civic Centre / Neighborhood Watch Team 0. Enfield Civic Centre / Revenues 0. Enfield Civic Centre / Housing Headers for My Diary all Years Date Order From 2018 and afterwards I am, still updating the
files with more evidence 24/02/2021 1. 2012 2. 2013 3. 2014 5. 2015 6. 2016 7. 2017 8. 2018 9. 2019 10. 2020 11. 2021 Diary All Years Date Order From 2018 and afterwards I am, still updating the
files with more evidence 24/02/2021 1. 2012 https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diary%202012/
The Bookish style is below and
is still needing to be combined with the diary vice-versa correctly, the
reasons for this is ? https://serverone.hopto.org/2%20Notes%204%20Book%202012/
2. 2013. https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diary%202013_/ The Bookish style is below; -- https://serverone.hopto.org/2%20Notes%204%20Book%202013/ 3. 2014. https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diay%202014/
4. 2015. https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diary%202015/
5. 2016. https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diary%202016/
6. 2017. https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diary%202017/
The Bookish style is below and
is still needing to be combined with the diary vice-versa correctly, the
reasons for this are 7. 2018. https://serverone.hopto.org/1%20Diary%202018/ The Bookish style is below and
is still needing to be combined with the diary vice-versa correctly, the
reasons for this are 8. 2019. 9. 2020. 10. 2021. 11. PNC - Police “PNC Record” Link: Sub Documents\Police PNC Record.docx 11. Name and Address Tables Applications that have got
brought against me / Books (a) Book
(b) Index Freedom of Information and
Data Protection Requests / Books (a) Book
(b) Index Logistics |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Si Notes 1.
I have already explained to the council
what my claim is for in writing and by way of email as can be listened to in
the documented recordings and know it is unfair to have to keep reliving the
moments because of incompetence. 2.
The named and listed companies within
this document have acted in joint circular thought the years of 2013 till
date of this letter and must be able to be held legally liable to prosecution
for their misplace actions and/or wrong doings. 3.
I have sustained Personal and
Property damage to no fault of my own as a result of failures caused by the
Listed 1,2,3,4, running companies activities faults. 4.
The Local Authority’s listed above
have caused me to suffer by way of Negligence, Gross Misconduct and Criminal
Offences and my sufferings have gotten caused by a failure of care on their
part. 5.
The listed local authorities have a legal duty of care to me
and their other customers and have failed to maintain this duty of care for
myself. 6.
A legal liability can be established
by the burden of evidence that I hold regarding these damages and that does
prove fault that has gotten caused by Negligence, Gross Misconduct and/or
Criminal Activities with intent. 7.
As for their specifics of
the claims dates and times there is around 3000 days I am
accounting for, which I have the relevant documentation
to prove but is too large to get sent by a normal email account and would
make too many Rar or Zip files to send as explained
earlier I simply cannot do the impossible as you ask
and don't see why I should only give you the case in part
because you refuse to work any other civilised way. 8.
My
collected evidence has been hosted in Horrificcorruption.com which is
legal for me to do so as my website is classed as the same as emails / a
digital form of information that can be used in any
United Kiddom's Court of Law and I have directed you to
it. Making
a complaint The
procedure for making a complaint about the conduct of an official person or
other is simple and informal. A complaint is best made in writing, but may be
made orally. Reference
towards the Time Limitation Act 1. For example, a claim
in fraud against the trustee of a trust
is not subject to any limitation 2. There
is no time limit under the time limitation Act 1996 - 1980 when accounting
for fraud in certain aspects of the law 3. Through
most of the time I have been undermined by your clients 4. I
have been brutally over forced with malicious process unlogside
may other illegal aspects of law such as Interference with the course of
justice 1963. The
listed above accounts for special circumstances to proceed with my claim. It
is not me who has prolonged my claim by keeping me in a malicious process. LIMITATION PERIODS
WHICH LIMITATION
PERIOD APPLIES TO AN ACTION? It is sometimes difficult to determine
into which category a particular case may fall. It is possible that the
nature of the claim itself may affect the application of a limitation period.
If the action arises from fraudulent behaviour, the court will consider
whether it was the fraudulent behaviour of a party or of another. Where the
fraud is that of a person who is not a party, then the defendant will
normally be able to rely on a limitation period applying. But if the
fraudulent behaviour is that of a party, then it is more likely that the
court will determine that no limitation period applies. Claims that are a
mixture of tort and contract can also cause difficulties. A full examination of the more complex
issues arising from limitation is outside the scope of this manual, but any
legal representative acting in an action in which 'limitation' is raised will
need to examine the law applying in detail (see Blackstone's Civil
Practice in this regard). The court has a discretion to
dis-apply the limitation period in personal injury actions under s. 33 of the
LA 1980. In these circumstances, the court will decide whether it would be equitable and whether it would be prejudicial
to the defendant, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.
There may be good reasons not to rely on what appears to be a limitation
defence, where a fair trial can still take place despite the delay. Two
recent cases have considered the application of s. 33 LA—in Kara Rayner v Wolferstans (A firm), Medway NHS Foundation Trust
[2015] EWHC 2957 (QB), the judge allowed the claimant to proceed with
her personal injury claim seven years after the statutory period of
limitation had expired where the judge found that the claimant had been
prejudiced by delays not of her making. This case is a clear example of the
court assisting a 'deserving' claimant. In Collins v Secretary of State for
Business Innovation & Skills [20131 the court would not exercise its
discretion, as it decided that the evidence was sketchy and unreliable, and
there would be real prejudice to the defendant if the limitation period was
dis-applied. --- Exceptions in the Limitation Act The Limitation Act 1980 does contain some
exceptions to the rules discussed above. There are two exceptions that may be
relevant to claims against the police. Firstly, time does not begin to run
against a minor until he or she reaches the age of 18. Thus, if the alleged
police misconduct occurred during the claimant's childhood the applicable
limitation period would not start to run until he or she attained adulthood. Yes Secondly, the running of the appropriate
limitation period is delayed where any fact relevant to the claimant's right
of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant’. In
these circumstances the period runs from the time when the claimant discovers
the concealment or from the point when he or she could have discovered it by
using reasonable diligence. A deliberate breach of duty in circumstances
where it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate
concealment for these purposes. Deliberate concealment therefore covers
intentional wrongdoing that, by its nature, is unlikely to be discovered for
a considerable period of time, if the wrongdoer does nothing to draw it to
the claimant's attention.71 Accordingly, this concept could cover police
misconduct that was not readily apparent to the claimant at the time but
emerges subsequently, for example if; officers pressurised or induced a third
party falsely to incriminate the claimant. In this instance the claimant
would know from the outset that the testimony incriminating him or her was
false, but he or she would not necessarily appreciate that this stemmed from
improper police behaviour. The deliberate concealment must relate to a fact
that forms part of the 'right of action’, as opposed to those which simply
strengthen an existing case. Accordingly, it would be difficult for the
claimant to obtain an advantage from this statutory provision in a false
imprisonment claim, as the cause of action is treated as complete when the
detention occurs and any subsequently discovered facts would bolster an
existing claim, rather than create a fresh cause of action. In contrast, in a
malicious prosecution claim, a lack of reasonable and probable cause for the
prosecution and malice on the part of the wrongdoer are intrinsic elements of
the cause of action; thus, subsequent discovered police misconduct relating
to those issues may well to facts relevant to the right of action, so that
the running limitation period is postponed until they came to light. Human Rights Act claims The limitation period for bringing proceedings
against a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 is short. Proceedings
must be brought before the end of one year beginning with the date on which
the act complained of took place. However, there is provision for a longer
period if the ‘court or tribunal considers it equitable having regard to all
the circumstances. The one-year period is subject to any rule imposing a
stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question. Thus, for
example, a judicial review application which relied upon breaches of the
Human Rights Act 1998 would be subject to the usual three-month time period
applicable to such claims.8" However, where a person does not bring
proceedings against a public authority but merely seeks to rely on his or her
rights under the European Convention of Human Rights in relation to legal
proceedings brought by others, no limitation period is imposed by the Human
Rights Act 1998.S1 Discrimination claims The time limit for bringing proceedings under the
Race Relations Act 1976 is within six months less one day from the date of
the act complained of “It is possible to obtain a two-month extension where a
claim is made to the Commission for Racial Equality for assistance within the
six-month period. The Commission can grant a further month’s extension if it
is considering the application. The six-month period for bringing a claim
does not begin to run until the conclusion of ‘an act extending over a
period'. The court has a discretion to extend the time limit for bringing
discrimination claims where it considers it ‘just and equitable to do so.
Similar limitation provisions apply in relation to discrimination on the
grounds of sex and disability. There may be instances where the same facts give
rise to a number of different limitation periods. For example, if a person is
stopped and searched in a manner which gives rise to a potential claim under
the Race Relations Act 1976 and is then prosecuted, but the proceedings are
not concluded until more than six months after the initial incident,
consideration should be given to issuing proceedings in the county court under
the Act and then staying these proceedings pending the outcome of the
criminal case. The priority for the potential claimant may well be to secure
an acquittal on the criminal case and he or she may not wish to aggravate the
police or CPS by alerting them to a potential race case. In these
circumstances it is open to the adviser to issue proceedings within the
initial six-month period, but to delay serving them until the conclusion of
the criminal matter. Persons
under disabilities Where
the claimant is a person under a disability, being either a child or a
protected party ' (see paragraphs 7.3.1 and 7.3.2), the limitation period
does not start to run until: (1) if a
child, from the date of the child's 18th birthday; (2)
if a protected party, if they were of
unsound mind at the time of the cause of action (or the unsound mind was
caused by the cause of action), from the date on which they are no longer of
unsound mind (whenever that may be medically certified). If the person was of sound mind at the time of the cause of
action, the limitation period will continue to run. Fraud,
concealment, and mistake In
claims based on fraud, the limitation period does not begin to run until the
claimant discovers (or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered) the
fraud. The limitation period will also not run whilst the defendant
deliberately conceals a relevant fact. Where the claim is for relief from the
consequences of a mistake, time does not run until the mistake is discovered,
or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. Latent
damage The
Latent Damage Act 1986 created greater fairness in situations in which the
limitation period may expire before a party is even aware that a claim
exists. In claims in tort (other than for personal injuries), the Latent
Damage Act 1986 provides new sections (inserted into the LA 1980, ss. 14A and
14B). The provisions added to the LA 1980 by the 1986 Act provide two periods
of limitation: one that is six years from accrual (the usual period for
claims in tort), and another that is three years from the 'starting
date'—that is, the earliest date at which the claimant knew that the relevant
damage was sufficiently serious to justify proceedings, enabling a claim to
subsist, and when it could be attributed to the act of negligence and the
identity of the defendant. To
prevent defendants being potentially 'at risk' of a claim indefinitely, s.
14B of the LA 1980 provides a long-stop period for bringing proceedings of 15
years from the act or omission alleged to constitute the negligence causing
the claimant's damage. The
discretionary extension of limitation periods Discretionary
provisions to extend the statutory limitation period apply in: ·
judicial
review proceedings (the three-month time limit can be extended if good
reasons are shown); Acting
litigant at the present time Ř
Acting litigant
is a legal right of mine and at the present I feel it is best for me to do so
as of the size of the case; 1.
Because I am still organising the paperwork even low, I can prove my case
beyond reasonable doubt at the present. 2.
I am still transcribing recordings between me and
you client's that proves what has happened. 3.
To control additional legal cost by doing 95% of the work myself. Ř The
documentation accounts for almost nine years now and equals to over three
million words and by you refusing to talk to me on the phone or arranging a
meeting in a later date as I requested earlier in our prior emails, I know
that you are treating me unequal to a far standard by being incurious of my claim. Ř In the last email that I sent to
you I merely explained that I would like to chat in
person for a brief time and would be happy also to resolve the ongoing by
email as well. What is the difference between
Bill of Rights and Human Rights? The universalists argue that
human rights belong to all humans on account of their humanity rather than
membership of narrower categories such as citizenship, ethnicity or class.
Bills of rights on the other hand tend to exclude by definition non-citizens
from their protections. How might Brexit affect human rights in the UK? Ex post facto law Ř Demeanour A
law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the
penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules
of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making
of ex post facto law. Ř Law Acts
of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/33/13/contents
The
Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793 (33 Geo. 3 c. 13) is an Act of the
Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain which provided that Acts of
Parliament would come into force on the date on which they received royal
assent, unless they specified some other date, instead of the first day of
the session in which they were passed. Ř Penalty Ex post
facto law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
+ International Human Rights / Law “1948” https://serverone.hopto.org/The%20Universal%20Declaration%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Yes/
Article 1: All human beings are free and equal All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should
act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: No discrimination Everyone is entitled to all the rights and
freedoms, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on
the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the
country or territory to which a person belongs. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person. Si Notes; 1.
My Right to Life has been violated 2.
My Right to Liberty has gotten Violated 3.
My Right to Security Has gotten violated 4.
Article 3 means that nobody, in
the United Kingdom including the Government, can try to end life. It
also means the Government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life
by making laws to protect us and in most circumstances, by taking the correct
steps to protect humanity, when life is at risk. Public
authorities should also consider our right to life when making decisions that
might put us in danger or that would affect life expectancy. If a
member of your family dies in circumstances that involve the state, you must
have the right to an investigation. Ř Example A
social worker from the domestic violence team in a local authority used human
rights arguments to get new accommodation for a woman and her family at risk
of serious harm from a violent ex-partner. She based her case on the local
authority’s obligation to protect the family’s right to life and the right
not to be treated in an inhuman or degrading way. It
is mandatory that no person must suffer from the use of force which is no
more than absolutely necessary: as a result of defence from
unlawful violence. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude;
slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Slavery I Mr. Simon Paul Cordell have been kept in
servitude unlawfully while being alive in today’s modern society. “12/03/2021” 1. Forced
labour is an important aspect of modern-day slavery. The term ‘forced labour
describes work or services that a person is forced to do against their will
or under the threat of punishment. 2. The
legal definition of forced labour is set out in the ILO’s Forced Labour
Convention, (no. 29) 1930. It defines forced labour as: ‘all work or service
which is exacted from any person under the menace of a penalty and for which
the said person has not offered himself voluntarily’. Forced
labour means you are forced to do work that you have not agreed to, under the
threat of punishment and there are not any restrictions to this right. 3. The
state fails to fulfil its positive obligations under human rights law when;
-- (a) A
person gets wrongfully deprived of his or her personal liberty as
to explain the right to move about geographically as they desire. (b) If there
were limits on his or her capacity to make choices with regard to occupation
and sexual partners as well. (c) Slave’s
labour could also get claimed by someone, who also frequently had their
right controlled as to his or her physical reproduction. (d) Article 4
of our Human Rights protects our right not to be held in slavery or servitude,
or made to do forced labour. 4.
Slavery is when someone actually owns you like a
piece of property. 5.
Servitude is similar to slavery - you might live
on the person’s premises, work for them and be unable to leave, when no
person can be owned like property. 6.
Your right to be protected against slavery and
servitude is an absolute, which means it can never be restricted. 7.
The prohibition of slavery and forced labour are;
-- (a)
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. (b) No one
shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 1.
I continue to get subject to Torture. 2.
I have gotten treated curly. 3.
The way in which I have been tortured and treated
curly is inhuman. 4.
I continue to get degraded treatment. 5.
I have been punished on a continuing basis unwarrantedly. 6.
Article 5 protects you from: -- (a)
Torture (mental or physical.) (b) Inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. (c)
Public authorities must not inflict this sort of
treatment on you. They must also protect you if someone else is treating you
in this way. If they know this right is being breached, they must intervene
to stop it. The state must also investigate credible allegations of such
treatment. 7.
Torture occurs when someone deliberately causes
very serious and cruel suffering (physical or mental) to another person. This
might be to punish someone, or to intimidate or obtain information from them. 8.
Such treatment includes; -- (a)
Serious physical assault. (b) Psychological
interrogation. (c)
Cruel or barbaric detention conditions or
restraints. (d) Serious
physical or psychological abuse in a health or care setting. (e)
Threatening to torture someone, if the threat is
real and immediate. 9.
Degrading
treatment means treatment that is extremely humiliating and
undignified. When treatment reaches a level that can be defined as
degrading depends on a number of factors. These include: -- (a)
The duration of the treatment. (b) Its
physical or mental effects. (c)
Sex. (d) Age. (e)
Vulnerability and health of the victim. 10. These concepts
are based on the principle of dignity - the innate value of all human beings.
There are no restrictions to these rights. Our Human Right not to be tortured
or treated in an inhuman or degrading way is absolute. This means it must
never be limited or restricted in any way. A public authority can never use
lack of resources as a defence against an accusation that it has treated
someone in an inhuman or degrading way. Ř Example;
-- A
devastating catalogue of police failures meant black cab taxi driver John Worboys was left free to attack women in London for years
before he was convicted in 2009. Two of his
victims fought a four-year legal battle to show police had a legal duty to
properly investigate serious crimes under Article 3 – and to stop them
failing victims in this way again. The two
women were raped by Worboys in 2003 and 2007. When
they reported the attacks, police didn’t believe them and didn’t investigate
properly. In 2018,
the Supreme Court ruled that the Metropolitan Police had breached the women’s
rights by failing to properly investigate their reports of rape. This was a
crucial victory in the battle to end violence against women and girls in the
UK. Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere
as a person before the law. “Recognition Act 2004” 1.
The Declarations recognizes the human rights of
individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live and
recognizes the need to expand the guarantee of human rights specifically to
persons who live in countries without having citizenship. (a) Article
6 of the UDHR states that; “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a
person before the law”, regardless of whether they are citizens or
immigrants, students or tourists, workers or refugees, or any other group. (b) HCHR
-
Section 15 of the Human Rights Act 2019 says that; “Every person has the right to recognition as a person
before the law. Every person has the right to enjoy the person's human rights
without discrimination. Every person is equal before the law and is entitled
to the equal protection of the law without discrimination.” (c)
The right is enshrined in Article 16 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person
before the law.” (d) The
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of Their Families contains this right in Article 24: (e)
“Every migrant worker and every member of his or
her family shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before
the law.” (f)
The right is also contained in Article 5 of
the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity
inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All
forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave
trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be
prohibited.” (g)
The Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities contains this right in Article 12: ·
States Parties reaffirm that persons with
disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the
law. ·
States Parties shall recognize that persons with
disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all
aspects of life. ·
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to
provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require
in exercising their legal capacity. ·
States Parties shall ensure that all measures
that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and
effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human
rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the
exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the
person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are
proportional and tailored to the person's circumstances, apply for the
shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent,
independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be
proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person's rights
and interests. ·
Subject to the provisions of this article, States
Parties shall take all appropriate and effective measures to ensure the equal
right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control
their own financial affairs and to have equal access to bank loans, mortgages
and other forms of financial credit, and shall ensure that persons with
disabilities are not arbitrarily deprived of their property. Article 7: Protection from discrimination in respect of
these rights and freedoms All are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal
protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination. 1.
I get treated less favourably than other persons
when the listed have been put in receipt of my situations to which my claim
is based upon and this treatment cannot be objectively and reasonably
justified. 2.
The Human Rights Act makes it illegal to
discriminate on a wide range of grounds including ‘sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
association with a national minority. 3.
The European Convention of Human Rights. Article
14 is based on the core principle that all of us, no matter who we are, enjoy
the same human rights and should have equal access to them. 4.
Some of the Protected characteristics are; -- (a)
Age. (b) Disability. (c)
Gender reassignment. (d) Marriage
and civil partnership. (e)
Pregnancy and maternity. (f)
Race. (g)
Religion or belief. (h) Sex. (i)
Discrimination in the provision of accommodation
and education. 5.
Discrimination in the provision of goods and
services. 6.
Membership of the Traveller community. 7.
Discrimination can occur when: -- (a)
You are disadvantaged. (b) Discrimination
has affected your enjoyment of one or more of the other rights in the Act. 8.
Direct discrimination & Indirect
discrimination results in: -- (a)
Direct discrimination occurs when somebody is
treated unfavourably because of a protected attribute. (b) Indirect
discrimination occurs when a requirement (or rule) that appears to be neutral
and the same for everyone in fact has the effect of disadvantaging someone
because they have an attribute covered by the Act. 9.
Article 7: Protection from discrimination obliges
the local authority to take ‘all appropriate positive steps’ to enable reasonable
adjustments for all. 10. EXAMPLES
OF DISCRIMINATION Discrimination
may be intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect. Discrimination can
come in the form of jokes and offhand comments that seem harmless to or even
go unnoticed by the perpetrator. The below
examples show some of the different ways in which discrimination can occur in
the workplace. Ř Example 1 Mary is
six months pregnant. After ten years working at an accounting firm, she
applies for a senior position that has just opened up. Despite having more
experience and qualifications than the other applicants, she was passed over.
When she asked the manager, he said: “I need someone who will be more
dedicated to the position.” Ř Example 2 Ryan works
on a construction site. His co-workers recently found out he was gay and have
started calling him “princess”. Ř Example 3 Annie
works in a toy store and has a physical disability preventing her from
carrying heavy items. She recently found out her co-workers earn more than
her despite having the same experience and working just as hard. When she
asked her manager about it, she said it was because “you just don’t carry as
much weight around here.” Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by
the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights
granted him by the constitution or by law. 1. At
no point in time have any of my complaint been investigated or even a statement
taken of myself to give me an effective remedy. 2. Both
the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination have stated that the right to an effective remedy encompasses
an obligation to bring to justice perpetrators of human rights abuses,
including discrimination, and also to provide appropriate reparation to
victims. 3. The
first paragraph in Article 8 of the UDHR states; -- “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights
granted him by the constitution or by law.” 4. And the
first paragraph in Article 13 of the ECHR states; -- ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national
authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.’ 5. A remedy
is a form of court enforcement of a legal right resulting from a successful
civil lawsuit. Remedies fall into three general categories: (a)
Damages - monetary compensation for the
plaintiff's losses, injury, and/or pain or restitutionary
measures designed to restore the plaintiff's status to what it was prior to
the violation of his or her rights, (b) Coercive
remedies - requiring a party to do or omit doing a specific act through
injunctive relief or a court order of specific performance (a court mandates
that the party fulfil contractual obligations. See Contracts). (c)
Declaratory judgment - the court determines
individual rights in a specific situation without awarding damages or
ordering particular action. 6.
Because of their historical origins, monetary
damages are often referred to as a legal remedy while coercive and
declaratory remedies are termed equitable remedies. 7.
European Union law is a system of rules operating
within the member states of the European Union. However, in Union law the
protection is more extensive since it guarantees the right to an effective
remedy before a court. Ř The Court
of Justice enshrined that right in its judgment of 15 May 1986 as a general
principle of Union law. (a)
(Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651;
see also (b) Judgment
of 15 October 1987, Case 222/86 Heylens
[1987] ECR 4097 and (c)
Judgment of 3 December 1992, Case C-97/91
Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313). 8.
The second paragraph corresponds to Article 6(1)
of the ECHR which reads as follows: -- ‘In the
determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be
excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public
order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of
juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or
to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.’ 9.
In Union law, the right to a fair hearing is not
confined to disputes relating to civil law rights and obligations. That is
one of the consequences of the fact that the Union is a community based on
the rule of law as stated by the Court in Case 294/83, ‘Les Verts’ v
European Parliament (judgment of 23 April 1986, [1986] ECR 1339).
Nevertheless, in all respects other than their scope, the guarantees afforded
by the ECHR apply in a similar way to the Union. 10. With
regard to the third paragraph of the ECHR, it should be noted that in
accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, provision
should be made for legal aid where the absence of such aid would make it
impossible to ensure an effective remedy (ECHR judgment of 9 October 1979, Airey,
Series A, Volume 32, p. 11). There is also a system of legal
assistance for cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union. 11. UDHR / Access
to justice is a vital human right and abuses of that right are a common
subject for pro bono lawyers. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 (the
“Declaration”) includes several articles that highlight the importance of
access to justice.1 Article 8 of the Declaration states that “Everyone has
the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”
Article 10 of the Declaration states that “Everyone is entitled in full
equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any
criminal charges against him.” Accordingly, barriers to a fair and public
hearing or to an effective remedy are contrary to human rights as described
in the Declaration. The principle of access to justice for all under
international law was further strengthened on March 23, 1976 when the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the “Covenant”) entered
into force.2 Article 2 of the Covenant states that each party to it will
“ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are
violated shall have an effective remedy.” The Covenant also includes the
obligation to “ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his
right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal
system of the State.” 12. Also see; the
Access to Justice Act 1999. Access to justice means being "treated fairly according to the law and
if you are not treated fairly being able to get appropriate redress".
"That doesn't just mean access to lawyers and courts. It means access to ombudsmen, advice agencies and the police law. It means public authorities behaving properly. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/22/contents
Ř Examples
(a) The
rights: to be heard (Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40) (b) To
have notice of the case against you (R v Secretary of State for the
Home Department ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531) (c) To
have a hearing free from bias (Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction
Canal (1852) 3 HL Cas 759) (d) To
open justice (Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417) (e) The
common law expressly recognises a fundamental right of access to justice and
to the courts. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
ex p Leech (No 2) [1994] QB 198, Steyn LJ held at 210A (f) It
is a principle of our law that every citizen has a right of unimpeded access
to a court.’ In R v Lord Chancellor exp Witham [1998] QB 575. Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
detention or exile. 1.
The Maximum custody sentence for the raves bill 1994
is six months and you would do three months with half time or maybe two
months with good behaviour with a tagging system put into place and that
would be if there was enough evidence for criminal convection. Even low there
was not I received 7 years just for the Asbo without ever being arrested or
having a fair interview / investigation take place, while getting refused my
Legal Rights to Justice. The Asbo was a Standalone application what states it
must not be a form of punishment just a deterrent. 2.
I was told that if I don’t leave the United
Kingdom within 48 hours that 3.
Arbitrary arrest; Arbitrary
arrest and arbitrary detention are the arrest or detention of an individual in
a case in which there is no likelihood or evidence that they committed a
crime against legal statute, or in which there has been no proper due process
of law or order. Arbitrary
detention is the violation of the right to liberty. It is defined as the arrest
and deprivation of liberty of a person outside of the confines of nationally
recognized laws or international standards. 4.
Detention The act or condition of being officially forced to stay in a place: E.G.
He or she claimed that their detention by the authorities was unlawful.
Detention is also a punishment in which a student must remain in school for a
short time after classes have ended for the day. 5.
Exile; The
state of being barred from one's native country, typically for political or
punitive reasons. "He knew now that he would die in exile" 6. ICCPR
Article 9 states: (a) Everyone
has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by
law. (b) Anyone
who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for
his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. (c) Anyone
arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a
judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall
be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be
the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody,
but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other
stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution
of the judgement. (d) Anyone
who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to
take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without
delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the
detention is not lawful. (e) Anyone
who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or ,ldetention
shall have an enforceable right to compensation. 7. The
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is unique in that its mandate expressly
provides for the consideration of individual complaints. The Working Group is
the only non-treaty-based UN human rights mechanism to investigate and decide
individual complaints. Ř The
Working Group has identified detention or imprisonment as arbitrary if it
falls into one of the following categories; (a) Imposed
without any legal basis (b) Imposed
because of the exercise of human rights (c) Imposed
in violation of the principle of fair trial (d) Prolonged
administrative custody imposed on asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees (e) Based
on illegal discriminatory grounds 8. Study
According to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
(established by UN Human Rights Council Resolution 1991/42), deprivation of
liberty is arbitrary if a case falls into one of the following three
categories: (A) When
it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation
of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him) (Category I); (B) When
the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 10 and 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by
articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (Category II); (C) When
the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States
concerned, is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an
arbitrary character (Category III). 9. Habeas
corpus is recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful
detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison
official. The writ of habeas corpus is known as the great and efficacious
writ in all manner of illegal confinement being a remedy available
to the meanest against the mightiest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair
and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against
him. 1.
Gg 2.
Right to a fair and Speedy Trial The right to a fair trial has been defined in
numerous regional and international human rights instruments. It is one of
the most extensive human rights and all international human rights
instruments enshrine it in more than one article. 3.
We all have the right to a fair and public trial
or hearing if: Any of us are charged with a criminal offence and have to go
to court, or. a public authority is making a decision that will have an
impact upon our civil rights or obligations. 4.
The “Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal
Aid in Criminal Justice Systems” is a key document that addresses the complex
matter of legal aid on an international level. Adopted in 2012 jointly by the
Economic and Social Council and General Assembly, they extend human rights
specifically to persons who lack the financial means to pay for their own
legal representation. The document is considered ground-breaking because it
has moved the subject of legal aid from the country level towards an
international framework that provides Member States with a basis for a legal
aid system in criminal justice 5.
In England and Wales, the origin of Right to Fair
Trial & Right to Be Heard can be traced back in the Magna Carta Act,
1215. Art. 39 of the Act speaks about fair trial and punishment by a
competent court after the trial. 6.
The European Court of Human Rights and the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights have clarified that the right to a fair
trial applies to all types of judicial proceedings, whether civil or
criminal. According to the European Court of Human Rights, Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights and the fair trial rights apply to all civil
rights and obligations created under domestic law and therefore to all civil
proceedings (see Apeh Uldozotteinek Szovetsege and
Others v. Hungary 2000) 7.
In the United Kingdom the Right to a fair trial
in the United Kingdom is guaranteed by the Article 6 of the Human Rights Act
1998. (1)
United Nations Principles and Guidelines on
Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems (E/RES/2012/15, 2012.) All
persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination
of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a
suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press
and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of
morals, public order (order public) or national security in a democratic
society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so
requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in
special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of
justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law
shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise
requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship
of children. (2)
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall
have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. (3)
In the determination of any criminal charge
against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees,
in full equality: (a)
To be informed promptly and in detail in a
language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against
him; (b) To have
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
communicate with counsel of his own choosing; (c)
To be tried without undue delay; (d) To be
tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal
assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in
any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by
him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it; (e)
To examine, or have examined, the witnesses
against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his
behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (f)
To have the free assistance of an interpreter if
he cannot understand or speak the language used in court; (g)
Not to be compelled to testify against himself or
to confess guilt. (4)
In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure
shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of
promoting their rehabilitation. (5)
Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right
to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according
to law. (6)
When a person has by a final decision been
convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been
reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered
fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the
person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be
compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of
the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him. (7)
No one shall be liable to be tried or punished
again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or
acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. (8)
In the United
Kingdom a defendants' previous convictions may not be revealed to juries or
the Court Bench unless a Bad Character Application is submitted by the prosecution
and accepted by the Judge as submittable evidence. or a breach of Article 10 the
Right to a fair Trial will prevail. Ř
Bad Character is
defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 “s.98 “Bad character” References ... to evidence of a person’s “bad
character” are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his
part, other than evidence which— (a)
has to do with
the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or (b)
is evidence of
misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that
offence. s.112 Interpretation “misconduct” means the commission of an
offence or other reprehensible behaviour;” Ř
This means that Bad
Character is evidence of: ·
Convictions or
cautions; and/or ·
Other ‘reprehensible’
behaviour; and ·
which in either case
do not specifically relate to the facts of the offence being tried at court,
or to the investigation or prosecution of that offence. Ř Reprehensible Behaviour ‘Reprehensible
behaviour’ is not specifically defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. What
could be considered reprehensible in one set of circumstances might not be so
considered in another context, so each case is different and must be viewed
on its own facts. Behaviour which amounts to criminal conduct, even though
there is no formal criminal conviction (e.g., because it was not reported at
the time) is likely to amount to reprehensible behaviour. Ř Examples (A) Unreasonably
long legal proceedings lead to reforms to speed up access to justice The European court identified numerous cases where legal proceedings
in Lithuania had taken an unreasonably long time. One example was that of
Donatas Šulcas, whose case lasted for almost nine
years. Following rulings by the European court, a wide range of reforms were
made to reduce delays in civil, commercial, administrative and criminal
cases. Background In numerous cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights,
applicants complained about the excessive length of legal proceedings in
Lithuania. One of the
cases was brought by a businessman, Donatas Šulcas.
When Mr Šulcas was involved in some litigation, it
took the Lithuanian courts eight years and nine months to make a final ruling
on it. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights The European court ruled that numerous delays had been caused by
mistakes or inertia on the part of the Lithuanian authorities. Overall, the
length of the proceedings had been excessive. This had violated Mr Šulcas’ right to access a court in a reasonable time. The
court also found that, under Lithuanian law at the time, Mr Šulcas had no access to an effective remedy for this
delay. (B) Suspicions
of a biased judge led to reforms to protect a fair legal system Background In the
late 1990s the DMD Group was involved in an important legal claim against
other companies, worth almost three million euros. The defending companies
were suspected of manipulating at least one public officer to avoid paying
their debts. At first
the claim succeeded in the Slovakian courts. However, suddenly the president
of the district court arranged for the case to come to him. On the very same
day he ordered that the claim should fail, in a decision which was only two
pages long and which could not be appealed. The DMD
Group believed that the judge had deliberately taken over the case, so that
he could arrange for it to fail. The judge had an almost unlimited power to
distribute cases as he wished, without having to give any reasons. He had
singled out the DMD Group case to be heard by himself, and dismissed it in an
abrupt decision. Judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights The
European court ruled that when judges control who hears particular cases,
there must be clear rules to prevent the abuse of this power. However,
there were no such rules in this case. There had been almost no criteria for
why the judge should arrange to hear a certain case, and the judge did not
have to give any proper reasons for doing so. As his decision on the DMD
Group’s claim was also not subject to appeal, the company could not challenge
the judge for being biased. The
European court held that the rules allowing the judge to assign the case to
himself had been unfair. They meant that
the right to a fair trial had been violated.
(C) Reforms
introduced after police failed to properly investigate a racist attack Background One night
in the village of Gánovce-Filice,
a group of non-Roma residents forcibly entered three Roma houses. They beat
the inhabitants with baseball bats and iron bars, whilst allegedly shouting
racist slogans. The
victims identified a number of people who they said were responsible for the
attack. However, the authorities refused to charge anyone with a crime. Judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights The
Strasbourg court found that the authorities had failed to properly
investigate the incident or punish those responsible. The court said it was
particularly important for attacks with racist overtones to be properly
investigated. Follow-up In 2014
the offence of extremism was created, to make it easier for the authorities
to prosecute racially-motivated crimes. Specialised police units were set up
to deal with such crimes, and new regulations were introduced covering the
actions of the authorities. Further
legal changes in 2017 banned a wider range of extremist activities and made
it easier for the authorities to prosecute violent racism. A specialised
court and prosecution service took over responsibility for prosecuting such
crimes. “Where an
individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated …
there should be an effective official investigation capable of leading to the
identification and punishment of those responsible.” Article 11: 1.
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public
trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence
on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence,
under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor
shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the
time the penal offence was committed. (1) GG (2) Article
11 requires that each person has access to a fair trial, which includes
adequate legal protections and the right to a lawyer. Lawyers, therefore,
must be able to perform their professional functions freely, independently,
and effectively. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, in: Report of the
Committee on Crime Prevention and Control (E/1990/31-E/AC.57/1990/8,
1990) (3) The Article
11 common set of legislative standards was written to ensure the appropriate
role of lawyers and codes of professional conduct. Of the 29 Principles,
eight focus on access to lawyers and legal services provided to defendants on
trial. (4) The
presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof
is always on the government to satisfy you that [defendant] is guilty of the
crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The
presumption of innocence is contained in article 14(2) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). ... The other guarantees are
the right to a fair trial and fair hearing, and minimum guarantees in
criminal proceedings, such as the right to counsel and not to be compelled to
self-incriminate. (5) At the end
of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not
guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her
case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. 3.
The right is also enshrined in Article 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and states: (1) All
persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination
of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a
suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press
and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of
morals, public order (order public) or national security in a democratic
society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so
requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in
special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of
justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law
shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise
requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship
of children. (2) Everyone
charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law. (3) In
the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (c)
To be informed promptly and in detail in a
language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against
him; (d) To have
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
communicate with counsel of his own choosing; (e)
To be tried without undue delay; (f)
To be tried in his presence, and to defend
himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be
informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have
legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice
so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have
sufficient means to pay for it; (g)
To examine, or have examined, the witnesses
against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his
behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (h) To have
the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the
language used in court; (i)
Not to be compelled to testify against himself or
to confess guilt. 5.
In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure
shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of
promoting their rehabilitation. 6.
Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the
right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal
according to law. 7.
When a person has by a final decision been
convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been
reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered
fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the
person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be
compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of
the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him. 8.
No one shall be liable to be tried or punished
again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or
acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. 9.
Despite this, in practice, violations of this
important legal principle are common. Public appetite for sensation,
real-crime, real-time stories place enormous pressure on public authorities
and the media to violate the presumption of innocence. 10. Prejudicial
statements Although it
is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence for a public authority
to make public statements implying the guilt of a suspect, such statements
are a common occurrence in many countries across the globe. This is a
particular problem where there is considerable public interest due to the
nature of the offence or identity of the suspect. Furthermore, in many
countries there is systemic press reliance on leaks of confidential
information from public authorities, which are exceedingly hard to
investigate and sanction. (a)
Clear legal regimes are required to prohibit
public officials making public statements that imply the guilt of a suspect.
Crucially, violations need to be investigated and enforced by impartial
bodies, regardless of the seniority of the official in question. (b) Journalists
should not be required to reveal their sources but efforts. (c)
Where public officials make public statements
implying the guilt of a suspect or leak information to the press, effective
redress must be provided. “Television
and newspapers are loaded with interviews of police officers who give
journalists copies of arrest warrants and pictures. Police push their agenda
with videos they took for the case file – giving the material to TV channels
and websites.” – Italian lawyer. 11. Press
coverage Media reporting on crime-related cases frequently violates the
presumption of innocence. Suspects are commonly presented as though they are
guilty and reporting is often unbalanced against the suspect. Some
groups of Social exclusion or social marginalisation who get classed as
suspects are more likely to bear the brunt of these problems. ·
Where reporting is found to violate the
presumption of innocence, appropriate measures should be taken to rectify
this. ·
Access to and sharing of restricted information
should be monitored where possible. E.g., through technology which
records who accesses electronic records); and ·
Leaks should be robustly investigated by an
impartial body. ·
These issues can cause irreversible damage to a
suspect’s reputation and can also affect judgments about a person’s guilt or
innocence. 12. Public Statements Where it is found that public officials have made public statements
implying the guilt of a suspect, redress must be provided. In particularly
severe cases, this threatens the chance of the suspect receiving a fair
trial, or undermines the integrity of the justice system, it may be
appropriate to drop criminal charges or quash a conviction. Other remedies
might include the payment of compensation and/or a public apology to victims. Ř Example Ř Social and
Cultural Developments, Crime Prevention and Human Resources https://www.unmultimedia.org/searchers/yearbook/page.jsp?volume=1990&bookpage=686
Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks
upon his honour and reputation. Every-one has the right to the protection of
the law against such interference or attacks. Arbitrary inference is a classic tenet
of cognitive therapy created by Aaron T. Beck in 1979. He defines the act of
making an arbitrary inference as the process of drawing a conclusion without
sufficient evidence, or without any evidence at all ICCPR Article 17 states: No one shall
be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks. Article 13: 1.
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and
residence within the borders of each State. 2.
Everyone has the right to leave any country,
including his own, and to return to his country. The right to freedom of movement
includes the right to move freely within a country for those who are lawfully
within the country 1a: a geographic area belonging to or
under the jurisdiction of a governmental authority. b: an administrative subdivision of a
country. Article 14: 1.
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution. 2.
This right may not be invoked in the case of
prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The right of asylum (sometimes called
right of political asylum; from the Ancient Greek word ἄσυλον)
is an ancient juridical concept, under which a person persecuted by one's own
country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another
country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary. Article 15: 1.
Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Currently, there are two primary
conditions under which citizenship can be deprived: if a person has gained
citizenship through fraud or false representation; or when “the Secretary of
State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good” Home Secretary Theresa May has said
that the UK will not remove citizenship from IS fighters born in the UK as
"it is illegal for any country to make its citizens stateless". ...
The law says that the Home Secretary should have a "reasonable
belief" that those being stripped of their nationality will not become
stateless. Article 16: 1.
Men and women of full age, without any l
imitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and
to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
marriage and at its dissolution. 2.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free
and full consent of the intending spouses. 3.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit
of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article’s 12 /16 protects the right of
men and women of marriageable age to marry and to start a family and it also
protects the right for respect for your private and family life. Men and women of marriageable age shall
have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws
governing the exercise of this right. The law had the valid aim of protecting
the family and any children of the couple. Article 17: 1.
Everyone has the right to own property alone as
well as in association with others. 2.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property. Everyone has the right to own, use,
dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may
be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in
the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair
compensation being paid in good time for their loss. To John Locke, the right to property
belonged to the so-called natural rights such as life and liberty, which
human beings could not be deprived of. ... Property is vital to society,
since property and contracts jointly form the basis of exchange and trade, on
which the market economy is built. The term "arbitrarily" would seem
to prohibit unreasonable interferences by states and the taking of property
without compensation, but a precise and agreed upon definition does not
appear in the preparatory documents. Article 17 should also be read in
conjunction with other provisions of the UDHR. Article18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion
or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance. freedom of thought
includes the right to change your religion or beliefs at any time. Every person has the right to put their
thoughts and beliefs into action. This could include your right to wear
religious clothing, the right to talk about your beliefs or take part in
religious worship. Importantly, this right protects a wide
range of non-religious beliefs including atheism, agnosticism, veganism and
pacifism. For a belief to be protected under this article, it must be
serious, concern important aspects of human life or behaviour, be sincerely
held, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society. Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions with-out
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion
and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers. Freedom of expression refers to the
ability of an individual or group of individuals to express their beliefs,
thoughts, ideas, and emotions about different issues free from government
censorship Article 20: 1.
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association. 2.
No one may be compelled to belong to an
association. The right to freedom of assembly and
association protects your right to peacefully protest, go to demonstrations
as well as join political parties, trade unions and/or voluntary groups. It
also means that nobody can force you to join a protest, trade union,
political party or another association. Freedom of assembly is explicitly
guaranteed in the First Amendment, securing the right of people to meet for
any purpose connected with government. Freedom of association protects the
activities and composition of such meetings. Article 21: 1.
Everyone has the right to take part in the
government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 2.
Everyone has the right to equal access to public
service in his country. 3.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine
elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by
secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. The Equality Strategy - Building a
Fairer Britain Equality is at the
heart of this Coalition Government. It is fundamental to building a strong
economy and a fair society; and in these difficult economic times equality is
even more important. As we rebuild our economy it is essential that we make
sure we benefit from the talents of everyone in the UK. As we take the
difficult decisions necessary to tackle the UK’s record deficit we are
determined to do so fairly, protecting the most vulnerable and prioritising
equal opportunities for all. Theresa May Home Secretary and
Minister for Women and Equalities Documentation at https://serverone.hopto.org/The%20Equality%20Strategy/
Article 22: 1.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to
social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and
international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and
resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Social services programs include social
or income assistance, services for children and adults with development
disabilities, community services for specific populations, as well as child
and spousal support orders. Social services include the benefits and
facilities like education, food subsidies, health care, police, fire service,
job training and subsidized housing, adoption, community management, policy
research, and lobbying. In politics, lobbying, persuasion, or
interest representation is the act of lawfully attempting to influence the
actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often
legislators or members of regulatory agencies. States must progressively realise the
right to social security through measures to offer protection, through cash
or in kind, which enables individuals and families to acquire at least
essential health care, basic shelter and housing, water and sanitation, food,
and the most basic forms of education. Article 23: 1. Everyone
has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone,
without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone
who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for
himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and
supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. 4. Everyone
has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his
interests. President Harry Truman in 1947 amended
parts of the NLRA when he passed the Taft-Harley Act. This Act created the
current right-to-work law, which allows states to prohibit compulsory
membership with a union as a condition for employment in the public and
private sectors of the country. The right to work is a foundation for
the realization of other human rights and for life with dignity. It includes
the opportunity to earn a livelihood by work freely chosen or accepted. ...
States are obliged to ensure fair wages, equal pay for equal work, and equal
remuneration for work of equal value. Decent work means opportunities for
every- one to get work that is productive and delivers a fair income,
security in the workplace and social protection for families, better
prospects for personal development and social integration --- The right to work means that the
individual should be able to choose employment without interference from
authorities. ... The same can be said about the free choice of employment in
relation to protection against unemployment. Free choice cannot exist if the
unemployed are left unprotected. We are entitled to our personal
preferences and choices but only if they do not betray the human rights of
others. ... Your freedom of choice (or mine) does not trump the human rights
of another. It can be no other way in a civil society Wagner Act (aka the National Labour
Relations Act) gave most private sector employees the right to organize. ...
Wagner Act employers were required to bargain in good faith; under the
Taft-Hartley that duty was extended to unions. This protected the unions and
employers from unfair labour practices. -- Income protection insurance is a policy
that protects you against loss of income due to unemployment, illness or
accident. It could provide you with a tax-free income and could continue to
pay out until you are able to return back to work or retire. -- Domestic workers have the right to just
and favourable conditions of work, including protection against abuse,
harassment and violence, decent working conditions, paid annual leave, normal
working hours, daily and weekly rest on the basis of equality with other
workers, minimum wage coverage where this exists Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and
leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic
holidays with pay. The right to rest and leisure is the
economic, social and cultural right to adequate time away from work and other
societal responsibilities. It is linked to the right to work and historical
movements for legal limitations on working hours. Linked to reasonable working hours,
leisure time and paid vacations is the right of each person to
self-development and education. This provision is one of many places where
the UDHR aims to ensure the full development of people's personality. to
ensure high productivity. Article 25: 1. Everyone
has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being
of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical
care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 2. Motherhood
and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children,
whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. The right to adequate housing derives from
the right to an adequate standard of living and is of central importance for
the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights. ... It should be
seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace, and dignity. What is the right to an adequate
standard of living? ... Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of
living including adequate food, water and housing and to the continuous
improvement of living conditions. Standard of living includes factors as
a whole quality and availability of employment, class disparity, poverty
rate, quality and housing affordability, hours of work are required to
purchase necessities, gross domestic product, inflation rate, amount of
leisure time, access to and quality of healthcare, quality The definition of a standard of living
is how well or how poorly a person or group of people live in terms of having
their needs and wants met A measurement of how well off a group
of people or an individual perceive themselves to be. Standard of living
takes into account the quality of housing, medical care, education,
transportation, and entertainment opportunities. There is no objective,
single measure of standard of living; rather, it is a value judgment made by
individuals. However, to inject a degree of objectivity, sometimes annual per
capita income figures are used to compare different standards of living. A level of material comfort as measured
by the goods, services, and luxuries available to an individual, group, or
nation. noun A level of subsistence, as of a nation,
social class, or person, with reference to the adequacy of necessities and
comforts in daily life. noun A relative measure of the quality of
life a person or group has. Article 26: 1. Everyone
has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the
elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.
Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and
higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education
shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall
promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or
religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for
the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents
have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to
their children. Education a human right UK "No person shall be denied the right
to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation
to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to
ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and
philosophical convictions." Article 27: 1. Everyone
has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to
enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone
has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting
from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the
author. The objective of these rights is to
guarantee that people and communities have an access to culture and can
participate in the culture of their election. Cultural rights are human
rights that aim at assuring the enjoyment of culture and its components in
conditions of equality, human dignity and non-discrimination. The main difference between culture and
tradition is that traditions describe a group's beliefs and behaviours that
are passed down from one generation to another. Culture describes the shared
characteristics of the entire group, which has been amassed throughout its
history# Article 28: 1. Everyone
is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29: 1.
Everyone has duties to the community in which
alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights
and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be
exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30: 1.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as
implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity
or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein. The Human Rights Act 1998 UK
Bill of Rights https://serverone.hopto.org/Human%20Rights%20Act%20Yes/
Human Rights Act 1998 – Legislation
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents The Human Rights Act 1998
(HRA) came into force in October 2000. It is one of the principal ways that
internationally-recognised human rights are given legal effect in the UK. The
Act means that vitally-important safeguards set out in the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are available to everyone. Article
3: Freedom from torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment Article
4: Freedom from slavery and
forced labour Article
5: Right to liberty and
security Article
6: Right to a fair trial Article
7: No punishment without law Article
8: Respect for your private
and family life, home and correspondence Article
9: Freedom of thought, belief
and religion Article
10: Freedom of expression Article
11: Freedom of assembly and
association Article
12: Right to marry and start a
family Article
14: Protection from
discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Protocol
1, Article 1: Right to peaceful
enjoyment of your property Protocol
1, Article 2: Right to education Protocol
1, Article 3: Right to participate in
free elections Protocol
13, Article 1: Abolition of the death
penalty European
Convention on Human Rights “ECHR” https://serverone.hopto.org/Convention%20for%20the%20Protection%20of%20Human%20Rights/
European
Convention on Human Rights “ECHR “Treaty
of London 5 May (1949)” https://serverone.hopto.org/European%20Convention%20on%20Human%20Rights%20Yes/
Article
1: Respecting rights Article
2: Life Article
3: Torture Article
4: Servitude Article
5: Liberty and security Article
6: Fair trial Article
7: Retroactivity Article
8: Privacy Article
9: Conscience and religion Article
10: Expression Article
11: Association Article
12: Marriage Article
13: Effective remedy Article
14: Discrimination Article
15: Derogations Article
16: Foreign parties Article
17: Abuse of rights Article
18: Permitted restrictions ECHR:
Convention protocols ECHR:
Protocol 1 Article
1: Property Article
2: Education Article
3: Elections Protocol
4: Civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion Protocol
6: Restriction of death penalty Protocol
7: Crime and family Protocol
12: Discrimination Protocol
13: Complete abolition of death penalty ECHR:
Procedural and institutional protocols ECHR
Protocol 11: ECHR
Protocol 14: International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights: Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
Because of the named and listed above I get
subject to unlawful treatments by Government officials’ employees and that of
their client’s, unwilfully My dissatisfaction gets caused by the listed
Public-Duties-Official-Servant’s not meeting their companies Equality
policy’s – “Statements” to a fair standard of compliance. Reasons for my Upset(s); -- 01 of 06. Public sector Equality Duty; -- Requires that public bodies have due regard for
the need too: “Eliminate discrimination” 1.
I know, that this goal never got
accomplished, when dealing with issues, regarding my case history. For instance: -- The named people who represent the
companies as list above Staff Failed to obligate their mandatory goals that
are contained within the context of their companies’ policy’s, when on the
date of; -- 00/00/2006 their employed, employees failed to Eliminate
unlawful “Discrimination,” causing me harassment and then on
to be victimised by their staff and other persons, Due their neglect and criminal
intentions leading onto much more other misconduct conduct that is prohibited
by the United Kingdom’s Acts of laws. This got sadly achieved by the named
companies not managing to be in compliance of the Overview of their interbody
policy’s that maintain the management of their services provided to me their
client, when “Evaluating their Services.” When their employers acted in such a
way, I suffer because of their actions with Negligence and or
Gross-Misconduct, due to the issues of; 2.
The Negligence that I claim about got
caused due to: 3.
The Gross-Misconduct that I claim about
got caused due to: 02 of 06 Public sector Equality Duty also; -- Requires that public bodies have due regard to
the need to: Maintain a fair level of standard, when dealing
with issues such as; -- “Advance equality of opportunity” 1.
this will include; -- The removal or minimisation off
disadvantages suffered by people that is due to their protected
characteristics and I know that this goal never got accomplished, when
dealing with issues regarding my case history. For instance: -- The named people who represent the
companies as list above Staff Failed to obligate their mandatory goals that
are contained within the context of their companies’ policy’s, when on the
date of; -- 00/00/2006 their employed employees failed to Eliminate unlawful
discrimination causing me “Harassment” and then on
encouraged for me to be victimised by their staff not advancing correctly to
a fair standard in the equality of opportunity when managing people who share
a protected characteristic and those who do not, that did in fact lead onto
other conduct that is prohibited by the United Kingdom’s Acts of laws. This occurred when their employers
acted in such a way that I suffer because of their actions with Negligence
and or Gross-Misconduct, due to the issues of; 2.
The Negligence that I claim about got
caused due to: 3.
The Gross-Misconduct that I claim about
got caused due to: 03 of 06 Public sector Equality Duty also; -- Requires that public bodies have due regard to
the need to: Take steps to meet the needs of people with
certain “protected characteristics” 1.
where these are different from the
needs of other people and I know that this goal never got accomplished when
dealing with issues regarding my case history. For instance: The named people who represent the
companies as list above Staff Failed to obligate their mandatory goals that
are contained within the context of their companies’ policy’s, when on the
date of; -- 00/00/2006 their employed employees failed to Eliminate unlawful
discrimination causing me harassment and then on to be “Victimised” by
not Fostering a good relationship between me their staff and my neighbours
whom live on my housing estate who share a protected characteristic and those
who do not who do live outside of the boundaries of Burncroft Avenue Enfield
London. Their staff and other persons, also
lead to other conduct that is prohibited by the United Kingdom’s Acts of
laws. When their employers acted in such a
way, I suffer because of their actions with Negligence and or
Gross-Misconduct, due to the issues of; 2.
The Negligence that I claim about got
caused due to: 3.
The Gross-Misconduct that I claim about
got caused due to: 04 of 06 Public Sector Equality Duty also; -- Requires that public bodies have due regard to
the need to: Encourage people with certain protected
characteristics to “participate in public life or in other
activities where their participation is disproportionately low” 1.
I know that this goal never got
accomplished when dealing with issues regarding my case history. For instance: The named people who represent the
companies as list above Staff Failed to obligate their mandatory goals that
are contained within the context of their companies’ policy’s, when on the
date of; -- 2.
Start Date: 00/00/2018 3.
End Date: 00/00/2018 Their employed employees failed to
equal a reliable level of participation concerning the issues of- 4.
The Staffs reasonable persons became
Inconsiderate in manner and disproportionately low in regards towards
promotion of availability of information in reference towards: -- 5.
And then on them dates listed their
staff caused me a Disadvantage within their companies running operations and
lacked to Perform Effectively while maintaining “Consciously, “with due
respect towards the companies Equality Duties,” 1.
The staff stayed Uncaring and did not act
responsibility in regards to their participation in resolving these issues.
Their staff and other persons, also lead to other conduct that is prohibited
by the United Kingdom’s Acts of laws, The employers acted in such a way that
I suffer because of their actions with Negligence and or Gross-Misconduct,
due to the issues of; 2.
The Negligence that I claim about got
caused due to: 3.
The Gross-Misconduct that I claim about
got caused due to: 05 of 06 Public sector Equality Duty also; -- Requires that public bodies have due regard to
the need to: “Foster good relations between different people
when carrying out their activities” 1.
I know that this goal never got
accomplished when dealing with issues regarding my case history. For instance: The named people who represent the
companies as list above Staff Failed to obligate their mandatory goals that
are contained within the context of their companies’ policy’s, when on the
date of; -- 00/00/2006 their employed employees failed to accomplish a level
of “Fostering good relations between different people when carrying
out their activities.” Their staff and other persons, also
lead to other conduct that is prohibited by the United Kingdom’s Acts of
laws. When their employers acted in such a
way it caused me to suffer because of their actions with Negligence and or
Gross-Misconduct. 2.
The Negligence that I claim about got
caused due to: 3.
The Gross-Misconduct that I claim about
got caused due to: 06 of 06 The Equality Duty is a must to support good
decision making – Encourages public bodies to understand how
different people will be affected by their activities so that policies and
services are appropriate and accessible to all and meet different people’s
needs; -- “By understanding the effect of their activities
on different people” 1.
I know that this goal never got
accomplished when dealing with issues regarding my case history. For instance: The named people who represent the
companies as list above Staff Failed to obligate their mandatory goals that
are contained within the context of their companies’ policy’s, when on the
date of; -- 00/00/2006 their employed employees failed to Effectively “Understand
the Effect of their Activities on Different People” And then after “recognition in noticing
the problem of cause’ so to change the negative impact in a fair time scale. Their staff and other persons, also
lead to other conduct that is prohibited by the United Kingdom’s Acts of
laws. When their employers acted in such a
way, I suffer because of their actions with Negligence and or
Gross-Misconduct, due to the issues of; 2.
The Negligence that I claim about got
caused due to: 3.
The Gross-Misconduct that I claim about
got caused due to: Hearsay WLR 1272; [2006] EWHC 1869 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff75f60d03e7f57eabd50
The Right to a Fair Trial R v Horncastle and others principal issue raised by these
appeals is whether a conviction based “solely or
to a decisive extent” on the statement of a witness whom the defendant has
had no chance of cross-examining necessarily infringes the defendant’s right
to a fair trial under articles 6(1) and 6(3)(d) which provide: “ (1)
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal
charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within
a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. (3)
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: .
. . (d)
to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same
conditions as witnesses against him.” When can evidence not be used in court? Evidence that cannot be presented to the jury or decision maker for any
of a variety of reasons: it was improperly obtained, it is prejudicial (the
prejudicial value outweighs the probative value), it is hearsay, it is not
relevant to the case, etc. Can I be convicted without evidence? Can a person be convicted without evidence? The simple answer is,
“no.” You cannot be convicted of a crime without evidence. ... You cannot be
convicted of a federal crime. If there is no evidence against you, under the
law, it simply is not possible for the prosecutor's office to obtain a conviction
at trial. Community
safety accreditation schemes Community
safety accreditation schemes were introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002 to
contribute to community safety and security, and (in co-operation with the
police) to combat crime and disorder, public nuisance and other forms of
anti-social behaviour. They are a mean by which chief officers can accredit
or ‘quality assure' the employees of bodies such as a local authority,
housing association, licensed private security firm, NHS trust, organisations
responsible for railway security or vehicle inspection, charities or
employers of stewards in sport in stadiums.” However, the employee of anybody
approved by the chief officer can be accredited, including civilian employees
of police authorities such as community support officers, investigating
officer’s detention officers or escort officers. Accredited members of a
scheme can be given limited powers ally exercised by the police such as the
power to issue fixed penalty notices and to confiscate alcohol and tobacco in
certain circumstances^ Chief officers must ensure that the employers have
establish and maintained satisfactory arrangements for handling complaints
relating to the carrying out by accredited persons of the functions: the
purposes of which powers are conferred For the purpose of det mining
liability for unlawful conduct of a non-police authority employee, conduct in
reliance or purported reliance on an accreditation is taken to be conduct in
the course of the person’s employment. In da case of a tort the employer is
treated as a joint tortfeasor. Similar arrangements exist for employees of
police authorities Civilians
and misconduct in a public office Civilian
staff employed by police authorities (in common with police officers), as
people who are paid out of public funds for discharging a public duty in an
office of trust, can be convicted of the common in offence of misconduct in a
public office. It would be anomalous if detention officers or escort officers
employed by a private contractor could escape liability in circumstances
where an office employed directly by a police authority would be guilty of an
offence The better view is that all detention and escort officers discharge;
public duty in an office of trust and that the contractual arrangements That
lie behind such an office cannot provide any protection for civilian officers
who are employed by a contractor, Home
Secretary The
Home Secretary must exercise his powers under the Police Act 1996 in such
manner and to such extent as appears to him best calculated to promote the
efficiency and effectiveness of the police. Each
year the Home Secretary must prepare and lay before parliament a National
Policing Plan setting out the strategic policing priorities generally for the
next three years. The Plan also sets objectives I and performance indicators
for police authorities. The
Home Secretary has extensive powers to make regulations concerning the
government, administration and conditions of service of police forces
including regulations with respect to the conduct, 1 efficiency and
effectiveness of members of police forces, the maintenance of discipline, the
suspension from a police force and from the -j office of constable. Among
numerous other powers he also has control over the annual police grant,
grants for capital expenditure and in respect of national security. The
Home Secretary can require a police authority to call upon a chief officer,
in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or resign.60 He
can also require the police authority to suspend the chief officer in certain
circumstances where he considers it necessary for the maintenance of public
confidence in the force in question.61 This must be decided by reference to
public confidence at large, that is, nationally, rather than the confidence
of the public in the police area in question. Most
modern statutes refer simply to the ‘Secretary of State' meaning one of Her
Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State: Interpretation Act 1978 s5, Sch 1. Responsibility for police matters is discharged by
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, referred to in this book as
the Home Secretary, Malicious
process Malicious
process is a civil Wong, separate from malicious prosecution, which entails
instituting a legal process short of prosecution without reasonable and
probable cause and with malice. “The two most Common examples are
applications for arrest warrants and search Warrants.63 64 In
relation to such applications there are four ingredients of the tort that the
claimant must establish,65 namely: • a successful application for the
warrant was made; there was a lack of reasonable and probable cause for making
the application. it
was made maliciously; and there was resultant damage. Proving
a lack of reasonable and probable cause and proving malice have been
described in detail under the preceding section on malicious prosecution. In
relation to proceedings that the claimant has no right to attend, such as
applications for warrants, it need not be shown that they terminated in his
or her favour.66 67 68 Damage for these purposes is not as strictly confined
as under the tort of malicious prosecution and encompasses all forms of
recognised damage." If
the ingredients of a malicious process claim are proved, the claimant will
overcome the difficulty that otherwise arises because of the Constables
Protection Act 1750 in suing in relation to arrests or searches undertaken in
obedience to a warrant (see paras 6.76-6.78 and 9.15). If the claimant cannot
prove a lack of reasonable and probable cause and/or malice, in some
circumstances an action in negligence may lie if the warrant was obtained on
the basis of inaccurate information.6* 1. Roy v Prior [1970] 2 All ER 729, HL;
Gibbs v Rea [1998] AC 78G, PC. 2. For other instances of malicious
process see Clayton and Tomlinson Civil Actions Against the Police (3rd edn, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, 2004) paras
8-083—8-089. 3. Keegan v Chief Constable of
Merseyside Police [2003] 1 WLR 2187. 4. However, if the form of process under
challenge involves the attendance of both parties, such as a complaint of
breach of the peace, then in the claimant’s favour termination must be shown. 5. See the discussion of permitted heads
of tortious damage in relation to misfeasance in a public office and in
relation to negligence at paras 7,45 and 8.85 respectively. 6. Hough v Chief Constable of the
Staffordshire Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 39, though
see the discussion of this case at para 8.66. Misfeasance
in a public office Definition 7.39 The tort of misfeasance in a public
office was originally developed during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries for the benefit of elec¬tors who were wilfully
denied the right to vote by a returning officer. It was little used for some
considerable time afterwards. More recently the value of this tort has been
recognised as a broader remedy for abuse of administrative power. Over the
last ten years it has come to be increasingly deployed in claims against the
police. The rationale of the tort is that executive or administrative power
‘may be exercised only for the public good’ and not for ulterior or improper
purposes.69 70 71 However, the fact that an official act in excess of his or
her powers does not always give rise to a monetary remedy. The elements of
the tort of misfeasance in a public office were clarified by the House of
Lords in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3 f° as follows: • the conduct must be that of a
public officer, exercising power in that capacity. • the officer must either intend to
injure the claimant by his or her acts or knowingly/recklessly act beyond his
or her powers. • and thereby cause damage to the
claimant. • in circumstances where he or she
knew the act would probably cause damage of this kind. 7.40 These elements are considered in more
detail in turn below. Miscon¬duct in a public
office can also amount to a criminal offence.7' A
public officer 7.41 A police officer who abuses his position
will certainly fulfil the first element of the tort. A civilian employed by a
police authority is also likely to be a public officer for these purposes, as
the comparable offence of misconduct in a public office applies to every
person who is appointed to discharge a public duty and is paid to do so.72 A
decision made by an employee of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to 1. Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1
WLR 54, 85F. 2. [2003] 2 AC 1, HL. 3. In Att-Gen’s Reference No 3 of2003
(2004) 2 Cr App R 23 the Court of Appeal con-sidered
the ingredients of the criminal offence; they are similar, but not identi¬cal to the elements of the tort of misfeasance. 4. R v Bowden [1995] 4 AUER 505. an
actual or prosecution can also ground a claim in misfea¬sance
(if the other elements of the tort are satisfied)/3 The
officer’s act In
the Three Rivers case the House of Lords emphasised that both limbs of the
tort require the claimant to prove bad faith on the part of the relevant
officer. Accident, mistake or carelessness is insufficient/4 The first way of
committing the tort, where the officer intends to injure the claimant by his
or her acts, is often referred to as ‘targeted malice’. The essence is the
abuse of power for a specific improper or ulterior motive. The second way of
committing the tort involves the relevant officer acting in excess of his or
her powers. An example of the difference between the two ways that the tort
can be committed could arise from an instance where a police officer mis¬used information he or she gained from police records
by leaking it to the claimant’s employer, thereby leading to the loss of his
or her job. Assuming there was no legitimate reason for the disclosure (see
para 10.17 onwards), the conduct could come within the first limb of the tort
if the officer acted out of spite and in the hope that it would lead to a dis¬missal, because the claimant had previously
complained about that officer. The conduct could fall within the second limb
of the tort if the officer had not acted out of spite but, knowing there were
force procedures prohibiting such disclosures, he or she had decided to
proceed anyway because he or she thought the procedures were too restrictive. In
the Three Rivers case the House of Lords decided that in order to establish
liability under the second limb, the officer must either exceed his or her
powers knowingly or be reckless about this occurring, in the subjective sense
that the officer actually appreciated the risk that he or she was going
beyond his or her powers but proceeded indif¬ferent
to this risk. A failure to appreciate such a risk, even if it was obvious,
would not suffice for misfeasance. In Three Rivers Lord Hutton said that the
‘act’ in question may be an omission to act, provided it is the product of a
deliberate decision not to act as opposed to mere inad¬vertence
or oversight,73 74 75 1. Elguzouli-Daf
v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 1 All ER 833. CA. 2. See Lo similar effect: Thomas v Chief
Constable of Cleveland Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1552. 3. See also Toumia
v Evans (1999) Times 1 April, CA. 7.42 Misfeasance is a tort of personal bad
faith and ultimately a claimant must establish bad faith on the part of a
particular officer; but it is not always necessary to identify the officer(s)
at the outset, if it is suffi¬ciently dear from the
conduct pleaded by the adamant that bad faith on the part of individual
officers was involved.711 Damage 7.43 To succeed in establishing liability, the
claimant must usually show that he or she suffered a recognisable head of
damage' in consequence of the public officer's wrongful actions. Unlike the
position in relation to the intentional torts of false imprisonment, assault
and battery, it is insufficient to rely on the claimant's inconvenience or
distress where ‘damage' has to be shown. ‘Damage’ in this context covers
financial loss, loss of liberty76 77 and death or personal injury.78 The
latter induces both physical injury and psychiatric trauma provided a recognised
medical condition is established. Loss of reputation will probably suffice as
well.79 However, where the misfeasance involves an interference with the
claimant's constitutional rights it is unnecessary to prove damage.80
Constitutional rights are those which are of such importance that the right
in question cannot be abrogated by the state, save by a specific legislative
provision.81 82 Examples of constitutional rights are the right to vote and
the right of access to justice.87 The extent to which abuses of power by
police officers could involve infringement of the claimant’s constitutional
rights is cur¬rently uncertain. The more serious
the abuse, the stronger the chance would be of showing such an infringement. 1. Chagas Islanders v Att-Gen [2003]
EWHC 2222. 2. See W v Home Office [1997] 1mm AR
302, CA and the speech of Lord Clyde in Darker v Chief Constable of the West
Midlands Police [2001] AC 435 HL. 3. Akenzua v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 All ER 35. 4. See Clayton and Tomlinson Civil
Actions Against the Police (3rd edn, Thomson Sweet
& Maxwell, 2004) para 11-024. 5. Wcttkim- v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ
966 where the claimant's legally privileged correspondence was opened by
prison officers in breach of his constitutional right to unimpeded access to
his solicitor, 6. Rv Lord
Chancellor exp Witham [1998] QB 575. 7. See the discussion in Watkins v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ
966. The
officer's state of mind in relation to the damage The
House of Lords' decision in the Three Rivers case established that it was
sufficient if the relevant officer was aware of the probability of damage
being caused by his or her actions; it was unnecessary to show that he or she
regarded this as a certainty. The same case also decided it was sufficient if
the officer was reckless as to the probability of damage resulting from his
or her actions (provided the recklessness was of the subjective type where
the officer actually foresaw the risk, as discussed in para 7.43 above). An
issue remained as to the extent to which the relevant officer was required to
appreciate the risk of damage to the particular victim. This was specifically
considered by the Court of Appeal in Akenzua v
Secretary of State for the Home Departments The claim was brought by
relatives of a woman murdered by a vio¬lent
criminal who had entered the United Kingdom illegally but (it was alleged)
had been permitted to remain in breach of usual proce¬dures
and in deliberate disregard of the risks he posed, because of his role as a
paid police informant. The defendants sought to strike out the claim on the
basis that even if the relevant officers were aware of the murderer's violent
tendencies, they were not aware that he posed a threat to the particular
woman he killed. The Court of Appeal rejected the suggestion that misfeasance
in a public office involved a proxim¬ity
requirement similar to that applied in the tort of negligence (see the
discussion of negligence claims at para 8.51). For liability in misfea-sance to be established it was sufficient if the
relevant officer con¬templated harm to one or more
victims who were unknown unless or until the expected harm eventuated. Chief
officer’s liability M7
It is sometimes suggested on behalf of defendants that the act of alleged
misfeasance is, by its nature, beyond anything contemplated by the officer’s
position and as such outside the scope of the chief officer’s liability for
the actions of officers of the force. However, the usual principles of
vicarious liability apply (see para 11.107 onwards). Accordingly, the chief
officer of the relevant force will generally be held legally responsible for
acts committed in the officer’s capacity as a constable, albeit that he or
she has exceeded the powers of that office.83 84 1. Watkins v Secretary of State for the.
Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 966. 2. See Marsh v Chief Constable of
Lancashire Constabulary [2003] EWCA Civ 284 and
Weir i> Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
[2003] ICR 708, Misfeasance
in police cases Many
instances of police misconduct will fall within the more established torts,
such as false imprisonment in relation to a wrongful arrest. In those
instances, a claim in misfeasance is usually superfluous. However, the tort
of misfeasance may be of considerable assistance to claimants in
circumstances where misconduct does not relate to arrest, detention or
assault. Criminal prosecutions are dealt with sep¬arately
below. Recent examples of the breadth of misfeasance claims in civil actions
against the police include. 7.44 an officer’s misuse of information
obtained via the police national computer concerning the claimant’s
convictions: Elliot v Chief Constable of Wiltshire?' 7.45 an officer’s deliberate failure to
investigate a complaint of crime and forging of related documentation; Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary?6 7.46 wrongful identification of the claimants
as distributors of stolen imported vehicles, publicised by officers to
customers of the business: Cruickshank Ltd v Chief Constable of Kent
Constabulary,7 7.47 misuse of a known violent criminal as a
paid police informant: Akenzua v Secretary of State
for the Home Department Additionally,
in Thomas v Secretary of State for the Home Department'?* the court accepted
that the tort would be made out if prison officers deliberately abused their
powers by racially discriminating against and abusing inmates or encouraging
other prisoners to so abuse them (albeit this was not established on the
evidence in that case). How¬ever, despite the wide
scope of circumstances that could lead to a suc¬cessful
claim, it is important to bear in mind, as mentioned above, that claims in
misfeasance require bad faith to be established and that carelessness,
however gross, will never suffice. The Court of Appeal has recently warned
against the routine inclusion of allegations of mis- 85 86 87 88 89 7.48 7.49 1. (1996) Times 5 December, ChD. The court accepted on a strike-out application that
the claim was arguable. 2. [2001] 3 All ER 193. Liability was
conceded and the case was contested on the issue of damages. 3. [2002] EWCA Civ
1840. The court accepted on a strike-out application that the claim was
arguable. 4. [2002] EWCA Civ
1840. 5. (2000) 31 July, QBD, unreported. feasance
in police actions where there is no clear evidence to support a contention of
dishonest abuse of power.' Misfeasance
and malicious prosecution A
vital question in relation to the tort of misfeasance is its inter-rela¬tionship with the tort of malicious
prosecution in circumstances where a claimant wishes to sue in respect of a
failed prosecution brought against him or her. A successful claim in malicious
prosecution requires proof that the criminal proceedings against the claimant
lacked reasonable and probable cause (see para 7.19 onwards). But a
prosecution supported by sufficient evidence to amount to reasonable and
probable cause may nonetheless be tainted by false evidence. A rel¬atively common allegation made by claimants is that
officers have dis¬honestly 'improved' the state of
the prosecution case against them, by, for example, falsely claiming that
admissions were made. In instances where there was a substantial amount of
other evidence implicating the claimant, a malicious prosecution action is
unlikely to succeed (see para 7.23). The House of Lords considered the viabil¬ity' of a claim in misfeasance in such
circumstances in Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police?' where the
defendant sought to strike out a claim in misfeasance concerning allegations
that officers fabricated evidence and misused informants. The defendant
relied upon the principle of witness immunity (that is, that a person cannot
be subjected to a civil claim in relation to evidence he or she gives in
court proceedings). Malicious prosecution, unlike misfeasance, is an
expressly recognised exception to this principle. Previously, in Silcott v
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis?1 the Court of Appeal had struck out
a misfeasance claim brought by Winston Silcott concerning admissions
allegedly fabricated by police officers in support of his prosecution for the
murder of PC Blakelock. The Court of Appeal said that
the principle of witness immunity extended to the preparation of evidence for
trial, including the creation of false evidence to be used at trial, so the
claim in misfeasance could not proceed (although in that instance the
evidence which was said to have been fabricated was sufficiently fundamental
to the prosecution case for the civil action to proceed as a malicious
prosecution claim). In Darker the House of 90 91 92 1.
Masters v Chief Constable of Sussex [2002] EWCA Civ
1482. 2. [2002] EWCA Civ
1482. 3. (1996) 8 Admin LR 633. Lords
rejected the Court of Appeal's approach. They held that witness immunity did
not extend to the deliberate fabrication of evidence by police officers. They
drew a distinction between officers' conduct that was part of the investigation
process, which fell outside the immu¬nity, and
action undertaken in an officer’s capacity as a witness, which came within
the immunity. As the House of Lords observed, the offi¬cers
never intended their dishonest creation of evidence to form part of the
account they gave as witnesses at the criminal trial; on the con¬trary, they intended to conceal it. Thus, in
consequence of the Darker decision, officers’ fabrication of admissions,
planting of false evidence and dishonest manipulation of potential witnesses
would all fall out¬side the immunity. In contrast,
a complaint that did not concern ear¬lier
investigative action, but was simply to the effect that the officer gave a
false account of his dealings with the claimant in his evidence at the criminal
trial, would be caught by the witness immunity so as to preclude an action in
misfeasance. 7.51 If the claimant's case in misfeasance
avoids the application of the witness
immunity principle, the question remains as to whether as a matter of policy
the courts should permit the civil claim despite; there having been
reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. In Darker both Lords Cooke
and Hutton said in terms that this should not bar a claim in misfeasance.
Lord Hope appears to have been of a similar view. The other two speeches did
not consider this issue. Thus the balance of current authority suggests that
a misfeasance claim can proceed in such circumstances.93 However,
practitioners should note that, unlike in malicious prosecution claims, where
time runs from the date when the criminal proceedings terminated in the
claimant’s favour, the normal six-year limitation period runs from the date
of misconduct relied upon (see paras 11.69-11.71). Further, if the
misfeasance action succeeds, outstanding questions remain as to the level of
compensatory damages (as opposed to exemplary dam¬ages)
that would be considered appropriate for a claimant having to face tainted
prosecution evidence in circumstances where a prosecution was in any event
justified. 1. Contrary to earlier observations made
in McDonagh v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1989) Times 28
December, QBD. Negligence
and related actions Malicious prosecution 7.2 It is a tort maliciously and without
reasonable and probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings against
another person, which terminate in favour of that other and which result in
damage to reputation, person, freedom or property. 7.3 The right to sue for malicious
prosecution is intended to protect people from unwarranted accusations being
brought against them in the criminal courts. Facing false charges may lead a
person to suffer detention in custody, financial damage, loss of standing in
his- or her community, anxiety and/or even psychiatric injury. However, the
courts also recognise the importance of people, in particular the police, not
feeling inhibited in using the legal process to prosecute crime and consider
that collateral litigation following the resolution of criminal proceedings
should be closely controlled. In framing the ingredients of the common law
tort of malicious prosecution, the courts have had to weigh up these
competing considerations. As Fleming says: The tort of malicious
prosecution is dominated by the problem of balancing two countervailing
interests of high social importance: safeguarding the individual from being
harassed by unjustifiable litigation and encouraging citizens to aid in law
enforcement.' 7.4 As we shall see in more detail below,
the balance has been struck by the courts requiring claimants to go so far as
to prove (among other) 1 1 Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th
edition, I. BC Information Services, 1998). p671. See this text for a
fuller discussion of the competing public interests’ things} bad faith on the
part of those responsible for the prosecution. A prosecution brought for a
proper purpose will never be a malicious prosecution, even if based on
slender evidence. Thus, although thousands of people are acquitted of the
offences of which they were accused every year, only a relatively small
proportion of those people will have a viable claim for malicious
prosecution. The collective effect of the criteria that the claimant must
prove to establish a claim in malicious prosecution has led one commentator
to observe that ‘the action for malicious prosecution is held on a tighter
rein than any other in the law of torts'" and a number have called for
reform in this area.2 3 7.5 To succeed in a claim for malicious
prosecution against the police, it must be shown that damage has been
suffered because: •
the police prosecuted; and •
the criminal case was concluded in
the accused’s favour; and •
reasonable and probable cause were
absent in the bringing of the prosecution; and •
the police acted maliciously. These elements are described
in more detail in turn below. 7.6 Malicious prosecution claims are
particularly useful where the claimant alleges that the prosecution case
against him was based on evidence concocted by the police. It is much more
difficult to establish a malicious prosecution claim where the prosecution
evidence was substantially based upon accounts given by independent third
parties, even if that evidence was discredited during the criminal
proceedings. If a claimant wishes to allege police fabrication of evidence in
circumstances where the prosecution was also based on significant
incriminating evidence from other sources, a claim of misfeasance in a public
office may be a more viable option, if the fabrication can be established,
than an action for malicious prosecution.4 7.7 A malicious prosecution claim usually
entitles the parties to choose trial by judge and jury, unless any of the
prescribed exceptions apply.5 The six-year limitation period for
commencing a claim runs from the date when the criminal proceedings
terminated in the claimant's 2 Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th
edition, LBC Information Services, 1998). 3 See e.g., Clayton and
Tomlinson, Civd Actions Against the Police (3rd ed,
Thomson Sweet & Maxwell. 2004) para 8-006, 4 See paras 7.50 -7.51 looking
at the inter-relationship between the two torts. 5 See Supreme Court Act 1981 s69 and County Court Act
1984 s66, discussed in more detail at paras 12.78-12.90. favour. 6 If
the claimant's conviction was quashed on appeal, this may be some
considerable time after the misconduct took place. 7.8 It is uncertain, on the current state
of the caselaw, whether a defence to liability can be established by proving
on a balance of probabilities that the claimant did in fact commit the
offence in question. It is suggested that the better view is that technically
this affects quantum rather than liability.7 8 9 10 However, if the
police have strong evidence that he or she did in fact carry out the relevant
crime, the claimant’s credibility as a witness may well be too damaged to
enable the elements of the tort to be established. Necessary elements Damage 7.9 Unlike some other types of police
misconduct (primarily assault, battery and false imprisonment), it is
necessary to show that damage has been suffered by the claimant for the
action to succeed. In practice this requirement is sometimes overlooked, but
historically only three types of damage fulfilled this criterion in a
malicious prosecution claim, namely: loss of reputation, the risk of loss of
‘life, limb or liberty;' and financial loss of reputation is shown if the
charge was 'necessarily and naturally' defamatory, that is to say, it was one
that lowered the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of
society generally." Accordingly, an alleged failure to pay a tram fair
met this test as it involved an imputation of dishonesty,'0 On the other
hand, an allegation of pulling a communication cord on a train without
sufficient cause did not convey a sufficiently discreditable reflection on
the claimant.11 It will always depend upon the degree of moral stigma
attached to the particular offence. For example, some motoring offences, such
as drink driving or driving while disqualified carry with them a strong
element of this stigma, whereas other motoring offences, such as driving with
a bald tyre or a defective 6 Dunlop v HM Customs of Excise (1998) 12 March, CA.
Limitation is discussed in more detail at paras 11.69-11.71. 7 See Clerk s [ Lindsell on Torts (18th edn,
Sweet &. Maxwell, 2000) para 16-35 and Clayton and Tomlinson Civil
Actions Against the Police (3rd edn, Thomson Sweet
& Maxwell, 2004) para 8-075. 8 Savik v Roberts (1698) 1 Ld. Raym 374, 3 78. 9 Wijfen v Bailey eŁ Romford UDC
[1915] 1 KB 600, CA. 10 Rayson v S London Tramways Co
[1893] 2 QB 304. 11 Berry v British Transport Commission [1962] 1 QB 306, CA. light would be unlikely to
qualify. In respect of loss of liberty, it is enough if the offence for which
the claimant is prosecuted is one punishable by imprisonment;1^ there need
not be actual loss of liberty. Legal costs incurred in defending oneself
against a malicious prosecution constitute sufficient damage to qualify as
financial loss, even where the court grants an allowance towards those costs.12
13 It is sufficient for a claimant to prove that one of these three
elements resulted from the prosecution. If ‘damage' in this sense is proved
and the other elements necessary for liability are established, the claimant
can then recover for all the consequences of the prosecution at the stage
when compensation is assessed. Thus, distress and anxiety caused by the
prosecution will be taken into account when the level of damages is
determined (see chapter 14). It has not been decided whether the
requirement to show ‘damage’ could be satisfied by the claimant having
suffered psychiatric injury; arguably this could come within the concept of
risk of injury to limb. However, in practice, if psychiatric injury has
resulted from the prosecution, it is likely that the charge involved damage
to reputation and/or risk of imprisonment and so the criterion would be
satisfied in any event. Police prosecution 7.10 The claimant needs to show both that he
or she was prosecuted and that the person who he or she alleges brought the
proceedings maliciously should be treated as a ‘prosecutor’. 7.11 A prosecution consists of ‘setting a judicial officer in
motion’.14 Thus the first of these ingredients will only raise a
potential difficulty if an allegation is withdrawn at a very early stage,
before the claimant is actually brought before a criminal court at all.
However, it has been held that laying an information before a magistrate is
sufficient in itself to amount to a prosecution for these purposes. Most
criminal proceedings commence with a charge. Clayton and Tomlinson submit
that a prosecution will have begun if the claimant has been charged,15 as
this is the point from which damage to the claimant may result. On this basis
an action in malicious prosecution would lie even if the charge was then
withdrawn before the case ever came before the court. 12 Wijfcn v Bailey ef Romford UDC [1915] 1 KB 600, CA. 13 Berry v British Transport Commission [1962] 1 QB 306,
CA. 14 Sewell y National Telephone Co [1907] I KB 557, CA. 15 Clayton and Tomlinson Civil Actions Against the Police,
para 8-024. 7.12 The prosecutor who is sued must be a
person who was 'actively instrumental’ in putting the law in motion. There
has been no recent appellate case law which has considered the meaning of
this phrase. It seems relatively clear that for the purposes of this tort, a
prosecution may have a number of different ‘prosecutors. Under Prosecution of
Offenders Act 1985 s3(2) the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) takes
responsibility for the conduct of the prosecution following charge or summons
by the police. Thus, the CPS could be a prosecutor for the purposes of a
malicious prosecution action (in the relatively unlikely event that there was
evidence that the CPS had acted in bad faith). In addition, police officers
who provide material evidence in support of the prosecution would also appear
to be 'actively instrumental’ in the charge being brought or summons being
issued. In the majority of malicious prosecution claims where it is alleged
that officers fabricated evidence against the claimant, it is accepted by the
defendant that those officers were prosecutors for the purposes of the tort.16
17 Less ' commonly, defendants argue that the only police officer who
should be regarded as the prosecutor for these purposes is the officer who
determined there was sufficient evidence to charge (usually the custody
sergeant on duty at the time; although more senior officers will be involved
if the offences are serious). It is suggested that this line of argument does
not accord with the ‘actively instrumental' test which is broad enough to
include any officer whose account formed a significant part of the
prosecution case. Furthermore, such a narrow view of who is the prosecutor
does not accord with the division of labour in modern policing and would
severely emasculate the tort, as in many instances the officer determining
whether there is sufficient evidence to charge would be unaware of any
concoction in the officers’ accounts. 7.13 Where the evidence that forms the
prosecution case comes from civilian witnesses it may be more difficult to
argue that the police were prosecutors for the purposes of the tort and/or
that there was any lack of belief in the case or malice on their part.
(Unless it is contended that officers had improperly induced such witnesses
to provide evidence against the accused in circumstances where the officers
knew such accounts were likely to be unreliable.) In limited situations it is
possible to establish that a member of the public who made a false complaint
to the police is him or herself a prosecutor and so potentially 16 Danby V Beardsley (1880) 43 LT 603. 17 In castes before the Court of Appeal this approach has
not been questioned, e.g., Isaac v Chief Constable of the West Midlands
Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1405. liable in a malicious
prosecution claim instead of the police. The House of Lords considered this
issue in Martin v Watson.™ They decided that a civilian reporting an alleged
offence to the police could be a prosecutor if he or she falsely and
maliciously gave information to the police, making clear that he or she is
prepared to be a witness for the prosecution and where the facts of the
offence are such that they are exclusively within the complainant's own
knowledge, making it virtually impossible for the police to make an
independent judgment on whether or not to proceed with the prosecution. The
test was satisfied on the facts of Martin v Watson where the defendant had
made a deliberately false complaint to the police that the claimant had
exposed himself to her and there were no other witnesses to the incident. In
contrast, the test was not satisfied in Mahon v Rahn
(No2)‘-where the Serious Fraud Office had considered information
supplied by the defendants and also had obtained information from other
sources before forming an independent judgment on whether to prosecute. 7.14 A defendant may be liable not only for
initiating, but also for adopting or continuing proceedings if he or she is
actively instrumental in this process and, having acquired positive knowledge
indicating the accused’s innocence, nonetheless perseveres.18 19 20
Thus, for example, if police officers came to learn of information that
indicated the person charged was in fact innocent, but they deliberately
suppressed the material, rather than passing it on to the CPS, liability
might result. The criminal case must end in
favour of the person suing 7.15 The criminal prosecution must have ended
in favour of the person suing for malicious prosecution.21” This can
be achieved by a verdict of acquittal, by the conviction being quashed on
appeal,22 by an acquittal on a technicality, such as an error in the
indictment,23 or by the discontinuance of proceedings.24 18 [1996] AC 74, HL. 19 [2000] 1 WLR 2150, CA. 20 See Tims
v John Lewis Co Ltd [1951] 2 KB 459, CA (reversed on another point by the
House of Lords: John Lewis $ Co Ltd v Tims [1952]
AC 676). 21 Parker v Langley (1713) 10 Mod
145 and 209. 22 Hemiman
v Smith [1938] AC 305, HL; Berry v British Transport Commission [1961] 3 All
ER 65, CA. 23 Jones v Gwynn (1712) 10 Mod 148,
214; Wicks v Fenthum (1791) 4 Term Rep 247. 24 Watkins v Lee (1839) 5 M &. W 270. A claim can still succeed even
if there was a conviction for a less serious offence than the one for which a
person is charged.35 Where a trial concludes in a person being
acquitted of some offences but convicted of others, there may be claims for
malicious prosecution in relation to those offences on which there has been
an acquittal.26 If offences are ordered to 'lie on the file' after the
defendant has pleaded guilty to other offences, it is likely that this will
be treated as an ‘adjournment’ of the proceedings rather than a termination,
favourable or otherwise. If proceedings have been stayed because they have been
held to be an abuse of process (for instance, because of the length of time
it has taken to bring the prosecution), then the ‘stay’ would probably be
regarded as a termination in favour of the claimant, given that those reasons
usually advanced for the imposition of this requirement in the tort of
malicious prosecution, would not be applicable in the circumstances. The most
commonly stated reasons for the rule requiring a favourable termination of
the prosecution are that the rule exists to prevent individuals challenging
the correctness of a subsisting judgment by a criminal court in collateral
civil proceedings and that it exists to preclude civil actions where the
criminal proceedings have shown that there was sufficient evidence to support
a prosecution. Special problems arise if
someone is bound over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. If he or
she is bound over after the hearing of a ‘complaint ‘the case does not end in
his or her favour and he or she cannot sue. M More commonly, however, bind-overs
are agreed to by the defence before the case is heard, in exchange for the
prosecution offering no evidence on the charge before the court. In Hourihane
v Metropolitan Police Commissioner0 the police applied to strike out a claim
for malicious prosecution where the claimant had agreed to a bind-over, the
CPS had offered no evidence, and the charges (of disorderly behaviour) were
duly dismissed. The Court of Appeal 7.16 7.17 25 26 27 28 29 30 Boalerv
Holder (1887) 51 JP 277. Reed v Taylor (1812) 4 Taunt
616; Leibov Buckman Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 1057, CA,
provided 'damage’ in the sense discussed above results from the offences that
terminated in the claimant’s favour. See, e.g., Fleming the
law of Torts (9th edn, LBC Information Services,
1998) p678. Under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 si
15. Everett v Ribbands [1952] 1
All F, R 823, CA; see also Bynoe v Bank of
England [1900-03] All ER Rep 65. If the complaint is rejected
and thus the opportunity to sue arises, strictly speaking the action lies in
malicious process, as discussed below. (1994) Times 11 December, CA. held that it was impossible to
draw any inference that proceedings had terminated adversely to a defendant
from the mere statement that he or she was bound over to keep the peace. The
court said there might be many reasons why a defendant would prefer to agree
to be bound over rather than run the risk of conviction. As the issue in the
civil proceedings was whether the charges were brought maliciously and
without reasonable and probable cause, the existence of a record showing
that, following dismissal of the charges, the claimant was bound over, could
not be a good ground for striking out the claim. However, in practice it is
likely that the credibility of the claim for malicious prosecution would be
adversely affected unless the claimant can convincingly explain why he or she
accepted a bind-over in the circumstances. |h If there is a subsisting
conviction, a claim for malicious prosecution cannot succeed, even if there
is no further right of appeal and even if it can be proved that the
conviction was obtained by fraud.” The prosecution must lack
reasonable and probable cause. Reasonable and probable cause has been defined
as: ·
an honest belief in the guilt of the
accused based upon a full conviction, founded on reasonable grounds, of the
existence of a state of circumstances which, assuming them to be true, would
reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position
of the accuser, to the conclusion that the person charged was probably guilty
of the crime imputed. This definition has been approved and followed in
subsequent cases. In Glinski v Mclver” the House of Lords held that a claimant
has to prove one of two things in order to establish that there was a lack of
reasonable and probable cause, namely: ·
the prosecutor did not believe in the
guilt of the claimant; or a person of ordinary prudence and caution would not
conclude in the light of the facts honestly believed at the time that the
claimant was probably guilty of the relevant offence. 31 31 Basebe
v Matthews (1867) LR 2 CP 684. Although where a dishonest
abuse of authority can be shown a claim might arise in misfeasance, as
discussed at para 7.50. 12 Hicks v Faulkner (1878) 8 QBD
167, 171. 13 [1962] AC 726. 7.21 The first element involves a subjective
evaluation of the state of the prosecutor's mind at the time of the
prosecution. The second element entails an objective assessment of whether
there was a sufficient basis for the prosecution on the information known at
the time. Thus, there must be actual belief and reasonable belief in the
probable guilt of a person for there to be reasonable and probable cause to
prosecute. The two elements will be considered in turn. Belief in the claimant’s guilt 7.22 In a trial by judge and jury, this is an issue to be
evaluated by the jury, provided there is some evidence to support the
claimant's contention that police officers lacked an honest belief in his or
her guilt.14 If the criminal prosecution is based on the accounts of
officers as eyewitnesses to the alleged crime involving the claimant (for
example where he or she is charged with assaulting an officer or obstructing
the officer in the execution of his or her duty), the legal position is
relatively straightforward. If the claimant gives a conflicting account of
events and contends that the officers fabricated their statements in support
of the criminal prosecution, the jury simply has to determine which party is
giving the truthful version. If the jury finds that the officers produced a
concocted account of events, it must follow that they lacked an honest belief
in the claimant's guilt. The strength of the claimant’s case in such
circumstances is likely to depend upon factors such as the credibility of his
or her own account, whether he or she has witnesses to the events in
question, whether there are discrepancies between the officers' accounts
and/or inconsistencies with contemporaneous documentation and/or
inconsistencies with other known facts such as injuries. 7.23 The position is more complicated if the
evidence in support of the prosecution comes from a number of sources,
including non-police sources, and the relevant police officers did not
witness the alleged offence. If the central evidence against the claimant
comes from civilian witnesses or from expert forensic analysis, in many
circumstances it will be difficult to establish that officers did not
honestly believe in the prosecution. However, it is important to bear in mind
that it is insufficient for officers to believe in the claimant’s guilt in a
general sense; they must believe in the charge brought and in the case that
is 34 34 Herniman
v Smith [1938] AC 305, Hi; Dallis, on v Cajfery
[1965] QB 348. For further detail see the discussion
of the respective roles of judge and jury at paras 13.31-13.34 and
13.39-13.40. Put forward against the
claimant must the claimant.” Thus, to take an example, police may b believe that X is a drugs supplier on the basis of
circumstances concerning his lifestyle and associates, but if they plant
drugs at X's address and then prosecute on the basis of. discovery of those
drugs, they would not honestly believe in their case. Situations in which
police officers dishonestly create evidence to support the prosecution of
someone who they believe has committed crime is sometimes referred to as
‘noble cause corruption’. Whether there is any nobility in such actions is
debatable. In any event, it is submitted that such conduct may amount to a
lack of honest belief in the case put forward and thus a lack of reasonable
and probable cause, for the purposes of the claim in malicious prosecution
(provided, of course, the claimant can prove the officers’ alleged
misconduct). Nonetheless, the current state of the caselaw does not make
clear what proportion of the prosecution evidence must be discredited by the
claimant as dishonest concoction in order to show that officers lacked an
honest belief in their case. Thus, if in the previous example, police
officers genuinely found drugs at X’s address but fabricated incriminating
admissions purportedly from X to bolster the prosecution, would the
subjective element of lack of reasonable and probable cause have been
established? It is submitted that the answer should be in the affirmative, as
officers could not have believed a central element of their case. Equally,
the same conclusion should apply if officers were shown to have obtained
significant witness accounts by intimidation or inducements and then, knowing
the circumstances in which they had been obtained rendered them suspect,
dishonestly suppressed those circumstances and put forward the same as
reliable evidence.16 Whether the claimant can show a lack of honest belief by
proving that part of the evidence was obtained by officers dishonestly or
improperly, is likely to depend upon the significance of that evidence to the
overall prosecution case. 7.24 A further aspect to consider is how a
claimant raises sufficient evidence of bad faith for the case to be left to
the jury on this issue, in circumstances where he or she cannot deny the
officers account from first-hand knowledge. Mere suspicion that officers
concocted evidence or bullied witnesses will not suffice, but a process of
inference may be relied upon where there are (for example) substantial
inconsistencies 35 36 35 See the speeches of Viscount
Simmonds, Lord RaddifFe, Lord Denning and Lord
Devlin in Glinski v Mclver
[1962] AC 726. 36 A potential claim in misfeasance could
also arise in these circumstances if the officers' conduct amounted to a
dishonest abuse of their authority. with contemporaneous records
or inexplicable changes in accounts given.37 38 39 40 A very good
example of this enquiry in to the officer's state of mind is the decision of
the Court of Appeal in Paul v Chief Constable of Humberside Police™ The court
decided that the trial judge had erred in withdrawing claims in false
imprisonment and malicious prosecution from the jury, as there was sufficient
material on the particular facts to enable inferences to be drawn that the
officers were not acting in good faith, in that they had arrested and charged
the claimant to deflect attention from their own potential culpability in
relation to the death of Christopher Alder in police custody, rather than out
of a considered assessment of the evidence. Less commonly, there may be
direct evidence available, for example from witnesses themselves that they
were threatened or intimidated by officers into falsely incriminating the
claimant, or evidence from what officers themselves said at the time, for
example telling a claimant 'we know you didn’t do it, but we’re going to nick
you anyway'. However, it is impermissible to rely simply on the objectively
weak nature of the prosecution case and contend from this that officers could
not have honestly believed in the claimant's guilt/' However, it is arguable
that the weakness of the case is one circumstance that should be considered,
along with all others, when assessing whether inferences as to a lack of
honest belief can be drawn. It is well established that a
lack of honest belief in the case cannot be inferred simply from proof that
officers had an ulterior motive for the prosecution.41 Thus, if
officers prosecute Y because she brought a previous complaint against one of
their colleagues, but the case was supported by sufficient, genuine evidence
indicating that Y was probably guilty, she would not have a viable claim in
malicious prosecution. Similarly, if there is evidence that a white man and a
black man are both guilty of a crime, but out of racism the police prosecute
only the black man, a claim in malicious prosecution would not be made out.42
This is not to say that the same facts cannot be used to support both a
finding of malice and a finding of lack of reasonable and probable cause, 7.25 37 See the speech of Lord Denning
in Glinski v Mclver
[1962] AC 726. 38 [2004] EWCA Civ
308. 39 Glinski
v Melver [1962] AC 726. See, e.g., the speech of
Lord Raddiffe. 40 See Clayton and Tomlinson Civil
Actions Against the Police {3rd edn, Thomson Sweet
& Maxwell, 2004) para 8-042. 41 Glinski
v Mclver [1962] AC 726; Matin v Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis [2002] EWCA Civ 907. 42 Although an action under the Race
Relations Act 1976 {as amended) may arise, see chapter 10. if those facts point towards
officers lacking honest belief in the evidence put forward, for instance
where evidence is fabricated. In the relatively unusual event that the
defendant fails to offer any explanation for the basis of the prosecution in
circumstances that appear to call for one, the omission can be treated as
evidence of a lack of reasonable and probable cause.41 Sometimes a defendant
will seek to defend a contention of lack of honest belief on the basis that
the prosecution was approved by the CPS and/or counsel and so, it is said,
officers were simply following advice. However, this will not avail the
defendant if officers withheld information or the decision was based on
evidence that the officers knew to be concocted or otherwise substantially
flawed.43 44 Objective lack of evidence
supporting the prosecution | j\ , Even if the
prosecutor honestly believed in the case put forward against the claimant, there will be a
lack of reasonable and probable cause for the proceedings if the evidence was
too weak to properly support a case. If the judge is sitting with a jury, the
jury first decides any disputed facts that bear on this issue, for example,
as to what information was known to the prosecutor at the time or as to the
level and nature of inquiries that were actually made and then the judge
rules upon the objective question of whether there was sufficient evidence to
support the prosecution (see also para 13.31). It has been suggested that
there are a number of steps that an ordinarily prudent and cautious
prosecutor would undertake; specifically, he or she would: •
take reasonable steps to ascertain
the true state of the case. •
consider the matter on the basis of
admissible evidence only; and in all but plain cases, obtain legal advice as
to whether a prosecution is justified and act upon that advice.45 28 Thus
it is possible that a lack of reasonable and probable cause can be
established from a failure to follow obvious lines of inquiry, if doing so
would have negated a viable case against the claimant.46 However, it is a
question of degree. A prosecutor is not required to test every possible
relevant fact before taking action: ‘His duty is not to ascertain whether
there is a defence but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for
the prosecution'.47 48 49 If the prosecutor was mistaken about a matter of
fact which, if true, would have given sufficient basis for the prosecution,
the issue is whether the mistake was a reasonable one to make.'1® The significance
of taking legal advice has been considered under the discussion of the
subjective element above. The fact that the claimant may have been convicted
at trial is not treated as decisive of this issue against him or her, if the
conviction is later overturned on appeal.41' If the Court of Appeal when
overturning a conviction expresses a view about the lack of evidence in
support of the prosecution, it is unclear to what extent the claimant can
rely upon this opinion in a subsequent civil action.50 43 Gibbs v Rea [1998] AC 786, PC. 44 See Glmski
v Mclver [1962] AC 726; Abbott v Refuge Assurance
Co [1962] 1 QB 432. 45 See Abbott v Refuge Assurance Co
[1962] 1 QB 432. 46 tor a recent example in a
malicious process case see Keegan v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
[2003] 1 WLR 2187. 7.29 If a claimant establishes a lack of
reasonable and probable cause by the objective route, rather than by showing
that officers did not honestly believe in the case put forward, it may well
be difficult to show the further necessary ingredient of malice, unless there
is dear evidence of an improper purpose, as discussed below. The police acted maliciously 7.30 In order to prove that the police acted
maliciously, it must be shown that their motive, or their main motive, was
something other than the desire to bring the claimant to justice.51 52
In circumstances where the claimant establishes that officers could not have
believed he was guilty because they had concocted the account of his alleged
criminality (usually in an attempt to mask their own misconduct), there will
be no difficulty in establishing malice. For example, in Thompson v
Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis” police falsely alleged that the
claimant had bitten an officer's finger and assaulted others in order to
cover up their own brutality towards her as she was manhandled into a cell at
the police station.53 Additionally, malice possible relevant fact
before taking action: ‘His duty is not to ascertain whether there is a
defence but whether there is a reasonable and probable cause for the
prosecution'.47 If the prosecutor was mistaken about a matter of fact
which, if true, would have given sufficient basis for the prosecution, the
issue is whether the mistake was a reasonable one to make.'1® The
significance of taking legal advice has been considered under the discussion
of the subjective element above. The fact that the claimant may have been
convicted at trial is not treated as decisive of this issue against him or
her, if the conviction is later overturned on appeal.41' If the Court
of Appeal when overturning a conviction expresses a view about the lack of
evidence in support of the prosecution, it is unclear to what extent the
claimant can rely upon this opinion in a subsequent civil action.50 47 Herniman
v Smith [1938] AC 305, HL, per Lord Atkin at 319. 48 Hicks v Faulkner (1878) 8 QBD
167, 49 See, e.g., Hemiman
v Smith [1938] AC 305, HL. 50 Although no question of issue estoppel
arises as the two parties are not the same, one would expect considerable
weight to be attached to the Court of Appeal’s view. 51 Stevens v Midland Counties
Railway (1854) 10 Exch 352. 52 [1997] 2 All ER 762. 53 Commissioner of Police of the
Metropolis v Gerald (1998) 10 June, CA, unreported, is another similar
example. 7.29 If a claimant establishes a lack of
reasonable and probable cause by the objective route, rather than by showing
that officers did not honestly believe in the case put forward, it may well
be difficult to show the further necessary ingredient of malice, unless there
is dear evidence of an improper purpose, as discussed below. The police acted maliciously 7.30 In order to prove that the police acted maliciously, it
must be shown that their motive, or their main motive, was something other
than the desire to bring the claimant to justice.51 In circumstances where
the claimant establishes that officers could not have believed he was guilty
because they had concocted the account of his alleged criminality (usually in
an attempt to mask their own misconduct), there will be no difficulty in
establishing malice. For example, in Thompson v Commissioner of Police for
the Metropolis” police falsely alleged that the claimant had bitten an
officer's finger and assaulted others in order to cover up their own
brutality towards her as she was manhandled into a cell at the police
station.53 should be established in the sorts of circumstances
discussed above, where officers have some general belief in the guilt of the
claimant, but dishonestly and improperly procure or create a substantial part
of the prosecution case. A desire to concoct evidence and/or to procure a
conviction at any cost, affords evidence of malice.54 mi If the police are partly motivated by a
desire to bring someone to justice, but also partly by an improper motive,
the question is: which was the dominant purpose? If the improper motive was
dominant, the claim can still succeed. Examples of improper motives, other
than masking officers' own misconduct, would be punishing a claimant for an
earlier complaint or civil action or for rudeness to officers. Additionally, malice 47 Herniman
v Smith [1938] AC 305, HL, per Lord Atkin at 319. 48 Hicks v Faulkner (1878) 8 QBD
167, 49 See, e.g., Hemiman
v Smith [1938] AC 305, HL. 50 Although no question of issue estoppel
arises as the two parties are not the same, one would expect considerable
weight to be attached to the Court of Appeal’s view. 51 Stevens v Midland Counties
Railway (1854) 10 Exch 352. 52 [1997] 2 All ER 762. 53 Commissioner of Police of the
Metropolis v Gerald (1998) 10 june, CA,
unreported, is another similar example. 7 .32 Although
lack of reasonable and probable cause can never be inferred from malice (see
above), a lack of reasonable and probable cause can provide evidence of
malice.55 56 However, the extent to which this is possible depends
upon the particular circumstances. If it has been shown that officers did not
honestly believe in the charges brought, this will afford strong evidence of
malice, for the reasons already discussed. However, establishing a lack of
reasonable and probable cause by showing that, objectively viewed, there was
an insufficient basis for the prosecution, does not generally provide
evidence of malice as this state of affairs is not inconsistent with the
prosecutor acting for the proper motive of seeking justice; he or she may
simply have been careless,57 58 59 60 This is well illustrated by the
decision in Thacker v Crown Prosecution Service,515 where an allegedly weak
prosecution was ultimately discontinued. The Court of Appeal said that even
if it could be shown that on the objective test there was a lack of
reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and that representatives of
the CPS were remiss in not appreciating this earlier, there was no evidence
that they acted in bad faith.5'1 In the malicious process case of
Keegan v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police60 the claimant sought to
overcome this difficulty in relation to officers who sought a search warrant
on the basis of slender evidence, by arguing from analogy with caselaw
concerning the tort of misfeasance in a public office, that ‘malice' now bore
an expanded meaning and included circumstances where officers acted with
reckless indifference to the legality of their conduct (see para 7.34).
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, reaffirming that malice required
proof of an improper purpose. They held there was no evidence of malice on
the facts as officers had obtained and executed the search warrant because
they were genuinely seeking to recover stolen monies, a perfectly proper
purpose (despite the lack of reasonable and probable cause for the warrant). 54 See Clerke
(Lindsell on Torts (18th edn, Sweet & Maxwell,
2000) para 16-37 and the authorities cited therein. 55 Brown v Hawkes [1891] 2 QB 718,
722, 56 See Haddrickv
Heslop (1848) 12 QB 267; Brown v Hawkes [1891] 2 QB 718, 722 and Tempest v
Snowdon [1952] 1 All ER 1. 57 Meeting v Grahame White Aviation
(1919) 122 LT 44; Gibbs v Rea [1998] AC 786, PC. 58 (1997) Times 29 December, CA. 59 In such circumstances an action in
negligence would also be problematic, because of the difficulty of showing
the existence of a duty of care, as discussed at para 8.56). 60 [2003] 1 WLR 2187. 7.33 Whether
there is some evidence of malice so that a jury could properly conclude that
this element of the tort was proved, is a matter for the judge to decide.
Whether or not, on that evidence, the prosecutor’s motive was indeed
malicious is a question of fact for the jury to decide.61 62 European Convention on Human
Rights 7.34
Convention rights do not appear to expand the circumstances in which a
claimant can succeed in an action for malicious prosecution. ECHR article
5(5) provides that everyone who has been detained in contravention of article
5 shall have an enforceable right to compensation. However, a period of
detention is regarded as lawful for these purposes if carried out pursuant to
a court order, made within the court’s jurisdiction, even if that order was
subsequently quashed on appeal.6' Accordingly, where a conviction is quashed
on appeal after the appellant has spent time in custody, any available
remedies will normally arise in relation to an action for malicious
prosecution or misfeasance in a public office, rather than under the
Convention. The possibility of claiming compensation from the Home Office in
such circumstances is looked at separately (in chapter 7). 61 Hicks v Faulkner (1878) 8 QBD
167; Broum v Hawkc.s
[1891] 2 QB 718; Daltison v Caffrey [1965] QB 348.
The respective roles of judge and jury are considered in more detail at paras 13.31-13,34 and
13.39-13.40. 62 Benhamv
UK (1996) 22 F.HRR 293. Structure and functions of the
IPCC Structure The IPCC is a body set up by
Police Reform Act 2002 Part 2, The IPCC replaces the PC A. It consists of a
chairman formally appointed by the Queen (who is, therefore, not an appointee
of the Home Secretary) and 'not less’ than ten other Commissioners appointed
by the Home Secretary. All must be independent of the police. The chairman and members of
the Commission can be appointed for up to five years, and such period can be
renewed. The extension of the appointment period from three years for the PCA
is intended to increase the independence of the chairman and the
commissioners from the Home Secretary. There are very limited provisions for
removing the chairman or other members of the Commission from office.6 7 8
The IPCC can have up to two deputy chairmen, has a chief executive, and can
appoint staff (including staff on secondment from the police) The IPCC has the power to set
up regional offices and has offices in Manchester, the Midlands, Cardiff and
London. The functions The IPCC’s functions are
exercised in relation to three matters: (A) the
handling of complaints made about the conduct of ‘people serving with the
police (B) recording
other matters where there may have been misconduct justifying
criminal or disciplinary proceedings (known as 'conduct matters'); (C) the
manner in which complaints or conduct matters are dealt with by the police
and police authorities IPCC
has to ensure that suitable arrangements under Police Act 2002 Part 2 are
maintained by itself, police authorities’ chief officers in relation to these
functions. The arrangements be conducive to and facilitate the reporting of
misconduct. arrangements must be kept under review, be efficient and
effective, ifest an appropriate degree of
independence' and ensure that confidence is established and maintained in the
arrangements.” e IPCC has a proactive role in recommending changes to the ements, and also advising on 'police practice in relation
to other rs’ arising from its work as it feels
necessary or desirable. PCC can do anything which facilitates, or is
conducive or ltal to, its functions. However, it
has no functions in relation to respect of a complaint or conduct matter
which relates to the direc-d control of a police
force by a chief officer or his delegate.12 IPCC has a number of formal
reporting functions. In addi-the requirement to
produce annual reports, the IPCC must (port to the Home Secretary, when
requested, on the exercise of _eral functions.13
The IPCC can also submit other reports on ‘onal or
grave matters which it feels should be drawn to the Secretary’s attention,
and can produce reports containing advice ommendations
in relation to police practice,’* IPCC
has the power to require that information from police is provided for the
purposes of fulfilling its functions1' and to time limits within which the
information must be provided, cc can also require a police force to allow it
access to prem-d to documents and other things on the premises to examine the
cy and effectiveness of the police force’s arrangements for ing complaints,u and for the
purposes of any investigation the if supervising, managing or carrying out
itself. This
is just for my neighbours as they understand what happened from the start |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||