Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#36 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 22:49

Ive just read Sheila thread on the CAG board for the first time. She must have some weird imagination. Lets start;
Sheila wrote: Yesterday, a most extraordinary report was given on a social media site regarding a hearing at Luton Crown Court that concluded yesterday with both defendants being cleared of theft and false representation.
Anyone know what social media site this is?

I only reported it on this board.
Sheila wrote: The report itself (written by a McKenzie Friend) is utterly astonishing and frankly; resembles a poorly written fairy story.
My client didn't have a McKenzie friend. I stopped all that and started using solicitors. Their costs are collected the other party, so it costs my client zippo.



Sheila wrote: As regular posters on here will know, I am passionate about providing accurate information and with this in mind (and in response to the many messages that I have received since yeserday),
Sheila has not received any messages. Nobody from the bailiff forums were in the gallery. It was family members of the accused.

I was in communication with the accused throughout, except when mobiles had to be switched off while court was in session.

Sheila wrote: He was provided with the address where the vehicle was located (which was in Hertfordshire)
That was my fault, I said it was in Herts. It was actually in Bedfordshire.

http://www.villagecarsalesltd.co.uk/ the owner took the stand and gave evidence.


Sheila wrote: According to the court, no costs were awarded.
According to the judge, he gave a defendants costs order. In fact the court didn't have a choice once the defendant asks for it.


Sheila wrote: I naturally approached Newlyn's solicitor for clarification yesterday afternoon
I doubt Newlyns solicitor will risk giving anything to Sheila because he knows it will come round in another Newlyn proceeding.

The next batch of Newlyn cases ones are detailed assessment hearings about multiple £235 for simultaneous enforcement. His Larnyoh comment at Croydon county court about the OneStep computer software error won't stand. Marston and Equita both use the same software, and they have not charged multiple £235 for simultaneous enforcement. OneStep technical support confirmed by email it is an operator error, and that indicates fraudulent intention to make a gain.



Sheila wrote: Newlyn Plc were not called as a witness in these proceedings and did not attend the hearing.
They were there and after they gave their evidence. After giving evidence, the CPS sent the usher into the witnesses room and told them to go home. They missed the verdict. The CPS knew the prosecution was not going well, (the "can of worms" comment) and was concerned they might be unhappy about the anticipated verdict.



Brass wrote: Wonder if there was any irregularity with the seizure and sale?
Well spotted. The car is not in the name of the debtor.

Dodge wrote: So was the initial seizure lawful ?
Have a guess.

I got them off. How would I have done that if the seizure was lawful?
Dodge wrote: Now I am confused.
Thats new?


Bulgaria wrote: Is there any legislation or case law that allows enforcement companies to sell vehicles owned by a company, when the PCN's were owed by an employee of the business ?
Of course there is!

You dare mention it on CAG, you are banned and called a FMOTL.

Bulgaria wrote: What is the ownership of the car now ? Would it have to go back to Mr Kirbys company ?
Ownership is his company, and his company has had possession of all along.

The police flagged it "stolen" but it was never stolen, the job of the legal professionals is to decide who pay the company for the loss of use of the car from June 2013 to date. Its a toss over the garage who reported it on 999, Newlyn for not following the rules (negligence), the council whom Newlyn acted for, the police force for flagging the car stolen when it was not. It could be shared between all or any of them.

I will assign my client to a solicitor early next week. Let the negotiations begin.



Sheila wrote:Yes, the subject is being discussed on the 'Pied Piper' site
...
It is also being debated on TWO other social media sites
The links anyone?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#37 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 23:01

Sheila wrote:vehicle was for "his use personally in the course of his employment'. He would not have been able to do this given that the vehicle was being used by his partner
The car was pulled over by a police officer in a traffic stop while his partner (the other director) was driving it on official business.

As it involved the use of a police power regulating traffic causing the loss of use the vehicle, the police force may be liable for that loss.

This took place before the police discontinued setting up road block operations which resulted in claims on masse for improper exercise of police powers and privileges to expose another to an unlawful loss.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#38 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 23:05

Can I just add that Sheila appears to be suggesting that Mr Kirby ran two identical companies, both with the same name but one of which was limited. This is of course, desperation of the highest degree and if that's the best that PF can provide her with then its hardly suprising that Mr Kirby was found NG.

Quite often people loose the "ltd" or "plc" titles when listing companies. I have done so with every company that I have owned. How many people refer to Newlyns as Newlyns PLC? Obviously, Mr Kirby has failed to write "Ltd" at the end of the company name on the V5.

How big do you think the company is? It is a obviously a small company, with just 2 directors-Are we really supposed to believe that a separate non-limited company was trading alongside its limited sister company? This is ridiculous & as Amy said earlier, how can you possibly prove a negative? If a non limited company did not exist, how are you supposed to prove this? Swear a SD?

Kirby obviously owed the penalties-He abused the position of company director & hid behind it-So what? How many times have Newlyn abused their position over the years?

Ignore Sheila Harding, she is only acting in her role of bailiff apologist. There is no proof whatsoever that a sole trading entity existed. There is proof of a limited company though. If Newlyn want to challenge this then lets see some evidence. If not, pay the car trader his money back boys.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#39 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 23:07

jasonDWB wrote:
Sheila wrote:vehicle was for "his use personally in the course of his employment'. He would not have been able to do this given that the vehicle was being used by his partner
The car was pulled over by a police officer in a traffic stop while his partner (the other director) was driving it on official business.

As it involved the use of a police power regulating traffic causing the loss of use the vehicle, the police force may be liable for that loss.

This took place before the police discontinued setting up road block operations which resulted in claims on masse for improper exercise of police powers and privileges to expose another to an unlawful loss.
It doesn't matter-They have to prove Jack Didley to Newlyn. There is evidence of a limited company-There is no evidence of a sole trading company, unless Newlyn can show otherwise.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#40 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2016 23:10

I should add that it was never the prosecutions case the registered ownership of the vehicle is in dispute.

The CPS even filed a witness statement admitting the car was owned by the company. I even re-used the material in my clients defence.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#41 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Mar 2016 23:19

jasonDWB wrote:I should add that it was never the prosecutions case the registered ownership of the vehicle is in dispute.

The CPS even filed a witness statement admitting the car was owned by the company. I even re-used the material in my clients defence.
I'm with the prosecution-So much so that I believe the defendant was guilty.

Harding is drowning in her own stupidity as usual-Claiming the vehicle was owned by the debtor ffs. It just shows how far she is on the bailiffs side.

There was no sole trading company as far as we know. Newlyns have no proof of a sole trading company as far as we know.

The facts are (courtesy of Harding) that Newlyn took the car and sold it on the basis that "Ltd" was missed off the log book. How many innocent debtors could this action have affected? I don't doubt that Kirby was seeking to evade this penalty but the law should always be a starting point. You should not take goods belonging to a Ltd company unless you can prove ownership to the contrary. If this means the occasional "won't pay" slips through the net, then so be it.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6671
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#42 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Mar 2016 23:50

The CAG regulars must now surely see Fenella in her true colours. Why is she in conversation with "Bailiff-can-take-your-hire-purchase-car " Felton-Gerber desperately trying to trash this case? The defendants were found not guilty as the jury accepted that they could not steal a car that still lawfully belonged to them. Why is she trying to build a case against two people that have been found not guilty? Why is she doing this? Will the Caggers now understand why these boards are so resolute in trying to expose her?

She was not in court, she has seen no documentation; all she has is the bitter words of a bolshy brief from the losing side. Why do these two discuss between themselves?

The jury accepted that Newlyn's should never have taken the vehicle, so the sale and any further sales were invalid. The defendants were still the legal owners of the car when they took it. The person that had possession of it at the time now needs to recover his losses from the trader who sold it to him; that trader needs to recover the subsequent losses according to the trail back to Newlyn's.

Dodge is trying to say that Newlyn's took the car lawfully (because Fenella says so), yet clearly the jury felt differently. Newlyn's took the car unlawfully so all of the subsequent sales were invalid and the defendants remained the lawful owners. It cannot be any simpler.

Fenella then comes up with crap like this:
As is always the case with such serious trials in a Crown Court, once a witness has completed giving their evidence (and answered any questions from the prosecution and defence), they are not permitted to remain in court.
However, the CPS site states:
Once you have given your evidence, the court will tell you that you may leave the witness box. You may be told that you are released, this means that you can leave. You may be asked to stay after you have given evidence if something new comes up. You can stay and listen to the rest of the case if you want to.
Such a stickler for accuracy isn't she. Good God, she is so highly unqualified.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#43 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 10:26

I see Sheila has been up all night very angry at last Wednesday's Verdict.

I should make it clear that I was only instructed only to acquit the client using legal argument. That legal argument was debated by the Judge and Prosecutor while the jury was sent out. It was accepted and presented to the jury by the judge, who returned a verdict.

I did not hold a gun to the jury's head. They acted under advice of the Judge.

It had not escaped me that Sheila has been silent on the Balinski case at Willesden Magistrates on Feb 29. I didn't post it on this board because nothing was noteworthy. There was an altercation, and Marston's van windscreen was smashed and my client was attested. My client was cleared by the magistrate. My instructions were to get him off using legal argument. I did just that. The magistrate (District Judge) acquitted him. The civil claim for damages is embryonic and lawyers are de-constructing the case.

The moral of that one is DO NOT turn off your body cam if you are going to pick a fight with a debtor.

So why is Sheila silent? Probably because I didn't post it on this board.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#44 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 18 Mar 2016 10:34

Exactly Jason. She does not have any of the "connections" she claims to have. Instead, rather than reading on a Sunday, which even the blinkered on CAG must surely know by now is a blatant lie - she is here continually, all day, every day.

Then, when something such as the case yesterday appears, she's all over it like a cheap suit, scurrying around calling people and/or making it all up to post to the gullible on CAG.

It is noteworthy (see what I did there!) that she did not post so much as one word about this case until it appeared on here.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#45 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 10:50

Ive known for a while Sheila uses this board as a source of gossip.

Lucky she can't see the members board!

It would set CAG on fire.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#46 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 18 Mar 2016 11:02

Oh don't say that! She'll only make another spoof post and try yet again to gain access to it!

Well, when I say "she" I actually mean someone she cons into having a go for her.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#47 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 18 Mar 2016 11:15

I love the way Dodgyballs attempts to write with such authority trying to silence everyone but completely cocks it all up.

Sheila is now not allowing others to speculate despite the fact that she did just that when starting the thread having read about it on here first.

For the record UB, you are correct.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#48 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 11:18

The Chimp is doing very well. He's gone from not knowing if the seizure was lawful in post #5, to telling UB categorically this morning that it was.

Who needs a judicial system when we have someone as sharp as the chimp observing things?

Oh and he confirmed that the debtor was "found innocent "

Apart from this light hearted entertainment, I really fail to see any purpose in the thread whatsoever. It's not even as if Sheila has never gone to "extraordinary " lengths to avoid legally due payments is it?

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#49 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 18 Mar 2016 11:27

I completely agree. Her silly thread deserves to be closed since they are clearly flailing around like kites in a force 10 gale.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#50 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 11:32

leakie wrote:The trouble is no one on here knows, what was presented at court, for the jury to come to there Not Guilty verdict.
He has a point.

I never gave my legal argument on the thread. Otherwise the CAG board will be making wild guesses indefinitely. So I should clear that up.


My client approached me after he was charged with Section 2 of the Fraud Act and section 1 of the Theft Act.

The prosecution dropped the Fraud Act because there is no evidence of a false representation being made. They were charged with theft of the car.

My defence argument was the car was the property of the company all along. I took the liberty of using the prosecution's own material to prove it and gave a copy to each member of the jury. The bailiff could only take goods belonging to the debtor. That was never disputed.

My client had to show that he did not act with any criminal intent. (Actus Reus).

He did so because he believed the car was the property of the company and he was collecting it. He knew the car had not been sold as it was still for sale with a price in the window. Newlyn did not give a notice of sale, and A1 Environmental made a statement admitting to charging nearly £900 in costs for transporting and storing the car.

This aspect will be the subject of a detailed assessment hearing because,
  • a) it is disproportionate to the value of the debt recovered, and

    b) there is no relationship bwteeen the debtor and A1 Environmental Ltd.
The costs of A1 Enviromental Ltd given in its witness statement fails under CPR 84.16 as it stood at the material time.



The legal argument between the CPS and the judge - the "can of worms debate", was:
  • 1. If the defendant is guilty, then it means bailiffs can go round indiscriminately lifting cars and selling them on ebay, and that sale would be valid and the creditor would be liable for the replacement cost of the car if a court subsequently found in the debtors favour.

    2. If the defendant is not guilty, the debtor can collect the car from the new registered keeper address given by the DVLA when a court finds the taking of the car is not compliant with the Schedule 12 procedure.
From Wednesdays case, the latter is true.


I expect the John Kruse's, CIVEA's and the LACEF's of the bailiff world will pondering the ramifications on unlawful taking of cars, and liability on councils to fork out the cost of a new car for the disappointed owner.

There is one thing there is no doubt. This is a painful lesson learned by the enforcement industry. It is a strong message that bailiffs cannot just go round nabbing peoples cars, and recklessly selling them on ebay in a hope the sale will end the problem.

From last Wednesday. Any car unlawfully taken can now be lawfully collected from any innocent buyer if the bailiff did not apply the Schedule 12 procedure. The case of R V Kirby and Greengow, Luton Crown Court 16 March 2016, will be the case that extinguishes any prosecution effort to the contrary.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6671
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#51 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2016 11:41

Also, reading back on my notes from 2014 there is a further question about the date that Mr Kirby acquired the vehicle.
Does she actually keep notes on every single person seeking advice on CAG?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6671
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#52 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2016 11:44

According to my notes, the defendant acquired the vehicle in 2010. It would not have been possible for him to register the vehicle in the name of the limited company given that the company was not formed until some time in 2011 !!
Why is she intent on painting him as a liar? Does she not stop to think that maybe, just maybe, he transferred the vehicle to the company in 2011? What a nasty woman.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#53 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 11:54

I Have to say that things are clearer post April 2014 in any case.

What Sheila needs to do, if she is going to continue bad mouthing the debtor is find some real facts to show the vehicle was privately owned. Sole traders "trade as" a business name. There is no point or indeed requirement to place a vehicles registration in the name of a trading name. The only real time to do so is when the business is an entirely different entity, ie a limited company. A legal fiction is the correct term I think.

The Important questions are was the insurance policy produced? Were any company bank statements produced? Was evidence provided on who paid the tax? A V5 is not, as we all know, proof of ownership in any case.

It is highly likely that the debtor used a loophole and exploited his limited companies status. So what? He wasn't the first and he won't be the last. No crime has been committed so there is no need for Sheila to shout from the rooftops over this. Of much greater concern is the despicable stunt that JBW have pulled on "Capital Con" this morning.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6671
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#54 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2016 11:57

Poor lass, I don't think she understands.
This case is so very unimportant given that despite what the jury may have decided, this does not in any way enable the Limited Company to make a civil claim against the enforcement company. Also, if it is the case that Mr Kirby has retained the use of the car for the past 3 years then there can be no claim.
The car couldn't be used as it was flagged as stolen on the PNC database. So that means no tax or insurance could be gained. In the meantime, taxis and hire cars were used.

The civil claim will be directed at the creditor, who may of course seek a later claim against the bailiff.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#55 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 12:05

I just spoken to the client (Kirby) and he has not been contacted by anyone about his acquittal.

He confirms his company lost a form 4, and the court ordered him personally to pay costs. They might be an investigation into how a director was made liable for the costs of a complaint made by the company. In any case, it will now be passed on to Croydon as part of his economic losses.

Lawyers confirm Newlyn and A1 Environmental Ltd will not be litigated. Only the council and the Metropolitan Police. What Croydon or the police do with the bill is not our concern.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#56 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 12:09

Mark1960 wrote: The Important questions are was the insurance policy produced? Were any company bank statements produced? Was evidence provided on who paid the tax? A V5 is not, as we all know, proof of ownership in any case.
No it wasn't.

I used the Prosecution's own witness statement.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#57 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 12:13

sheila wrote:This case is so very unimportant given that despite what the jury may have decided, this does not in any way enable the Limited Company to make a civil claim against the enforcement company. Also, if it is the case that Mr Kirby has retained the use of the car for the past 3 years then there can be no claim.
There will be no claim against the enforcement company.

The parties litigating is the claimant company, LB Croydon and the commissioner for the Metropolitan Police.

The Met was involved because a constable executed a traffic stop when Newlyn took the car.

Legal are not decided whether to include the Met. Its only at discussion level. Croydon might be the sole fall-guy for Newlyn.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#58 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 12:28

If this bloke has any sense at all, he will not issue further proceedings. Hasn't the form 4 taught him anything?

You Will never win a claim for damages if you haven't paid the friggin penalty in the first place.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#59 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 12:35

He paid the penalty - after the car was a taken, but before the car was sold.

He only paid the statutory enforcement fees prevailing at the time, but apparently not the ATR fee.

They are going to have a detailed assessment hearing because is no ATR. It was a police traffic stop.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6671
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#60 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2016 12:39

Did he attend the form 4 hearing?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13369
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#61 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2016 12:58

I don't know.

I only learned of it when I was given the charge sheet and CPS bundle. One of the Newlyn witness statements mentioned it.

Sheila mentioning the form 4 on the CAG board proves Peter "Bailiff-can-take-your-hire-purchase-car " Felton-Gerber told her about it.

I'm not sure how that stands with regulations about solicitor confidentiality and disclosure to 3rd persons.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#62 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 16:06

Christ on a bike:
To ensure that only accurate information is reported on here, I need to correct something that I wrote above. Regrettably, I relying upon false information posted by the McKenzie Friend.

Mr Ross Kirby did not use his 'spare key' to drive the vehicle
Thanks for that Sheila-We'll all sleep easier tonight with that knowledge.

PS-Any chance of providing us with some accurate information regarding joint liability? :lol:

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#63 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 16:32

UB-I know you are reading this thread. If you can somehow get Capital Con to contact me or contact this forum, I think that I might be able to help him.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#64 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 18 Mar 2016 16:45

Mark1960 wrote:Christ on a bike:
To ensure that only accurate information is reported on here, I need to correct something that I wrote above. Regrettably, I relying upon false information posted by the McKenzie Friend.

Mr Ross Kirby did not use his 'spare key' to drive the vehicle
Thanks for that Sheila-We'll all sleep easier tonight with that knowledge.

PS-Any chance of providing us with some accurate information regarding joint liability? :lol:
So now she admits that she is not in fact getting this from the horse's mouth and is instead copying and pasting it from here and pretending that she is "in the know"?

Who knew.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#65 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 16:50

And lest we forget her statement in post #1 of the thread:
As regular posters on here will know, I am passionate about providing accurate information and with this in mind (and in response to the many messages that I have received since yeserday), I will give accurate facts on the background to this case
She is such an out and out liar-And a hypocrite to boot.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6671
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#66 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2016 17:15

And let's not forget the bile. This one's a keeper before she edits it again.
CAG KG.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#67 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 17:16

I find this bit impossible to believe:
It would now seem that in court it was stated that this utterly devious couple turned up at the garage with their young child and dog looking to 'purchase' an estate car. They selected the Volvo estate. The car was started by a representative at the garage and he trusted the couple to take the car on a short 'test drive'. They didn't return. The garage realised that they had been conned when they failed to return within 30 minutes
What garage would let a complete stranger drive off into the sunset with a vehicle valued at £1000's?

There was no proof of insurance for a start-Does Sheila think that the garage would risk an asset that wasn't insured?

Would the garage let a dog into a vehicle that would have been valeted and ready for sale?

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#68 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Amy » 18 Mar 2016 17:25

Precisely. She's doing a great attempt at back-peddling though.

Patience is a virtue Sheila, you should possibly have waited at least another couple of nano seconds to find out the FACTS before leaping in with all four feet.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#69 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Mark1960 » 18 Mar 2016 17:35

The chimp now thinks that because they were allegedly allowed to take the car for a test drive, they are excused for all subsequent actions. In other words, he is saying that anybody given possession of something for a short while can keep it as it was taken with their consent of the owner:
Yes this is what I had imagined. The police would have been loathe to prosecute on this because the car was taken away with the consent of the owner. The only route for a criminal prosecution would be theft by false representation. Unfortunately proving this can be quite difficult, as you have to show that dishonesty was involved, which requires proving criminal intent, section 2 of the theft act 1968.
In other words you have to prove that that they did not believe they had a right to take the vehicle to a criminal standard of proof
The saddest thing of all is that this uneducated cretin actually believes that he possesses some kind of special ability to read and understand law-He is totally oblivious to just how ridiculously stupid his interpretations actually are. There has to be some kind of personality disorder going on. The man struggles to read and write, yet he thinks he's fluent and conversant in the complexities of law-All types of law I might add, not just criminal, not just civil nut all types.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6671
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#70 Re: Newlyn "stolen car" prosecution fails at court.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2016 17:36

A dog and small child? Had a car seat with them did they? Plus how did they all get there. Did they have another car then. Surely the trader should've taken the keys. Why is she so obsessed in wanting to destroy this couple who have been found not guilty by a jury privy to all the facts?

Post Reply