Can you report someone Single Person Council Tax Discount fraud?

[redfox]

"If gamston is caught with a lockup of stolen property the burden of proof shifts to him"

 

Since when ? When in a criminal trial for theft does the defence assume the burden? -

[runningman1]

"If gamston is caught with a lockup of stolen property the burden of proof shifts to him"

 

Since when ? When in a criminal trial for theft does the defence assume the burden? -

 

Do you think the CPS would be likely to prosecute someone who removed all their ex's goods from a property and held them to ransom?

[redfox]

Held who to ransom? The owner of the property? Do you mean kidnap them or an attempt at blackmail?

 

 

Kate - I admire your public service. I have only encountered specials rarely and by that I mean actually giving evidence as opposed to providing a witness statement.

 

If your experience is anything to go by, I wonder if you served when the police could appeal cps decisions as they can now?, CPS decision making should not be the lottery you describe. It is - they prosecute cases that should never get past base, they drop perfectly good cases for no good reason and they accept lesser pleas to the offences the facts warrant out of expediency and to save money - sound familiar ?

[999tigger]

"If gamston is caught with a lockup of stolen property the burden of proof shifts to him"

 

Since when ? When in a criminal trial for theft does the defence assume the burden? -

 

I meant the evidential buden.

 

Prosecution claim theft.

 

They produce evidence he knowingly took property without permission.

 

He secreted it away in a lock up.

 

The police receive a complaint. They find said lost property.

 

That raises a prima facie case from which the jury can draw its own conclusions as to what was he doing with the property. The prosecution can suggest he was stealing it as that would be the most obvious explanation for taking goods, which dont belong to you. The evidential burden now moves to the defendant. If he says nothing, then the jury can reach its own conclusions or he can provide his own evidence. By doing so he may escape the theft charge, but he is likely to make himself liable for a range of other offences, most importantly blackmail. The jury decides if they believe it was his intention to steal the goods beyond reasonable doubt. That is the legal burden.

[redfox]

"The evidential burden now moves to the defendant. If he says nothing, then the jury can reach its own conclusions or he can provide his own evidence. By doing so he may escape the theft charge, but he is likely to make himself liable for a range of other offences, most importantly blackmail. The jury decides if they believe it was his intention to steal the goods beyond reasonable doubt. That is the legal burden"

 

 

My god - the criminal justice system has been getting it wrong for hundreds of years - you should run down to the court tomorrow and tell the judiciary the defendant has to prove he hasn't done it and they have been mis directing juries for ages !

Please tell me you do not operate as a criminal solicitor. Stick to what you know about matey

 

If the accused says nothing - the jury are then given a specific legal direction as to what if anything they can take from his/her silence at trial - the jury would have his/her interview if they had answered questions and provided an explanation to the police to consider.

Juries in my experience are not all that concerned with silence at trial more with the strength of the evidence called by the Crown.

 

That changes, again in my experience, if the defendant decides to give evidence and gives an account that he should really have given at interview and hasn't got a credible reason for not so doing, or he changes the account he gave at interview.

[Gamston]

"If gamston is caught with a lockup of stolen property the burden of proof shifts to him"

 

Since when ? When in a criminal trial for theft does the defence assume the burden? -

I don't understand why there is an issue of 'stolen property' regarding my masterplan (999tigger's words) . The guy would be told where his property is and given keys because the self storage unit would be in his name .

 

I know an owner of a pub who wanted to get rid of a live in manager . He paid for the manager and his wife to go to London for a weekend break, then put all the manager's property into self storage and changed all the locks of the pub . When the now ex manager returned to the pub, there was a new manager in place who gave him a letter from the pub owner explaining the situation and telling him where his property was being stored . The pub owner was never arrested or prosecuted, but I suspect he was no longer on the ex manager's Christmas card list .

[999tigger]

"The evidential burden now moves to the defendant. If he says nothing, then the jury can reach its own conclusions or he can provide his own evidence. By doing so he may escape the theft charge, but he is likely to make himself liable for a range of other offences, most importantly blackmail. The jury decides if they believe it was his intention to steal the goods beyond reasonable doubt. That is the legal burden"

 

 

My god - the criminal justice system has been getting it wrong for hundreds of years - you should run down to the court tomorrow and tell the judiciary the defendant has to prove he hasn't done it and they have been mis directing juries for ages !

Please tell me you do not operate as a criminal solicitor. Stick to what you know about matey

 

If the accused says nothing - the jury are then given a specific legal direction as to what if anything they can take from his/her silence at trial - the jury would have his/her interview if they had answered questions and provided an explanation to the police to consider.

Juries in my experience are not all that concerned with silence at trial more with the strength of the evidence called by the Crown.

 

That changes, again in my experience, if the defendant decides to give evidence and gives an account that he should really have given at interview and hasn't got a credible reason for not so doing, or he changes the account he gave at interview.

 

Because this is all theoretical then you do not know what further evidence the prosecution are going to find about what he intends to do with the property. If you read what i wrote i didnt say he has to prove he hasnt done it. Go and read up what a prima facie case is.

 

If you actually bothered to read the thread, then you will see his bigger problem (which as been pointed out to you several times) is to do with the potential blackmail charges.

 

I bother to answer your question you repeatedly ignore everyone elses.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2016 at 17:55 ----------

 

I don't understand why there is an issue of 'stolen property' regarding my masterplan (999tigger's words) . The guy would be told where his property is and given keys because the self storage unit would be in his name .

.

 

Because you made no mention of this.

 

I cant see the point all you have done is made things worse by getting his back up.

You havent got any closer to selling the house. If you follow along your suggested lines then you dig yourself a very big hole in terms of potential blackmail and fraud/deception.

 

The only way to get the ex to sell is voluntarily (which he wont do) or though obtaining an order for sale.

[redfox]

"Go and read up what a prima facie case is" Your a real joker

 

"The evidential burden now moves to the defendant. If he says nothing, then the jury can reach its own conclusions or he can provide his own evidence. By doing so he may escape the theft charge" -what does the phrase evidential burden shifting to the defendant mean then ?

Last time I heard it expressed "the defendant does not have to prove anything" - maybe you should make an appointment with the judge and tell him he is wrong

[Gamston]

Oh dear , the legal eagles are arguing with each other :help:

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2016 at 18:52 ----------

 

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2016 at 17:55 ----------

 

 

Because you made no mention of this.

I cant see the point all you have done is made things worse by getting his back up.

You havent got any closer to selling the house. If you follow along your suggested lines then you dig yourself a very big hole in terms of potential blackmail and fraud/deception.

 

The only way to get the ex to sell is voluntarily (which he wont do) or though obtaining an order for sale.

I mentioned self storage in my original post .

[redfox]

First rule - read the brief - properly !!

 

Some of us do the arguing for real and not in the pub