Can you report someone Single Person Council Tax Discount fraud?

[999tigger]

"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

 

What is funny about the requirement to establish a prima facie case? If the prosecution establish their case, then the opportunity to rebut that case falls to the defendant. They dont have to give evidence, but staying silent opens them up to having an adverse inference drawn. In this situation a lock up full of goods reported stolen.

 

I think this is the correct practice direction.

 

DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO GIVE OR NOT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

 

(IV.44.1) At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 requires the court to satisfy itself that the accused is aware that the stage has been reached at which evidence can be given for the defence and that he can, if he wishes, give evidence and that, if he chooses not to give evidence, or having been sworn, without good cause refuses to answer any question, it will be permissible for the jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question.

 

.....

 

"You have heard the evidence against you. Now is the time for you to make your defence. You may give evidence on oath, and be cross-examined like any other witness. If you do not give evidence or, having been sworn, without good cause refuse to answer any question the jury may draw such inferences as appear proper. That means they may hold it against you".

 

So he can either rebut the case against him or if he stays silent the jury can decide to draw a negative inference from that silence. Any decision would be based upon considering the prosecution evidence. The legal burden remains on the prosecution.

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/practice-direction/part4

Edited February 14, 2016 by 999tigger

[redfox]

"then the opportunity to rebut that case falls to the defendant"

 

There you go reversing the burden of proof again - good job some of us do actually know what were doing -

 

Try this from the Bench Book on the adverse inference -

 

Lord Taylor CJ described the essential elements of directions to the jury as follows:

 

1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is.

 

2. It is necessary for the judge to make clear to the jury that the defendant is entitled to remain silent.

 

That is his right and his choice. The right of silence remains.

 

3. An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt.

 

That is expressly stated in section 38(3) of the Act.

 

4. Therefore, the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. Of course, the judge must have thought so or the question whether the defendant was to give evidence would not have arisen. But the jury may not believe the witnesses whose evidence the judge considered sufficient to raise a prima facie case. It must therefore be made clear to them that they must find there to be a case to answer on the prosecution evidence

before drawing an adverse inference from the defendant’s silence.

 

5. If, despite any evidence relied upon to explain his silence or in the absence of any such evidence, the jury conclude the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant’s having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference.

[999tigger]

[/color]

I mentioned self storage in my original post .

 

You said youd lock his stuff away. You made no mention of telling him where it is. You did mention using persuasive techniques. So what would be the purpose of holding his stuff in lockup if not for leverage? Obviously if youd left a note saying your property is here and theres the key, then you wouldnt be able to argue permanently deprive.

 

But all that would do is annoy him further making him even less likely to co operate. What you dont seem to appreciate is you have gone into his house and atempted to evict him from his own home.

If you start trying to use your persuasive techniques, then you need to be careful you dont fall into blackmail. If you put the house on the market and start dealing with 3rd parties as though you have the right to sell, then you are also in a whole heap of trouble.

 

As was suggested the way forward is to follow the legal process and get an order of sale. The OP can use her solicitor to obtain that. Its the way to get what she wants.

[Gamston]

You said youd lock his stuff away. You made no mention of telling him where it is. You did mention using persuasive techniques. So what would be the purpose of holding his stuff in lockup if not for leverage? Obviously if youd left a note saying your property is here and theres the key, then you wouldnt be able to argue permanently deprive.

 

But all that would do is annoy him further making him even less likely to co operate. What you dont seem to appreciate is you have gone into his house and atempted to evict him from his own home.

If you start trying to use your persuasive techniques, then you need to be careful you dont fall into blackmail. If you put the house on the market and start dealing with 3rd parties as though you have the right to sell, then you are also in a whole heap of trouble.

 

As was suggested the way forward is to follow the legal process and get an order of sale. The OP can use her solicitor to obtain that. Its the way to get what she wants.

 

As redfox said "First rule - read the brief - properly !! "

 

If you read the original post again , you may notice I said I would wait for the guy to come home from work . This is when everything would have been explained to him including where the contents of the house had been moved to . The contents of the house are a minor issue and the purpose of their removal is only to help speed up the sale of the house . The co owner of the house would put the house up for sale who has as much authority to do so as the other owner . My role would be just to help one of the owners carry out their wishes while at the same time act as peacemaker to help bring about a satisfactory outcome to a long running dispute .

[999tigger]

If my daughter was in a similar situation to Isabelle's current predicament, then I would arrange for all the locks of the house to be changed after the guy leaves the property for work . All the contents of the house including any apples and oranges would be removed and placed into self storage . Then I would wait along with a couple of house sitters for the guy to return from work to give him the news he has been evicted from the house which would be up for sale within a few days . I have connections with the building trade so changing the locks and securing the property would not be a problem .

 

My 'presuasive techniques' would have been used to convince the guy to vacate the house four and half years ago instead of my daughter and a situation like Isabelle's would never have occurred .

 

My solution would be cheaper and quicker but more stressful for the guy involved .

 

This is your post. You make no mention about telling him where his property is. You had plenty of opprtunity to do so when the issue was raised.

 

The contents of the house are not a minor issue to him. They arent a minor issue if you are using them as leverage to make him sell or else. If you lock him out of his own home then he just goes to court and get a re-entry order.

 

Just as the co owner puts the house up for sale he takes it off. She needs an order for sale to bypass him and sell it legally. Your actions wouldnt bring about a satisfactory outcome they would just make things worse.

[Cyclone]

You over estimate the impact of being held in a cell particularly if its in the context of a domestic dispute. It is hardly likely to calm the situation is it now?

 

Ever been in a criminal court and observed what goes on - daily ?

Ever had any experience of the decision making processes of the CPS?

 

There is more than enough for the police to be getting on with on limited resources as there is for the CPS - who have taken a huge hit on the budget - but you will have known both these facts anyway.

 

As for Cyclone - he is quite happy to give it out, all I have done is pointed out he has not a clue what he s talking about. if that is being rude then your idea of being rude is not mine

 

All you're repeatedly done is declare "you're wrong", with no evidence or explanation. I can have the same level of 'discussion' with my 5 year old nephew, but nobody learns anything.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2016 at 20:49 ----------

 

First rule - read the brief - properly !!

 

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

 

When do you do this arguing? With children? Do you just keep repeating "you're wrong"? Or do you have the ability to explain?

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2016 at 20:59 ----------

 

As redfox said "First rule - read the brief - properly !! "

 

If you read the original post again , you may notice I said I would wait for the guy to come home from work . This is when everything would have been explained to him including where the contents of the house had been moved to . The contents of the house are a minor issue and the purpose of their removal is only to help speed up the sale of the house . The co owner of the house would put the house up for sale who has as much authority to do so as the other owner . My role would be just to help one of the owners carry out their wishes while at the same time act as peacemaker to help bring about a satisfactory outcome to a long running dispute .

 

Neither owner has the right to sell the property without the agreement of the other.

And whilst your plan would probably avoid you being prosecuted for theft, I doubt it would avoid you being arrested for it.

 

And whilst your storage locker plan might avoid the legal definition of theft, perhaps there is an English equivalent of the Scottish "clandestinely taking possession". I've found some references to "unauthorised borrowing". For motor vehicles this has it's own law, TWOC, but it wouldn't seem to be unreasonable that other property was covered as well.

Perhaps someone knows if there is such a law?

[redfox]

When do you do this arguing? With children? Do you just keep repeating "you're wrong"? Or do you have the ability to explain?

 

A childish pathetic response - you cannot abide anyone suggesting you don't know what your on about, it must challenge your over inflated ego.

 

Do not claim to be that which you are not - and you matey are no lawyer that much is obvious. Maybe suggest your novel legal idea about TWOC to the law commission - it would make them chuckle at the very least

[Cyclone]

I'm actually more than happy to learn something. But you refuse to explain or do anything other than keep repeating "you're wrong".

I imagine you capering around in a joker's costume, parroting "you're wrong".

 

I didn't claim to be anything. You however claim to be something, but refuse to say what exactly...

 

I'm not sure what point you even have, because you've contradicted yourself several times, you can't quite decide if there would be no prosecution or if he'd merely not be convicted. Nor can you explain why the police wouldn't arrest Gamston after the theft was reported...

 

Perhaps what you do is defend burglars, are you the duty solicitor? How often does "just tell them you were intending to give it all back" actually work as a defence?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Cyclone

[redfox]

Ah - so the insults begin - grow up you silly little boy.

 

Don't set yourself up as an authority on a topic when you don't know enough to carry it off and do not like it being pointed out -

 

What i do or do not do is none of your business - nor is it any of mine what you spend your time doing.

[Solution]

How has this subject got to this? How?

 

It's a shame there isn't a list of users that have a specific centre of knowledge in a particular subject that could help the OP with their dilemma.

But that's not likely to happen. Not as long as there is opinion.

 

Opinion being the operative word. Not real knowledge, just the freedom to oppinionate on what could be a very serious dilemma for someone. I'm no expert in this field, but having a petty squabble on it is seriously childish, and makes lurkers like me laugh out loud and draw a conclusion similar to this.......

 

http://benidorm.wikia.com/wiki/Geoff_Maltby