Jump to content

Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8


Featured Posts

My website is about how they get away with whatever they do however unlawful. Some of you think that's acceptable.

 

You should read it. You WILL learn something.

 

Some concepts are beyond even the more cynical of us, yet history demonstrates how easily BW and now CaRT have evaded any consequences beyond finger-wagging, even when found guilty of criminal behaviour. The one minor exception I know of was, I believe, later overturned [but of that I am not sure].

 

Even in that instance, a clear differential was obvious between BW and the other company involved; as per the law, the Director of the sub-contractor firm was himself fined, as a personal representative of his company – yet not a single equivalent person responsible within BW suffered the same penalty.

 

If anyone else thinks that is acceptable, Leigh most definitely does not, and if necessary, intends to take out a criminal prosecution of his own, assisted by friends with special knowledge of that procedure [i had always thought that to be impossible, but have since learnt otherwise].

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some concepts are beyond even the more cynical of us, yet history demonstrates how easily BW and now CaRT have evaded any consequences beyond finger-wagging, even when found guilty of criminal behaviour. The one minor exception I know of was, I believe, later overturned [but of that I am not sure].

 

Even in that instance, a clear differential was obvious between BW and the other company involved; as per the law, the Director of the sub-contractor firm was himself fined, as a personal representative of his company – yet not a single equivalent person responsible within BW suffered the same penalty.

 

If anyone else thinks that is acceptable, Leigh most definitely does not, and if necessary, intends to take out a criminal prosecution of his own, assisted by friends with special knowledge of that procedure [i had always thought that to be impossible, but have since learnt otherwise].

 

The only problem with your last point is the CPS have the right to take over any private criminal prosecution, which they invariably do, then surprise surprise a few weeks or months later, discontinue the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem with your last point is the CPS have the right to take over any private criminal prosecution, which they invariably do, then surprise surprise a few weeks or months later, discontinue the case.

 

I knew the CPS had the ability to take over any private prosecutions they became aware of, but I was not aware that this could subsequently be ‘reneged’ upon – surely, if they chose not to pursue a case once taken over, it would revert back to the originators?

 

You obviously have had experience of this, so I would be grateful to learn what I can from you about the processes with any examples.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew the CPS had the ability to take over any private prosecutions they became aware of, but I was not aware that this could subsequently be ‘reneged’ upon – surely, if they chose not to pursue a case once taken over, it would revert back to the originators?

You obviously have had experience of this, so I would be grateful to learn what I can from you about the processes with any examples.

 

You would think so, but no. Once they take on the case, and I have never heard of them not doing so the decisions then rest with them. Should they discontinue you have no right to reinstate proceedings. From my experience the only prospect of the CPS running anything like this would be if the evidence was absolutely certain to result in conviction, which is rarely the case or if the issue was of such public interest that to discontinue would be an embarrassment to the CPS, think along the line of Hillsborough disaster and you may be successful in getting them to run with it. Some old boater who has lost his tub, forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not what you would call an everyday occurrence. Even private prosecutions are not an everyday occurrence, but there was a case mentioned in the press, several months ago when exactly the sequence of events which Phil describes, did occur.

 

I can't for the life of me think which case it was though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I knew the CPS had the ability to take over any private prosecutions they became aware of, but I was not aware that this could subsequently be ‘reneged’ upon – surely, if they chose not to pursue a case once taken over, it would revert back to the originators?

 

You obviously have had experience of this, so I would be grateful to learn what I can from you about the processes with any examples.

 

 

 

Wasn't there a case in the news a few years ago when the CPS did this to a private prosecution? A high profile case where the CPS failed to mount a prosecution so a victim did instead.

 

The CPS then dropped the case leaving the victim impotent and raging as they were prevented from having a second go IIRC... I've a vague idea it was a policeman being prosecuted. Was it the relatives of Ian Tomlinson perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Wasn't there a case in the news a few years ago when the CPS did this to a private prosecution? A high profile case where the CPS failed to mount a prosecution so a victim did instead.

 

The CPS then dropped the case leaving the victim impotent and raging as they were prevented from having a second go IIRC... I've a vague idea it was a policeman being prosecuted. Was it the relatives of Ian Tomlinson perhaps?

 

Actually, yes, t was a cop, but not relating to Tomlinson.

 

Here you go. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cps-take-over-private-prosecution-10759893

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. At first glance it looks rather depressing and at distinct odds with a citizen's right to justice [nothing new there, I know].

 

I did notice mention in the first article of a possible Judicial review of the CPS decision, but I am equally disenchanted with the effectiveness of that process also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest news is that judgment has been handed down on Leigh’s application to have me as MF. I have not yet seen this, and only heard of it after reading an article in the Nottingham Post, a link for which was sent to me this morning.

I couldn’t work out where they were getting their ‘quotes’ from, and added a too-hasty comment to the online article. It was an hour or so before Leigh rang to say a judgment had arrived from the Court, which appears to have been the source. How the hell did the press get a copy, when neither Leigh nor I had even known about it? Weird.

I will upload a copy when I get one; Leigh has difficulty with email forwarding, and is trying to get his son to help out. Somehow, Shoosmiths have not seen fit to forward a copy [but maybe they assumed I had one already].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest news is that judgment has been handed down on Leigh’s application to have me as MF. I have not yet seen this, and only heard of it after reading an article in the Nottingham Post, a link for which was sent to me this morning.

 

I couldn’t work out where they were getting their ‘quotes’ from, and added a too-hasty comment to the online article. It was an hour or so before Leigh rang to say a judgment had arrived from the Court, which appears to have been the source. How the hell did the press get a copy, when neither Leigh nor I had even known about it? Weird.

 

I will upload a copy when I get one; Leigh has difficulty with email forwarding, and is trying to get his son to help out. Somehow, Shoosmiths have not seen fit to forward a copy [but maybe they assumed I had one already].

You might be interested in this Nigel -

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/obstinate-mckenzie-friend-granted-permission-to-be-advocate/5057687.article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do love that Hildyard quote – just why it is “relentless and obstinate” for anyone to pursue justice through the courts despite interim adverse judgments along the way, is something that has hitherto escaped me entirely. When the adverse judgments get overturned on appeal, surely that suffices as justification in the eyes of the Courts?

 

I did think of pointing out in the hearing, that BW had received just as much criticism as I did in that judgment [if not more], citing Hildyard J's analysis blaming Nigel Johnson's response to me as the factor setting matters on a confrontational and legalistic footing - but I do not regret my forbearance; my position was that the Master should best judge me on his observations of my performance in the 3 hearings before him.

Maybe this article is the one that tipped off the other press. It is the only explanation that makes sense – so thanks for that Allan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does "the kitchen sink approach" involve wearing a pinnie instead of a wig?

 

Seems like a step towards a day in court. I note that you have been warned against delaying things!

I would imagine that it means throwing “every thing but the kitchen sink” into the Claim.

 

Still, even though the Statement of Case attached to the Claim was unnecessary from a procedural point of view, and disproportionately long, it nonetheless tips CaRT off to the mass of material evidence against them.

 

Meantime I am grateful for the steer in the right direction, and for the opportunity to clarify the 3 main issues despite what Mr Stoner correctly identified as a certain ‘overlap’ between them.

 

I do not get the warning against delay – only CaRT have been responsible for the delay of more than a year, in seeking the Strike-Out orders and resisting my involvement. The sooner this is done and dusted the better, so far as Leigh and I are concerned!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do love that Hildyard quote – just why it is “relentless and obstinate” for anyone to pursue justice through the courts despite interim adverse judgments along the way, is something that has hitherto escaped me entirely. When the adverse judgments get overturned on appeal, surely that suffices as justification in the eyes of the Courts?

 

I did think of pointing out in the hearing, that BW had received just as much criticism as I did in that judgment [if not more], citing Hildyard J's analysis blaming Nigel Johnson's response to me as the factor setting matters on a confrontational and legalistic footing - but I do not regret my forbearance; my position was that the Master should best judge me on his observations of my performance in the 3 hearings before him.

 

Maybe this article is the one that tipped off the other press. It is the only explanation that makes sense – so thanks for that Allan.

 

 

They've got a point though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent and witty piece.

 

I can only presume it is an accurate piece also, not having read the judgment. I am left wondering quite was is meant by "‘the conduct of civil litigation is not the same as pursuing a public campaign", but that will hopefully be clearer read in context.

 

They've got a point though.

 

As to what, in particular – that I suffer from relentless obstinacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only presume it is an accurate piece also, not having read the judgment. I am left wondering quite was is meant by "‘the conduct of civil litigation is not the same as pursuing a public campaign", but that will hopefully be clearer read in context.

 

As to what, in particular – that I suffer from relentless obstinacy?

I think his meaning is perfectly clear and should be noted. No disrespect meant. I am glad you will be assisting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his meaning is perfectly clear and should be noted. No disrespect meant. I am glad you will be assisting.

 

 

Perhaps I have a tendency to read too many levels of possible meaning into things.

 

In context – such as I can gather, and from comments in past hearings – I assume that he means to drive home the warning that this case must concentrate on matters specific to Leigh’s case and circumstances; that it must not be used as a platform for boaters rights in general.

 

There are alternative meanings which I shall best, perhaps, mull over within myself.

 

 

 

edit to add: regardless of how the case itself is conducted - wherein I recognise that dispassionate attention to the primary issues is mandatory - Leigh himself took the opportunity to have his say at the last hearing, in stating that he was going to be “shouting from the rooftops” about all the crimes he claims have been perpetrated against him by CaRT!

 

I rather think I saw a faint smile on the Chief Master’s face as this proclamation was delivered, but I may be wrong.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well . . . googled the case to see what else was out there, and have discovered that the judgment is already available online, as well as other legal sites analysing it. Who would have thought that such a minor matter, pre-trial, would have attracted so much attention?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/2282.html

 

At least I now know what has been said and what all the other online articles were referring to. May post up some relevant excerpts later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well . . . googled the case to see what else was out there, and have discovered that the judgment is already available online, as well as other legal sites analysing it. Who would have thought that such a minor matter, pre-trial, would have attracted so much attention?

 

 

Well I think everybody likes mucking about in boats, even lawyers. Hence the remarkable level of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.