|
Post by PaulG2 on Jun 2, 2016 17:56:11 GMT
That's really funny, I asked them to reopen the thread and before I posted anything they are at each others throats again, and its locked. CWDF is like a magnet for dickheads. All the ones who were having a go at me are now backpeddaling of course. Sickening ! What's funny is they were all having a go at you, even though you hadn't posted. I think the regulars over there know what it takes to get a thread locked and they don't want any discussion of your matter so they just rag on each other and get the thread locked.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 31, 2016 11:40:34 GMT
The problem remains that only a judge can decide some of these points.... CaRT have had that particular issue clarified by a judge from the very first year of their existence. This Court Order is one of those published on CaRT’s website, and worth keeping on file. HHJ Harris QC was evidently more punctilious than most, and saw fit to memorialise the proper meaning of “without prior consent” so that there would be no doubt: -
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 31, 2016 11:46:49 GMT
Thank you Nigel, (and Seasonal Greetings to you ) That is well worth filing !!!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 31, 2016 11:57:09 GMT
It does highlight the point that all these applications for "Injunctive Relief" are not merely an abuse of the Court system and, in the way they usually seek to interpret it, illegal, but are in fact if read aright, totally redundant.
Insofar as any of these Orders have legal force, all they are saying is that a boat without a relevant consent where required, must be removed from the waterway and not brought back unless and until the required relevant consent is purchased.
What does that say, more than what the statutes and byelaws say?
I should note here also, that the exhaustive list of all CaRT controlled waterways that is added to these Orders, contains waterways for which no relevant consent is required at all, even discounting the whole "river waterways"/"main navigable channel" argument. That makes any Order banning a boat from being kept or used on those public navigable rivers with unamended rights ultra vires, and the condoning of a criminal offence. This is a point that has been made in the Ravenscroft case; one that County Court judges would do well to take on board.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 0:41:48 GMT
That's a good find Nigel. More proof that the legal department under Jackie Lewis knew the real meaning of the court order in my case. I wonder if it is an offence for a barrister, or anyone else to knowingly misrepresent a CCJ ?
I beleive the true meaning of the CCJ was also stated by BW in the BW v Ward case.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 14:47:03 GMT
That's a good find Nigel. More proof that the legal department under Jackie Lewis knew the real meaning of the court order in my case. I wonder if it is an offence for a barrister, or anyone else to knowingly misrepresent a CCJ ? I beleive the true meaning of the CCJ was also stated by BW in the BW v Ward case. It would be even better if we knew who the CRT legal and enforcement staff involved in this case were, because later on they denied knowledge of the meaning of these court orders.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 1, 2017 16:10:22 GMT
The Legal staff at the Time comprised Nigel Johnson still at the top of the tree; Jackie Lewis as Head of the department and General Counsel, and Greta O’Shea as Solicitor/advocate/seal holder. I have no idea who the EO may have been, but it could no doubt be worked out from the employment record for that year and checking the Order for the local court used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 16:36:47 GMT
The Legal staff at the Time comprised Nigel Johnson still at the top of the tree; Jackie Lewis as Head of the department and General Counsel, and Greta O’Shea as Solicitor/advocate/seal holder. I have no idea who the EO may have been, but it could no doubt be worked out from the employment record for that year and checking the Order for the local court used. EO Phil Brogan. Supervisor Peter Palmer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 16:45:20 GMT
Giving Phil Brogan a little credit, I've had several occasions where I've had to approach him, (not for my own circumstances), each time, I've found him approachable and not vindictive. However, if you were taking the piss, he had little time for you. Peter Palmer on the other hand is in my opinion a waste of space, is not fit for purpose, and should be sacked, or retired, along with head of enforcement and her deputy. These people drag the trust down, and I am frankly amazed that their seniors within crt fail to see it.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 16:55:32 GMT
The Legal staff at the Time comprised Nigel Johnson still at the top of the tree; Jackie Lewis as Head of the department and General Counsel, and Greta O’Shea as Solicitor/advocate/seal holder. I have no idea who the EO may have been, but it could no doubt be worked out from the employment record for that year and checking the Order for the local court used. EO Phil Brogan. Supervisor Peter Palmer. But Peter Palmer stated in writing in my case that he was not aware that the same worded court order ( minus the judges extra note ) did not prevent a new licence being issued , and that his decision to refuse my application was made in conjuction with Jackie Lewis. Oh dear, oh dear ! This drops Palmer and Lewis right in the shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 17:09:16 GMT
EO Phil Brogan. Supervisor Peter Palmer. But Peter Palmer stated in writing in my case that he was not aware that the same worded court order ( minus the judges extra note ) did not prevent a new licence being issued , and that his decision to refuse my application was made in conjuction with Jackie Lewis. Oh dear, oh dear ! This drops Palmer and Lewis right in the shit. Like I said, Peter Palmer in my view is a waste of space. I don't even bother with him. The way I see it, if people want issues addressed, they need to make complaints, copying in the trustees, and local MP. It will take time for either to acknowledge or partake in such a complaint, and that would be helped greatly if "anyone and everyone" actually did it. Eventually, it would become clear to even the most ignorant, that a problem needs to be solved. All these court cases do nothing but help crt, and their spin (they have the most money). Sooner or later, people need to realise this, and concentrate their respective resources away from such actions, and direct them instead toward group action plans.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 17:29:11 GMT
I wonder what duty an EO has toward dealing with statutory aspects of enforcement ? Misfeasance in public office, or something like that ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2017 17:33:20 GMT
I wonder what duty an EO has toward dealing with statutory aspects of enforcement ? Misfeasance in public office, or something like that ? I suspect we shall find out when the Ravenscroft case is settled.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 1, 2017 21:40:57 GMT
From the Hildyard judgment: -
223. On 19th August 2008, Mr Peter Palmer (the new Enforcement Officer who took over from Mr Farrow on his ill-health and retirement) served a section 8 reminder notice on 'Saifti' in breach of the terms of the Court undertaking I have described above. 224. Even if the breach is in one sense minor and the damage is slight, the breach of any Court undertaking is a serious matter. To my mind somewhat surprisingly, neither Mr Johnson nor any other witness for BWB dealt with the matter at all in his Witness Statements. When the matter came before me, I considered that no adequate explanation had been offered, and I required further evidence on the matter to be filed. I also required a description of the steps taken to rectify any errors in procedure that might have led to a mistake being made. In response to this, Mr Johnson provided to the Court a long and detailed 3rd Witness Statement dated 11 November 2011, after the end of the hearing. 225. In that Witness Statement, Mr Johnson explained that, having made careful enquiry, it appeared that Mr Palmer (apparently on the day before he started his employment by BWB) had served the section 8 notice on 'Saifti' "on the basis that (1) it had moved from its previous location….and (2) he did not appreciate that the undertaking continued to apply…since the vessel had moved away from its original location." 226. Mr Johnson went on "The breach of the court undertaking was unintentional but notwithstanding that I apologise unreservedly to both the Claimant and the Court for the breach." 227. Mr Johnson then also explained that BWB had introduced a new computer system that should prevent similar errors in the future by updating Enforcement officers' files more comprehensively and quicker. 228. This unfortunate, but (I accept) unintentional, breach of the undertaking was, however, compounded by the failure of BWB to respond to the Claimant's requests for an explanation at the time. Thus, although the Claimant sought such an explanation in an e-mail dated 23 August 2008 (expressing at that time his presumption, having had a brief earlier conversation with Mr Palmer, that the breach was "undertaken in ignorance"), repeated his request (having had no response) by e-mail dated 5 September 2008, and then took the matter up both with the Court (through Mr Justice Floyd J's clerk) and (by copy of court communications) with BWB's Solicitors, Mr Johnson now accepts that no formal substantive response was ever provided to the Claimant. Mr Johnson offers an explanation that "due to the impending Geronimo trial the parties were all focussing on other issues post September 2008"; this seems to me to be, at best, lame. However, he does accept in his third witness statement that this "was clearly not acceptable". I agree.
It should be noted that the proffered suggestion this incident had provoked the introduction of a new computer system to prevent future such "similar errors" entirely misses the point that Peter Palmer had, contrary to what I was prepared to believe, been fully acquainted with the Court Undertaking, and simply chose to interpret it off his own bat. His rise through the ranks was assured from that point, presumably on that very basis.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 1, 2017 22:38:39 GMT
The same MO from Palmer over Tadworth, when he's found out he claims ignorance, and tries to wriggle off the hook.
The worm.
|
|