The marginal note to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 describes it as a “basic definition” of theft. Sections 1(1) and (2) provide:
1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
Sections 2 to 6 of the Theft Act 1968 have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of section 1 of that Act. Except as otherwise provided by that Act, sections 2 to 6 of that Act apply only for the purposes of section 1 of that Act.[18]
Section 4 – “Property”
The definition of property is “any property including money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property”
Section 6 “Intention to permanently deprive”
This section provides that the defendant in order to be guilty of theft had the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property.
The Theft Act 1968 describes property as including money and all other property, real or personal, including ‘things in action’ and other intangible property. When a case involves cheques or funds in bank accounts, it is important to identify and analyse exactly what has taken place. Prosecutors should carefully examine bank account details. It may be necessary to ask the police to obtain further evidence or information before deciding on the appropriate charge.
The theft of someone’s home without full and complete facts and evidence and the full accounting allowing for the fact the home owner was the originating creditor is therefore a criminal offence and not a civil one.
So why do Police Constables completely ignore this fact?
Much concern has been raised by images of police constables taking active measures to support bailiffs using force to repossess homes on behalf of private corporations such as banks and local authorities.
The traditional role of police was to maintain the Queens peace.
This necessarily meant maintaining impartiality as the traditional police oath required:
“”I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without fear or affection, malice or ill will, and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”
Things began to change with the Police Act 1996. Research has confirmed that the change was never debated of explained:
“I………………..of………………..do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.’]
Note the difference, “Cause the peace to be kept and preserved” is transformed to “Upholding fundamental human rights”.
A common law obligation is replaced by a statute containing an undertaking to comply with statute law. Statutes cannot secure rights because the next Parliament can repeal whatever undertakings its predecessor might have made.
This is in conformity with the present legal and political establishments claim that “Parliament is supreme and can make and unmake any law it likes”.
Which brings us to the little known Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (the 2007 Act). “Bailiffs” are now known as “Enforcement Agents” who “Take control of goods” ;
“s.63 Enforcement agents
(2) An individual may act as an enforcement agent only if one of these applies—
(a) he acts under a certificate under section 64 (formerly a certificated bailiff);
(b) he is exempt;
(c) he acts in the presence and under the direction of a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies.
(3) An individual is exempt if he acts in the course of his duty as one of these—
(a) a constable;…”.
There we have it; a constable may act as an enforcement agent because he is exempt from the requirement for certification or when he is under the direction of a person who is certificated.
So much for the bad news.
Now the good news.
The lawfulness of the “Enforcement Agents” actions depends on the authenticity of the documents which they are relying on. I refer you to Guy Taylor’s forensic work.
The lawfulness of the constable’s actions also depends on the whole body of the law and particularly the obligations which The Queen accepted at Her Coronation.
Remember that s.63 (2) states that “An individual may act as an enforcement agent…”. There is no compulsion.
Check YouTube for the following video of the “Coronation of Queen Elizabeth the Second 1953”;
It is in black and white, is 9 mins 17 secs long and has the words “British Pathe” at the beginning.
The first insight which the film gives begins at the 5 min 50 sec point. The prospective Sovereign is presented to the people, she bows to them and then the Archbishops asks the people if they accept her. This election is proof that the people are Sovereign, whatever the present establishment may claim.
The ceremony moves on to the next video. YouTube should take you there automatically.
At the 10 sec. mark the Sword of state is presented “For the punishment of evildoers and the protection of the law abiding” .
At the 20 sec. mark the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presents the glove symbolising “Gentleness in the levying of taxes”.
At the 1.30 sec mark the Sceptre signifying “Kingly power and Justice” is presented. Justice means to recognise rights and punish wrongs.
At the 1.40 sec. Mark the Rod with the dove signifying that “Equity and mercy are never to be forgotten”.
Equity is fairness. As a legal system, it is a body of law that addresses concerns that fall outside the jurisdiction of the Common Law.
There we have it. Those who hold the Office of Constable, pre and post 1996, should be fulfilling their lawful and legal obligations better than they have been in well publicised cases.
Child abusers should be arrested and prosecuted. Debtors should be treated fairly.
A constable’s duty does not extend to “Taking control of goods” regardless of the circumstances.
The Nuremberg defence, “I vos only followink ze orders”, will not be accepted and failure to do these things is clearly the Common Law crime of misconduct in office.
26Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges
(1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—
(a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and
(b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.
(2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).
(3)The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a)a constable of a police force in England and Wales;
(b)a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;
(c)a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(d)a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;
(e)a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;
(f)a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.
(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—
(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—
(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or
(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and
(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).
(6)The first case is where—
(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,
(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(7)The second case is where—
(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,
(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(8)An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.
(9)In this section—
“benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;
“United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.
(10)References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.
(11)Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
There is nothing in the Oath of a Constable which allows the protection of a Bank/Building Society for using an invalid court document that was obtained by fraud as there was NEVER any money loaned.
Read your Oath of Office today and then carry out an investigation as to the facts and evidence in these matters.
In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the ‘causing alarm or distress’ offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and ‘putting people in fear of violence’ offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.
Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.
The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.
A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.
Closely connected groups may also be subjected to ‘collective’ harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.
Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as ‘stalking by proxy’. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.
Continued requests for money to be paid back on a false loan agreement would amount to Harassment
Section 2 offence – Harassment
The elements of section 2 offence are:
a course of conduct;
which amounts to harassment of another; and
which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.
The bank or building society will therefore know first hand whether they “LOANED” any money or not and this evidence can be produced from the “Full and Complete Accounting” of the company involved.
Refusing to investigate the theft of someone’s home WILL lead to this
Principle
Scope of the offence
Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the offence should be strictly confined. It can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues. Prosecutors should therefore consider seeking the advice of the Principal Legal Advisor to resolve any uncertainty as to whether it would be appropriate to bring a prosecution for such an offence.
wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself
to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder
without reasonable excuse or justification
Where there is a statutory offence but it would be difficult or inappropriate to use it. This might arise because of evidential difficulties in proving the statutory offence in the particular circumstances;
because the maximum sentence for the statutory offence would be entirely insufficient for the seriousness of the misconduct.
A Public OfficerThe prosecution must have evidence to show that the suspect is a ‘public officer’. There is no simple definition and each case must be assessed individually, taking into account the nature of the role, the duties carried out and the level of public trust involved.
The courts have been reluctant to provide a detailed definition of a public officer. The case-law contains an element of circularity, in that the cases tend to define a public officer as a person who carries out a public duty or has an office of trust. What may constitute a public duty or an office of trust must therefore be inferred from the facts of particular cases.
The judgment of Lord Mansfield in R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug KB 32 refers to a public officer having:
‘ an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit … by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed’.
It does not seem that the person concerned must be the holder of an ‘office’ in a narrow or technical sense. The authorities suggest that it is the nature of the duties and the level of public trust involved that are relevant, rather than the manner or nature of appointment.
In R v Whitaker (1914) KB 1283 the court said:
‘A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public.’
This approach was followed in a series of cases from other common law jurisdictions: R v Williams (1986) 39 WIR 129; R v Sacks [1943] SALR 413; R v Boston (1923) 33 CLR 386.
In R v Dytham (1979) 1 QB 723 Lord Widgery CJ talked of ‘a public officer who has an obligation to perform a duty’.
Remuneration is a significant factor, but not an essential element. In R v Belton [2010] WLR (D) 283 the defendant was an unpaid voluntary member of the Independent Monitoring Board. The Court of Appeal held that remuneration was not an indispensable requirement for the holding of a public office, or for liability to prosecution for the offence of misconduct in a public office.
The fact that an individual was a volunteer might have a bearing on whether there had been wilful misconduct, but was only indicative rather than determinative of whether an individual held a public office.
The court in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 referred to the unfairness that could arise where people who carry out similar duties may or may not be liable to prosecution depending on whether they can be defined as ‘public officers’. What were once purely public functions are now frequently carried out by employees in private employment. An example is the role of the court security officer.
The court declined to define a public officer, however, but said:
‘This potential unfairness adds weight, in our view, to the conclusion that the offence should be strictly confined but we do not propose to develop the point or to consider further the question of what, for present purposes, constitutes a public office.’
The following have been accepted as holding a public office by the courts over several centuries:
Coroner (1675) R v Parker 2 Lev 140
Constable (1703) R v Wyatt 1 Salk 380
Accountant in the office of the Paymaster General (1783) R v Bembridge 3 Doug K.B. 32
Justice of the Peace (1791) R v Sainsbury 4 T.R 451
Executive or ministerial officer (1819) R v Friar 1 Chit.Rep (KB) 702
Gaoler (1827) R v Cope 6 A%E 226
Mayor or burgess (1828) Henly v Mayor of Lyme 5 Bing 91
Overseer of the poor (1891) R v Hall 1 QB 747
Army officer (1914) R v Whitaker 10 Cr.App.R.245
County Court registrar (district judge) (1968) R v Llewellyn-Jones 1 Q.B.429
Police officer (1979) R v Dytham 69 Cr.App.R.387
Council maintenance officer (1995) R v Bowden 4 All E.R 505
Local councillor (2004) R v Speechley [2004] EWCA Crim 3067
Member of the Independent Monitoring Board for prisons (2010) R v Belton R v Belton [2010] EWCA Crim 2857
So Police Constables take note,
A refusal to carry out an investigation into the theft of a home will amount to Misconduct in Office.
As the Office of Constable being a Public Servant has a position of trust concerning the Public and the Public of these lands have a legitimate expectation that you will do your job which is in essence an agreement or contract with us.
We implore you to read this post and ensure that you comprehend the contents in its entirety.
Anyone who is entering back into their property to defend it from unlawful possession has a full and complete defence if you were to investigate the matter IN ADVANCE!
Do not just follow orders to evict trespassers on someone’s say so.
Make accurate inquiries as to whether the people have re-entered THEIR home to defend it first and check the details at the Land Registry.
Where mortgage repossessions are concerned, Police Constables are being psychologically reframed to regard evictee’s as squatters or trespassers, whom they can remove using police powers.
This power therefore can not be used if by investigation, IN ADVANCE, you can prove there was no loan by the bank or the building society.If they cannot prove they suffered a loss then they never made a loan … SIMPLE!
This power would then be an abuse of power if it doesn’t go hand in hand with a prior investigation to comply with your IMPARTIALITY.
Therefore any claim made in court would therefore be VOID AB INITIO and a Fraud upon the Court.
What you are doing is removing the lawful right of the owner by extreme force and against their will to defend their property which you as a Police Constable have no right to do before carrying out that investigation.
By removing and displacing real People you remove their base their home their life and you are doing it under orders with ZERO investigation as to the facts and evidence in the case in which you could obtain yourself if you remembered your oath of Office as a Constable.
Just doing your job has no defence in this country.
It could be seen as Misfeasance in Public Office for not carrying out your duties as a Public Servant as per YOUR Oath. This will open you personally to a civil claim if you do not do your job properly and have a dereliction of duty.
If you get asked to attend an incident like this, make inquiries as to whether the bank lent any money and ask to see where the loss of the purported “Mortgage Loan” occurred by insisting on seeing all the entries in the Bankers Books as per this legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/42-43/11/contents Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879.
Elements of the offence – points to prove
6.
Subsection (1) of section 144 sets out the elements of the offence. The offence is committed when:
a person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as such;
the person knows or ought to know that they are a trespasser; AND
the person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.
You see if the real owner re-enters they know they are not a trespasser and the Full Accounting will prove their case. If you remove them first without investigating the facts of the case presented to you, you will become liable.
OFFENCE OF SQUATTING IN A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Introduction
1.
Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act
2012 creates a new offence of squatting in a residential building, which will apply throughout England and Wales. The offence is set out in full in