Tag Archives: unconscionable

Accountants, Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Case Law, Court Staff, Legislation, Police Constables

Misconduct in Public Office

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.

 

Definition of the offence

The elements of the offence are summarised in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868. The offence is committed when:

  • a public officer acting as such
  • 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.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

Bailiffs & High Court Enforcement Officers, Bank/Building Society Staff, Court Staff, Estate Agents, Police Constables, Solicitors & Barristers

#TGBMS The Great British Mortgage Swindle

TGBMS

“BBT Films has been formed for the purposes of granting into private trust the worldwide rights of the film for the benefit of the filmmakers, as well as the men and woman whose unlawful evictions are featured in The Great British Mortgage Swindle.

Any and all monies generated by the international release of the film across all media will be shared by the producers with the featured protagonists who have their properties stolen from them in the film; as well as those courageous, committed and knowledgeable banksterbusters who stood on the front line with them in concerted efforts to resist each unlawful eviction.

The film features several deeply harrowing and profoundly emotive unlawful evictions by county court bailiffs and high court enforcement officers, aided and abetted by members of her majesty’s constabulary” who are all acting on paperwork known to have no lawful effect but are carried out by the use of force.

The people who assist in these unlawful procedures will have no lawful excuse if they continue to ignore the facts of how a possession order arises.

As a minimum people acting under this paperwork should ensure that they know all the actual elements required.

  • Court Seal
  • Judges name and signature

This subject will be covered in detail on the Knowldgebase

#TGBMS

#VOIDMORTGAGE

http://www.thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.net/movie-trailer/

 

Definitions

Negligence

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally “not to pick up something”) is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

According to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law;

The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people.”[2]

those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision.”

—Fletcher v Rylands ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265)

Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause their injury, they can recover damages to compensate for their harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proven in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Case Law, Definitions, Money Creation

Unconscionability

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of consent based obligations. “Inequality of bargaining power” is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone’s consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable (i.e., contrary to good conscience) to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Considerable controversy is still present over whether “iniquitous pressure” must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a consent based obligation to be voidable. While it seems clear that in cases of undue influence the pressure need not come from the person who may lose the contract[1] it is open to debate whether circumstances exist where an obligation should be voidable simply because the person was pressured by circumstances wholly outside a defendant’s control.

One of the most prominent cases in this area is Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy[2] where Lord Denning MR advocated that there be a general principle to govern this entire area. He called the concept “inequality of bargaining power“, while the American case espousing an equivalent doctrine, Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.[3] termed the issue one of “unconscionability”. Note that Lord Denning’s approach was later rejected by the House of Lords in National Westminster Bank v Morgan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability_in_English_law

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE