Theft by executor: Criminal or civil case?
Joe Dennigan
case?
Somewhat simplified - the essential facts:
My mother died in 2000. As far as I have been able to find out her
estate consisted of her home. The executor - also a beneficiary of
the will - sold the property in March 2004 and disappeared with the
proceeds. I reported this to the police but they were unable to trace
him at that time. All his family and friends denied any knowledge of
his whereabouts.
In December 2010 the executor was found and arrested. There is no
question that he took the money - he admitted that he still has about
half of it in various bank accounts.
The police have now referred the case to the CPS for consideration of
prosecution but have advised me that I should instruct solicitors of
my own - which I cannot afford. It appears that the CPS are leaning
towards the opinion that stealing from an estate is actually a civil
matter.
I am also trying to clarify my position with respect to legal aid. I
am a Scottish resident and an application here failed on jurisdiction
as the case is in England. I have e-mailed legal aid in England
asking for advice but have not had a reply.
Any clarification of the legal position and/or pointers to other
sources would be appreciated.
Joe D.
--
To e-mail me:
Joe Dennigan <ergotmania at googlemail dot com>
Big Les Wade
>Can anyone in this group help me understand my legal position in this
>case?
>
>Somewhat simplified - the essential facts:
>
>My mother died in 2000. As far as I have been able to find out her
>estate consisted of her home. The executor - also a beneficiary of
>the will - sold the property in March 2004 and disappeared with the
>proceeds. I reported this to the police but they were unable to trace
>him at that time. All his family and friends denied any knowledge of
>his whereabouts.
>
>In December 2010 the executor was found and arrested. There is no
>question that he took the money - he admitted that he still has about
>half of it in various bank accounts.
>
>The police have now referred the case to the CPS for consideration of
>prosecution but have advised me that I should instruct solicitors of
>my own - which I cannot afford.
Did they explain why they thought you should do that?
>It appears that the CPS are leaning
>towards the opinion that stealing from an estate is actually a civil
>matter.
I doubt that, they regularly prosecute estate fraud cases.
More likely they either suspect you of being an accessory to the crime;
or consider you are likely to launch a civil case to recover your share
for which engaging a solicitor from the start might help you.
>I am also trying to clarify my position with respect to legal aid. I
>am a Scottish resident and an application here failed on jurisdiction
>as the case is in England. I have e-mailed legal aid in England
>asking for advice but have not had a reply.
Dunno.
--
Les
Peter Crosland
news:pkss38-...@not-working.at.home...
It is a criminal matter if the executor has stolen money or property from
the estate. You may have to take civil action against him to recover what he
has stolen but that does not alter the fact of it being a criminal act.
Peter Crosland
Chris R
--------------------------------------------
Whether or not the perpetrator is prosecuted, recovering any assets he may
have is likely to require civil proceedings - although the courts can make
criminal bankruptcy orders or compensation orders, you would need to be
asking for them. Legal Aid is applied for though solicitors and not direct.
You need a solicitor in England. Funding is more likely to be through a
conditional fee agreement than through Legal Aid. If you know where the
assets are you may need to apply urgently for freezing injunctions. How
much, roughly, are we talking about?
Chris R
Chris R
prosecution but have advised me that I should instruct solicitors of
my own - which I cannot afford. It appears that the CPS are leaning
towards the opinion that stealing from an estate is actually a civil
matter.
I am also trying to clarify my position with respect to legal aid. I
am a Scottish resident and an application here failed on jurisdiction
as the case is in England. I have e-mailed legal aid in England
asking for advice but have not had a reply.
Any clarification of the legal position and/or pointers to other
sources would be appreciated.
--------------------------------------------
Theft from an estate is definitely criminal, but civil and criminal cases
are not mutually exclusive. You need a solicitor whether or not the
prosecution goes ahead.
Bob
person (the executor) was as not entitled, and the deprivation of the money
from those to whom it was due (the beneficiaries).
The first is a criminal matter - whether it is theft or fraud is a matter
for the CPS, but I would be surprised if they took the view that criminal
law did not apply.
The second is a civil matter - In the event that the CPS moves forward with
a prosecution, a conviction would not necessarily result in the restitution
of the estate's assets.
I would recommend that you seek urgent advice from a solicitor, both to
initiate action for civil recovery and perhaps more importantly to ensure
that the defendant's assets are frozen as a matter of urgency to ensure that
they are not squirrelled away somewhere before your case is heard. As to
whether legal aid would apply, I would imagine a good probate lawyer would
be best placed to advise you on this - while they do not necessarily have
dealings with civil litigation of this type, they would have colleagues who
have probably dealt with this before and could advise.
-----------------------------------------
"Joe Dennigan" wrote in message news:pkss38-...@not-working.at.home...
jdenn
> Whether or not the perpetrator is prosecuted, recovering any assets he may
> have is likely to require civil proceedings - although the courts can make
> criminal bankruptcy orders or compensation orders, you would need to be
> asking for them. Legal Aid is applied for though solicitors and not direct.
> You need a solicitor in England. Funding is more likely to be through a
> conditional fee agreement than through Legal Aid. If you know where the
> assets are you may need to apply urgently for freezing injunctions. How
> much, roughly, are we talking about?
The total value of the estate was between £239,000 and £240,000, 50%
of which was to be distributed between myself, my sister and her
children.
The police have details of the bank accounts and have verified that
one holds about £82,000 and another 'off-shore investment' (their
description) £40,000 which is due to mature early next year so final
figure as yet unknown. They will not give me any details of the
accounts, nor tell me where the executor currently lives so I can try
to get the information directly.
So, if I understand the situation, the CPS are likely to prosecute but
even if successful will allow him to keep the stolen funds and I will
have to sue separately to attempt recovery?
Joe D.
--
To e-mail me:
Joe Dennigan <ergotmania qt googlemail dot com>
Chris R
------------------------------------------------------
The proceeds could end up being confiscated as the proceeds of crime, but
that does not get them back to you automatically. With over £100,000 at
stake you definitely need an English solicitor. Not a probate lawyer, as
someone suggested, but litigation lawyer with experience of fraud recovery.
Chris R
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated jdenn <j...@invalid.com>
>Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Whether or not the perpetrator is prosecuted, recovering any assets he may
>> have is likely to require civil proceedings - although the courts can make
>> criminal bankruptcy orders or compensation orders, you would need to be
>> asking for them. Legal Aid is applied for though solicitors and not direct.
>> You need a solicitor in England. Funding is more likely to be through a
>> conditional fee agreement than through Legal Aid. If you know where the
>> assets are you may need to apply urgently for freezing injunctions. How
>> much, roughly, are we talking about?
>
>
>The total value of the estate was between £239,000 and £240,000, 50%
>of which was to be distributed between myself, my sister and her
>children.
>
>The police have details of the bank accounts and have verified that
>one holds about £82,000 and another 'off-shore investment' (their
>description) £40,000 which is due to mature early next year so final
>figure as yet unknown. They will not give me any details of the
>accounts, nor tell me where the executor currently lives so I can try
>to get the information directly.
The good news is that after a decade or so there is a fair chunk of
money to be redistributed amongst yourself, your sister and your nieces
and nephews once you've got it back. It could have been a lot worse.
>So, if I understand the situation, the CPS are likely to prosecute but
>even if successful will allow him to keep the stolen funds and I will
>have to sue separately to attempt recovery?
A few questions that may help us to help you, hopefully not too
intrusive.
1. what was the executors relationship to your late mother?
2. you are in Scotland, it appears the executor is in England; was your
late mother's will made in Scotland or England? Which country is your
sister in?
As others have suggested I think you need a good sit down chat with a
suitable lawyer. I wouldn't worry too much about not being able to
afford a consultation at the moment. The amount available will be more
than sufficient to pay the fees as and when.
I'm a little puzzled as to why the police won't tell you the whereabouts
of the man that has your money. If the CPS are involved he is likely to
have to appear at some court at some time and he is going to be asked
for his address then and he isn't sounding like a "no fixed abode"
person to me. Have you threatened violence or anything like that that
might make the police wary of giving you his details? <-- that isn't an
accusation, I'm just wondering why they won't tell you where the man
with your money is.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Percy Picacity
news:5P6YFlNtkNbNFwAZ@[127.0.0.1]:
> I'm a little puzzled as to why the police won't tell you the
> whereabouts of the man that has your money. If the CPS are
> involved he is likely to have to appear at some court at some time
> and he is going to be asked for his address then and he isn't
> sounding like a "no fixed abode" person to me. Have you
> threatened violence or anything like that that might make the
> police wary of giving you his details? <-- that isn't an
> accusation, I'm just wondering why they won't tell you where the
> man with your money is.
>
?DPA
--
Percy Picacity
jdenn
> A few questions that may help us to help you, hopefully not too
> intrusive.
>
> 1. what was the executors relationship to your late mother?
Executor was my mother's second husband. Was left 50% of the estate.
> 2. you are in Scotland, it appears the executor is in England; was your
> late mother's will made in Scotland or England? Which country is your
> sister in?
Mother lived in London - will, property, etc., all was there.
Sister lives in Australia - since 1981.
> As others have suggested I think you need a good sit down chat with a
> suitable lawyer. I wouldn't worry too much about not being able to
> afford a consultation at the moment. The amount available will be more
> than sufficient to pay the fees as and when.
Beginning to understand that. Trying to find a solicitor at a range of
450 miles is a bit difficult though. Working on it.
> I'm a little puzzled as to why the police won't tell you the whereabouts
> of the man that has your money. If the CPS are involved he is likely to
> have to appear at some court at some time and he is going to be asked
> for his address then and he isn't sounding like a "no fixed abode"
> person to me. Have you threatened violence or anything like that that
> might make the police wary of giving you his details? <-- that isn't an
> accusation, I'm just wondering why they won't tell you where the man
> with your money is.
Um. Well. Back in 2004 when I found out what happened I *may* just have
mentioned something about wanting to kneecap the bastard... Do you think
anyone would take that seriously?
Joe D.
--
E-Mail me at:
Joseph Dennigan <ergotmania at googlemail dot com>
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
You are normally clear about what you mean, PP. I don't know what you
mean this time, sorry :( Maybe it is just me being thick and everyone
else knows what you mean.
Chris R
450 miles is a bit difficult though. Working on it.
-----------------------------------------------
I've emailed you with a suggestion.
Chris R
Big Les Wade
That will be the excuse the police will use, but actually the DPA
permits information to be disclosed to a party who is preparing
litigation, as the OP surely is:
"DPA 1998 s35(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure
provisions where the disclosure is necessary-
(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings
(including prospective legal proceedings), or (b) for the purpose of
obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of
establishing, exercising or defending legal rights."
--
Les
Martin Bonner
> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > I'm a little puzzled as to why the police won't tell you the whereabouts
> > of the man that has your money. If the CPS are involved he is likely to
> > have to appear at some court at some time and he is going to be asked
> > for his address then and he isn't sounding like a "no fixed abode"
> > person to me. Have you threatened violence or anything like that that
> > might make the police wary of giving you his details? <-- that isn't an
> > accusation, I'm just wondering why they won't tell you where the man
> > with your money is.
>
> Um. Well. Back in 2004 when I found out what happened I *may* just have
> mentioned something about wanting to kneecap the bastard... Do you think
> anyone would take that seriously?
They might do actually. Look at it from the point of view of the
police: If you aren't going to assault him and they don't tell you
where he lives, you get annoyed; if they tell you where he lives and
you kneecap him, they may lose their job. Even if the former is a
hundred times more likely than the latter, it doesn't look like a good
risk from their point of view.
For the avoidance of doubt, I can entirely understand why you might
want to kneecap him.
Roland Perry
Mar 2011, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>That will be the excuse the police will use, but actually the DPA
>permits information to be disclosed to a party who is preparing
>litigation, as the OP surely is:
>
>"DPA 1998 s35(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure
>provisions where the disclosure is necessary-
> (a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings
>(including prospective legal proceedings), or (b) for the purpose of
>obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of
>establishing, exercising or defending legal rights."
As with other DPA issues, that merely permits disclosure, rather than
requiring it. Once the police are satisfied that the conditions are met,
which I doubt is easy for an individual (rather than a solicitor) to
assure them.
--
Roland Perry
Big Les Wade
>In message <Te1+eeAd...@obviously.invalid>, at 08:45:03 on Wed, 2
>Mar 2011, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>>That will be the excuse the police will use, but actually the DPA
>>permits information to be disclosed to a party who is preparing
>>litigation, as the OP surely is:
>>
>>"DPA 1998 s35(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure
>>provisions where the disclosure is necessary-
>> (a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings
>>(including prospective legal proceedings), or (b) for the purpose of
>>obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of
>>establishing, exercising or defending legal rights."
>
>As with other DPA issues, that merely permits disclosure, rather than
>requiring it.
I know. I posted it because the police will almost certainly explain
their refusal to disclose by saying "We can't tell you that because of
the Data Protection Act." Now the OP can reply, "Yes you can, read
section 35(2). Now, what's your next excuse?"
>Once the police are satisfied that the conditions are met, which I
>doubt is easy for an individual (rather than a solicitor) to assure
>them.
All he does is prepare court papers for his litigation. If the police
still refuse, he can get a court order, for which the police would
ultimately have to pay the legal costs if they still resisted.
--
Les
Stuart A. Bronstein
>> As others have suggested I think you need a good sit down chat
>> with a suitable lawyer. I wouldn't worry too much about not
>> being able to afford a consultation at the moment. The amount
>> available will be more than sufficient to pay the fees as and
>> when.
>
> Beginning to understand that. Trying to find a solicitor at a
> range of 450 miles is a bit difficult though. Working on it.
Are you sure you need a solicitor 450 miles away? I once had a
probate, the only UK property was in London. I used a solicitor in
Cheltenham.
Roland Perry
>>Once the police are satisfied that the conditions are met, which I
>>doubt is easy for an individual (rather than a solicitor) to assure
>>them.
>
>All he does is prepare court papers for his litigation. If the police
>still refuse, he can get a court order
Which is, of course, the mantra from the civil liberties lobby whenever
the police are apparently given some inside track to disclosure from the
private sector.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
The police have rather greater resources and ease of access to court
orders than your average individual...
jdenn
> Are you sure you need a solicitor 450 miles away? I once had a
> probate, the only UK property was in London. I used a solicitor in
> Cheltenham.
As previously noted, I live in Scotland. None of the solicitors I've talked
to here will consider the case. As *everybody* else involved in this is in
London it seems more logical to instruct a more 'local' solicitor if possible.
Joe D.
--
To e-mail me:
"Joe Dennigan" <ergotmania at googlemail dot com>
Roland Perry
Wed, 2 Mar 2011, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> remarked:
>>>All he does is prepare court papers for his litigation. If the police
>>>still refuse, he can get a court order
>>
>> Which is, of course, the mantra from the civil liberties lobby whenever
>> the police are apparently given some inside track to disclosure from the
>> private sector.
>
>The police have rather greater resources and ease of access to court
>orders than your average individual...
I think you are assuming an elastic budget that doesn't in fact exist.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
Roland Perry
>>>>>All he does is prepare court papers for his litigation. If the police
>>>>>still refuse, he can get a court order
>>>>
>>>> Which is, of course, the mantra from the civil liberties lobby whenever
>>>> the police are apparently given some inside track to disclosure from the
>>>> private sector.
>>>
>>>The police have rather greater resources and ease of access to court
>>>orders than your average individual...
>>
>> I think you are assuming an elastic budget that doesn't in fact exist.
>
>I think your assumption is mistaken.
Please clarify what you think my assumption is.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
> Wed, 2 Mar 2011, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>orders than your average individual...
>>>
>>> I think you are assuming an elastic budget that doesn't in fact exist.
>>
>>I think your assumption is mistaken.
>
> Please clarify what you think my assumption is.
That I have assumed an elastic budget that doesn't in fact exist.
Big Les Wade
>In message <Pb7p$BDlul...@obviously.invalid>, at 15:05:02 on Wed, 2
>Mar 2011, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>
>>>Once the police are satisfied that the conditions are met, which I
>>>doubt is easy for an individual (rather than a solicitor) to assure
>>>
>>
>>still refuse, he can get a court order
>
>Which is, of course, the mantra from the civil liberties lobby whenever
>the police are apparently given some inside track to disclosure from
>the private sector.
I'm surprised the above got through moderation. Mantras, civil
liberties, lobbies, inside tracks and political points-scoring are
beyond the scope of this thread. We are trying to advise the OP of his
legal position.
--
Les
Steve Walker
I don't think so. You had made the absolutely fair comment that the Police
will often drag their heels and look for excuses not to disclose data, and
Roland's point reasonably followed on from that.
What I wasn't sure about was whether Roland's comparison was fair. If he
meant to compare it with occasions where the police obtained data by court
order (I assume he did), then it's clearly like for like. However some
members of that naughty civil liberties lobby (I count myself as one) are
more concerned with disclosures which are obtained outside of the courts,
through administrative means or by heavy-handed persuasion. I have no
problem with the Police getting a court order to see my web history, bank
account or underwear drawer. I don't think it's OK if they achieve that by
some backdoor method.
Steve Walker
I'm seeing James Bond and Blofeld here, trading elegant bon-mots over a
baccarat table. Can we rewind about 3 exchanges and adopt a "say what we
mean" policy for the benefit of visitors.... ?
Let me have a guess -
Roland means that although the Police get barrowloads of money they also
have a lot of costs to meet, so in practical terms their decison-making is
still often influenced by perceived scarcity of resources?
Jon's point is that may be true, but they nonetheless still have the option
to bring huge firepower onto a problem if they think the need is justified?
Jon Ribbens
> Roland means that although the Police get barrowloads of money they also
> have a lot of costs to meet, so in practical terms their decison-making is
> still often influenced by perceived scarcity of resources?
>
> Jon's point is that may be true, but they nonetheless still have the option
> to bring huge firepower onto a problem if they think the need is justified?
My point was that, in almost any battle between an individual and the
state, there is a massive power imbalance in favour of the state, and
frankly any claim to the contrary is not worth composing a response to.
Neither is any suggestion that civil liberties are not worth it due to
being "too expensive".
Steve Walker
Up to a point, Lord Copper....
I agree that this applies to you and me, and to the great mass of ordinary
people. But I can think of numerous instances where people or corporations
with wealth, influence or determination have very sucessfully taken on the
state's apparatus. I shall not comment upon the right and wrongs as we are
a defamation-free-zone, but think of Nicholas van Hoogstraten, NOW phone
tapping, Ernest Saunders (Guiness), Asil Nadir, Mohamed al Fayed and
security boxes, BAE Systems arms dealing etc.
This seems to suggest that justice operates on two quite distinct levels in
the UK. Those who can match or exceed the state's firepower, and those who
cannot. I wholly agree that the prognosis for the latter 99% is not as
good, and that abuses of state power have been legion.
On a practical level though, cases get dropped every day because a DI
budgetholder decides he can't justify a £500 per item forensics charge (for
example), so resource limits are real for operational Policing.
Jon Ribbens
>> My point was that, in almost any battle between an individual and the
>> state, there is a massive power imbalance in favour of the state, and
>> frankly any claim to the contrary is not worth composing a response
>> to. Neither is any suggestion that civil liberties are not worth it
>> due to being "too expensive".
>
> Up to a point, Lord Copper....
>
> I agree that this applies to you and me, and to the great mass of ordinary
> people. But I can think of numerous instances where people or corporations
> with wealth, influence or determination have very sucessfully taken on the
> state's apparatus.
Yes, that's why I inserted "almost" into my first sentence before
posting it ;-)
> On a practical level though, cases get dropped every day because a DI
> budgetholder decides he can't justify a £500 per item forensics charge (for
> example), so resource limits are real for operational Policing.
Absolutely. But civil rights arguments, generally speaking, are at the
state level not the level of individual policemen.
John Briggs
I remember the dying days of the GLC. It was awash with cash, and could
thus afford really smart lawyers. The government would keep taking them
on, with Civil Service-issue lawyers, and lost every time...
--
John Briggs
Jon Ribbens
> I remember the dying days of the GLC. It was awash with cash, and could
> thus afford really smart lawyers. The government would keep taking them
> on, with Civil Service-issue lawyers, and lost every time...
Interesting point, but the GLC was hardly "an individual".
John Briggs
I rather think that they counted as "people or corporations with wealth,
influence or determination".
--
John Briggs
Roland Perry
Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> remarked:
In this case, however, it's a battle between two individuals, and you
are expecting the police to divert [scarce] resources to work out if
they are able to assist one of those individuals.
--
Roland Perry
Big Les Wade
>In this case, however, it's a battle between two individuals, and you
>are expecting the police to divert [scarce] resources to work out if
>they are able to assist one of those individuals.
What point are you making? In the OP's situation all the police have to
do is give him the address of the dishonest executor, or (if they really
think that is risky) the latter's legal advisor. They don't need to
commit much in the way of resources for that.
--
Les
Steve Walker
I'm sorry Roland, but I think you're being astonishly over-protective of the
Police.
This case involves a prima facie case of substantial criminal fraud, for
which the executor has already been arrested. There is a victim, who
wishes to take legal action to protect their interests, and they are
entitled to the reasonable cooperation of the Police. If that person had
defrauded £100,000 from Barclays Bank, you don't seriously suggest that the
Police would hesitate to co-operate with the bank in pursuing their assets?
The recent and quite disgraceful FACT / Filesoup case
(http://tinyurl.com/6jlq8b9) shows that the Police can always find the
resources to protect a privileged corporate interest, so it cuts no mustard
to plead poverty when an ordinary citizen asks for help.
Roland Perry
2011, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> remarked:
>What I wasn't sure about was whether Roland's comparison was fair. If he
>meant to compare it with occasions where the police obtained data by court
>order (I assume he did), then it's clearly like for like. However some
>members of that naughty civil liberties lobby (I count myself as one) are
>more concerned with disclosures which are obtained outside of the courts,
>through administrative means or by heavy-handed persuasion. I have no
>problem with the Police getting a court order to see my web history, bank
>account or underwear drawer. I don't think it's OK if they achieve that by
>some backdoor method.
Getting back to the OP's problem, are we to regard the obtaining of the
alleged perpetrator's details from the police as a 'back door method';
it's certainly not without costs for the police to verify that it's a
request which genuinely meets[1] the DPA exemption.
Should the police have a scale of fees for this - like telcos did for
29(3) requests in the old days - or is this function part of their duty
to the public? And if there is such a duty, to what extent could they
insist the OP approaches them through a solicitor, in order to reduce
their workload in verifying the request?
[1] Which includes the word "Necessary", and in DPA language that means
"no other method of finding the information is possible". That's what
the police have to assert when submitting 29(3) requests themselves. How
can the OP show that this "necessity" test has been satisfied?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
See my most recent posting. In brief: for the disclosure to be lawful
they have to be satisfied that it's "necessary". Which is not as simple
as it appears.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Walker
> Getting back to the OP's problem, are we to regard the obtaining of
> the alleged perpetrator's details from the police as a 'back door
> method'; it's certainly not without costs for the police to verify
> that it's a request which genuinely meets[1] the DPA exemption.
>
> Should the police have a scale of fees for this - like telcos did for
> 29(3) requests in the old days - or is this function part of their
> duty to the public? And if there is such a duty, to what extent could
> they insist the OP approaches them through a solicitor, in order to
> reduce their workload in verifying the request?
>
> [1] Which includes the word "Necessary", and in DPA language that
> means "no other method of finding the information is possible".
> That's what the police have to assert when submitting 29(3) requests
> themselves. How can the OP show that this "necessity" test has been
> satisfied?
You appear to perceive the Police as a trading body who make decisions based
upon their own best interests. They are not, they are a public service and
they should have an ethos and policy-base which supports that.
The idea that a fee should be chargeable to a private citizen/victim as a
precondition for the Police to consider whether they have any duty to assist
is laughable. Would you accept that someone who's house is on fire should
pay an application fee before ringing 999?
As I have stated earlier, claims of financial hardship are wholly
discredited by the readiness of the Police to squander vast sums on projects
which please their corporate and governmental masters. We can send
undercover police officers to protest outside sewage plants in Hamburg, we
can provide the muscle for an unjustified copyright raid by FACT, or we can
waste millions on a vast array of illegal CCTV cameras to surveil the people
of Birmingham.
Roland Perry
2011, Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net> remarked:
>> In this case, however, it's a battle between two individuals, and you
>> are expecting the police to divert [scarce] resources to work out if
>> they are able to assist one of those individuals.
>
>I'm sorry Roland, but I think you're being astonishly over-protective of the
>Police.
>
>This case involves a prima facie case of substantial criminal fraud, for
>which the executor has already been arrested. There is a victim, who
>wishes to take legal action to protect their interests, and they are
>entitled to the reasonable cooperation of the Police. If that person had
>defrauded £100,000 from Barclays Bank, you don't seriously suggest that the
>Police would hesitate to co-operate with the bank in pursuing their assets?
>
>The recent and quite disgraceful FACT / Filesoup case
>(http://tinyurl.com/6jlq8b9) shows that the Police can always find the
>resources to protect a privileged corporate interest, so it cuts no mustard
>to plead poverty when an ordinary citizen asks for help.
The difference is that the police have to verify that the OP isn't a
scammer of some kind[1]. I note that no-one has replied to my suggestion
that the police might be more receptive if the request came through the
OP's solicitor.
[1] Or a third party wanting to seek revenge. Look at the Stirland case
for an instance where a DPA infringement did cause loss of life.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7130209/BT-worker-
betrayed-couple-shot-dead-in-police-safe-house.html>
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>upon their own best interests. They are not, they are a public service and
>they should have an ethos and policy-base which supports that.
And maybe that policy says that it's not appropriate to get involved in
this *voluntary* disclosure of data, for the reasons I have explained.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
> On 03/03/2011 01:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2011-03-03, John Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> I remember the dying days of the GLC. It was awash with cash, and could
>>> thus afford really smart lawyers. The government would keep taking them
>>> on, with Civil Service-issue lawyers, and lost every time...
>>
>> Interesting point, but the GLC was hardly "an individual".
>
> I rather think that they counted as "people or corporations with wealth,
> influence or determination".
Um, no. The GLC was part of the state. GLC v Government is Government
v Government, it was in no way private individuals or private
enterprise v government.
Jon Ribbens
> In this case, however, it's a battle between two individuals, and you
> are expecting the police to divert [scarce] resources to work out if
> they are able to assist one of those individuals.
You know nothing about what I am expecting the police to do, since
I have not commented in any way on this case.
Steve Walker
> The difference is that the police have to verify that the OP isn't a
> scammer of some kind[1].
Red herring. The Police are already investigating the criminal aspects, and
they already know (or should know) that the OP is a victim of this crime.
He isn't just some bloke who's rung up out of the blue, asking for a PNC
look-up. That would only happen if he was a journalist or debt collector
who had already greased the necessary palms.
> I note that no-one has replied to my
> suggestion that the police might be more receptive if the request
> came through the OP's solicitor.
I think it would be sensible to make such requests through a solicitor,
because of the aura of reassurance this lends. We all know that solicitors
can be dishonest or corrupted though (like any other profession) so it's an
aura not a guarantee.
But.... as eligibilty for legal aid has been gradually reduced, fewer
people can afford a layer's services anyway. It has been previously
remarked by professionals that the money saved on Legal Aid is vastly
outweighed by the resulting delays and confusions in courts and police
stations, as unskilled and distressed citizens try to fumble their way
through a problem. This is the government's desired outcome presumably, and
as they were content to see those costs transfered to the Police and courts
it is not my place to criticise.
> [1] Or a third party wanting to seek revenge. Look at the Stirland
> case for an instance where a DPA infringement did cause loss of life.
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7130209/BT-worker-
> betrayed-couple-shot-dead-in-police-safe-house.html>
Red herring as above. Colin Gunn had no legitimate need to know the
whereabouts of these people, and didn't make a request to the Police or
anyone else for that information. Helping a gangster to trace their next
victim is not the same as helping a victim to recover their stolen property.
Incidentally, did you see the recent follow-up to the Stirland case, where
it emerged that Notts Police had deliberately excluded the Stirlands from
Witness Protection because they wouldn't give evidence against their own
son? This is of course described as a "misunderstanding" and there must
be no awkward questions asked of the officers about why they were being
pressured to do that when the source of the threat to their life was Colin
Gunn. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8524559.stm
Roland Perry
>> The difference is that the police have to verify that the OP isn't a
>> scammer of some kind[1].
>
>Red herring. The Police are already investigating the criminal aspects, and
>they already know (or should know) that the OP is a victim of this crime.
Until the accused has had his day in court, they don't know it's a
crime. Or are the police allowed to be judge and jury now?
>> [1] Or a third party wanting to seek revenge. Look at the Stirland
>> case for an instance where a DPA infringement did cause loss of life.
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7130209/BT-worker-
>> betrayed-couple-shot-dead-in-police-safe-house.html>
>
>Red herring as above. Colin Gunn had no legitimate need to know the
>whereabouts of these people, and didn't make a request to the Police or
>anyone else for that information.
Actually, he (or his henchman) got the information from BT. But not
through the official channels.
> Helping a gangster to trace their next
>victim is not the same as helping a victim to recover their stolen property.
I'm still unsure if the police have a duty to help recover stolen funds.
That's something I hope that we can try to establish.
>Incidentally, did you see the recent follow-up to the Stirland case, where
>it emerged that Notts Police had deliberately excluded the Stirlands from
>Witness Protection because they wouldn't give evidence against their own
>son?
Until I saw that story I quoted today, I didn't realise the victims were
living in a "safe house". I thought they'd just moved somewhere of their
own choice.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>> In this case, however, it's a battle between two individuals, and you
>> are expecting the police to divert [scarce] resources to work out if
>> they are able to assist one of those individuals.
>
>You know nothing about what I am expecting the police to do, since
>I have not commented in any way on this case.
I would expect your remarks about police capabilities to have some
bearing on the OP's question (which was regarding police capabilities).
You are now going to say that's a mistaken expectation.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Walker
> On 2011-03-03, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 03/03/2011 01:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-03, John Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> I remember the dying days of the GLC. It was awash with cash, and
>>>> could thus afford really smart lawyers. The government would keep
>>>> taking them on, with Civil Service-issue lawyers, and lost every
>>>> time...
>>>
>>> Interesting point, but the GLC was hardly "an individual".
>>
>> I rather think that they counted as "people or corporations with
>> wealth, influence or determination".
>
> Um, no. The GLC was part of the state. GLC v Government is Government
> v Government, it was in no way private individuals or private
> enterprise v government.
I'm with JB on this one - GLC was "Government gone rogue", which is why
Maggie gave the nod for it to be euthanised/
Steve Walker
In the event that there is such a policy and it has been published and
approved by the Police Authority etc, I would have to accept that. But I am
aware of no force which has such a policy.
In any event it would have to be carefully written so that the police could
continue to be helpful to corporations and rights holders who want to pursue
their stolen property. Perhaps a clearly-stated clause that "Police help
is only available to wealthy and powerful victims of crime, ordinary
taxpayers are not a priority for this protection" would do the trick.
Roland Perry
Maybe the answer is "get a court order". That seems to be the way things
are going (see the changes to RIPA which involve the authorities having
to go to the Magistrates Court to authorise some aspects of data
disclosure).
Or perhaps "Victim Support" may have some role here? Maybe the OP could
approach them.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
> bearing on the OP's question (which was regarding police capabilities).
>
> You are now going to say that's a mistaken expectation.
Yes. You're the one who changed the topic to the "civil liberties
lobby", not me.
Steve Walker
> Maybe the answer is "get a court order". That seems to be the way
> things are going (see the changes to RIPA which involve the
> authorities having to go to the Magistrates Court to authorise some
> aspects of data disclosure).
Which brings us back to Les's advice 25 hours ago, but I wonder if the
interests of justice will be served by clogging our courts with LIP
applications for Norwich Pharmacal Orders? The court service is facing
substantial cuts now, and every LIP application will tie up a courtroom for
half a day or more. There is also the question of court fees, which would
have to be recovered somehow.
To look on the bright side it will empower ordinary people, and hopefully
they will return to court in future to challenge the Police or other
authorities (by Judicial Review for example). The Police will have to
either wash their hands of it and give up whatever information a LIP can get
included on their order, or else they'll perhaps have to send lawyers to
every hearing.
In the long run, this will probably increase the workload of the Police
legal teams quite substantially, which may provide employment opportunities
for lawyers who are losing legal aid work.
> Or perhaps "Victim Support" may have some role here? Maybe the OP
> could approach them.
Certainly worth a try. Someone needs to lead the police through this
specific case in a logical order and help them see that they have an ethical
duty to assist a victim of crime to recover their property, as far as this
is reasonably within their power.
Roland Perry
>> things are going (see the changes to RIPA which involve the
>> authorities having to go to the Magistrates Court to authorise some
>> aspects of data disclosure).
>
>Which brings us back to Les's advice 25 hours ago, but I wonder if the
>interests of justice will be served by clogging our courts with LIP
>applications for Norwich Pharmacal Orders? The court service is facing
>substantial cuts now, and every LIP application will tie up a courtroom for
>half a day or more. There is also the question of court fees, which would
>have to be recovered somehow.
>
>To look on the bright side it will empower ordinary people, and hopefully
>they will return to court in future to challenge the Police or other
>authorities (by Judicial Review for example). The Police will have to
>either wash their hands of it and give up whatever information a LIP can get
>included on their order, or else they'll perhaps have to send lawyers to
>every hearing.
>
>In the long run, this will probably increase the workload of the Police
>legal teams quite substantially, which may provide employment opportunities
>for lawyers who are losing legal aid work.
All of which is very reminiscent (perhaps a parody) of the arguments
traditionally put forward (by civil liberties folk, but also sections of
the private sector from time to time) to argue that the Police should
not be relying upon DPA exemptions to gather evidence, but should use
the courts.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>> I would expect your remarks about police capabilities to have some
>> bearing on the OP's question (which was regarding police capabilities).
>>
>> You are now going to say that's a mistaken expectation.
>
>Yes. You're the one who changed the topic to the "civil liberties
>lobby", not me.
The topic remains the extent to which the police should be using
resources to check that a claimed DPA exemption is valid, when all that
means is the DPA is no longer a hurdle to disclosure.
There may be other hurdles remaining, such as whether to police have a
role in recovering stolen funds, in this case by assisting one side in a
civil dispute (in addition to their traditional role of preventing and
detecting crime).
Which leads to another question - when the Assets Recovery Agency is
successful in seizing funds (aka proceeds of crime), do they have a
process to identify and reimburse the victims?
--
Roland Perry
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated jdenn <j...@invalid.com>
>Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> A few questions that may help us to help you, hopefully not too
>> intrusive.
>>
>> 1. what was the executors relationship to your late mother?
>
>Executor was my mother's second husband. Was left 50% of the estate.
On a rough sum basis he has used his half and the rest is yours
(plural). Watch out for him using your money to defend himself against
what he has done. No point in him using up the money to defend himself
and you ending up with change. One more reason for a lawyer, I think.
Does anyone here know what the OP (clearly a lay individual) may be able
to do to "ring fence" the money? I mean protect it from misuse until
things have been sorted out properly.
>> 2. you are in Scotland, it appears the executor is in England; was your
>> late mother's will made in Scotland or England? Which country is your
>> sister in?
>
>Mother lived in London - will, property, etc., all was there.
>Sister lives in Australia - since 1981.
What are your sister's feelings about this all?
>> As others have suggested I think you need a good sit down chat with a
>> suitable lawyer. I wouldn't worry too much about not being able to
>> afford a consultation at the moment. The amount available will be more
>> than sufficient to pay the fees as and when.
>
>Beginning to understand that. Trying to find a solicitor at a range of
>450 miles is a bit difficult though. Working on it.
Hopefully ChrisR's off-group suggestion will be useful to you. You'll
also notice that ChrisR also suggested earlier in the thread that you
might find yourself in the position of having to get some of your money
back from him if you can't get 50% back (which I think gets ferociously
complicated as there is then a theft / embezzlement element too and how
much of it is criminal and how much is civil may (others here will know
more than me) be difficult to work out without a specialist lawyer).
First things first though: the right lawyer.
>> I'm a little puzzled as to why the police won't tell you the whereabouts
>> of the man that has your money. If the CPS are involved he is likely to
>> have to appear at some court at some time and he is going to be asked
>> for his address then and he isn't sounding like a "no fixed abode"
>> person to me. Have you threatened violence or anything like that that
>> might make the police wary of giving you his details? <-- that isn't an
>> accusation, I'm just wondering why they won't tell you where the man
>> with your money is.
>
>Um. Well. Back in 2004 when I found out what happened I *may* just have
>mentioned something about wanting to kneecap the bastard... Do you think
>anyone would take that seriously?
The thread seems to have drifted about this in a way that is interesting
to us (people that follow the group) but not, I think, particularly
useful to you though it does add some insight.
I think the germane supplementary question is: are the police or the
executor aware of the kneecapping mention? If they aren't it is moot.
If (say) you mentioned it in a conversation to your best mate or your
sister in the course of conversation, possibly after a drink or two, it
shouldn't count. Anyway, it appears from that sub-thread that having a
lawyer ask on your behalf may improve your access to the executors
whereabouts.
I'm finding it really hard to give any other advice at the moment other
than: lawyer.
Best wishes, I think, from everyone here, I haven't seen a single
posting saying you and your immediate family shouldn't get your share
and if someone disagrees they would normally have said so by now.
Lawyer, find, do! :)
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Joe Dennigan
> The thread seems to have drifted about this in a way that is
> interesting to us (people that follow the group) but not, I think,
> particularly useful to you though it does add some insight.
> I think the germane supplementary question is: are the police or the
> executor aware of the kneecapping mention? If they aren't it is
> moot. If (say) you mentioned it in a conversation to your best mate or
> your sister in the course of conversation, possibly after a drink or
> two, it shouldn't count. Anyway, it appears from that sub-thread that
> having a lawyer ask on your behalf may improve your access to the
> executors whereabouts.
>
> I'm finding it really hard to give any other advice at the moment
> other than: lawyer.
>
> Best wishes, I think, from everyone here, I haven't seen a single
> posting saying you and your immediate family shouldn't get your share
> and if someone disagrees they would normally have said so by now.
>
> Lawyer, find, do! :)
Doing. Chris R. made a suggestion by e-mail that I'm following up.
Thanks to everybody here for the advice - it's been educational and
useful.
All the best,
Joe Dennigan
--
To email me: ergotmania at googlemail dot com
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't
you understand?