Amazing Confessions: Chris Keil is Not a Dog

Ok, I admit it. Chris Keil is not a dog; not even the very nice looking pooch portrayed in my last post. It was a cruel and inhuman thing for me to do to place that picture above those nasty derogatory comments. I was, of course, legless when I did it. That, as Mr Keil has insinuated, excuses everything.

The Killer Out There: Chris Keil

At last a picture of the outlaw Chris Keil, who wants this "sad fuck" to die.

Chris Keil posted nasty stuff about me. Fair enough. He is entitled to his opinion. This site is about nothing if it is not about free speech.

He just went too far when he said he wanted me to "die"

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds them?

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds free speech?

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds the little man (as opposed to himself, who is obviously a very big man whose opinions command and deserve to command universal respect)?

That is not tonight's quiz. Rhetorical questions do not count. Here are the quiz questions.

QUIZ:

(1) Should I report Chris Keil to the police for inciting someone to use violence against me?

(2) Should I report Chris Keil to the police for impliedly threatening to kill me himself?

(3) Should I sue Chris Keil in the civil courts for defamation?

The Garlic Defence

An amusing story from Gary Slapper of The Times concerns the abandonment of criminal trials at Bristol Crown Court because the smell of garlic was spreading around the court building. Visit the title link.

This is a particularly stupid defence to run. The best it will get you is an adjournment.

If you are exposed as the garlic deployer's friend you will cast doubt on your credibility and may destroy any other available defence you have. But then, lots of criminals are stupid. That is why they are criminals.

On the other hand, some criminals are clever and never get caught. This just supports two cardinal principles that prosecutors and governments need to keep at the forefront of their minds. They are:

(1) Probability of detection rather than harsh sentencing is the primary deterrent.

(2) Confiscation of the proceeds of crime should be the primary punishment.

Therefore, focus on better policing (more intelligent, better qualified, properly funded) and increase the penalties for failing to satisfy a confiscation order; perhaps, discounting the retributive part of the sentence and applying a percentage uplift to the criminal gain.

The really interesting thing you will find in Gary Slapper's article is the exclusion of a barrister from court for wearing perfume. OK, it was the 60's.

PD Oscar is Innocent!

THE REAL OSCAR WINNER

Mr Walker (a retired solicitor's clerk) drank 10 pints of beer and half a bottle of wine. He was found in charge of a car which he had been driving. He ran away. PD Oscar gave pursuit. In the course of securing the arrest of Mr Harris he bit him. Mr Harris sued the Chief Constable for damages for personal injury. A PD is a police dog.

You might think that chasing criminals and assisting in their arrest is what PDs are for and how they earn their cookies and other treats. In fact, you might think that it is a PD's public and contractual duty to chase criminals and sometimes they may have to bite them. No arrests, no cookies and treats.

Of course, they must (as with all officers of the law) use no more than reasonable force to secure an arrest. This may not in a lot of circumstances involve biting. Most people when confronted by a PD will heed his handler's warning to stand still. In that event, a properly trained PD will simply circle you and bark at you a bit.

So did PD Oscar exceed the bounds of his authority? Well, that must depend on what Mr Walker did in order to resist arrest. With 10 pints and half a bottle of wine inside whilst trying to drive a car Mr Harris could hardly say that PD Oscar did not have good grounds to arrest him.

Now it must be emphasised that the following is an agreed factual account of what happened. Agreed, that is, by Mr Harris. When you read it you are going to wonder what possessed him to bring his case to the Court of Appeal or who (if anyone did) advised him that he should. There is a twist in the tail. See further below.

On the admitted facts Mr Harris did a lot more than run away:

"PC Harris ... saw that there were two white males in the car and he thought that they were aged about 50 or so. He tapped on the window but got no response. He tapped again more loudly. He got no response again, so he opened the door and asked the two inside if they were all right. PC Harris noticed that inside the car it smelt strongly of alcoholic liquor. PC Harris concluded that Mr Roberts had been drinking, as indeed he had. He asked Mr Roberts if he had been drinking and Mr Roberts replied "no". At that stage the car's engine was running. PC Harris asked Mr Roberts to turn off the engine. Mr Roberts would not do so, so PC Harris lent over and took out the ignition key.

PC Harris then asked Mr Roberts to get out of the car and join him at the rear of the vehicle; that is, between his car and the police van. Mr Roberts refused. PC Harris wanted to give Mr Roberts a breath test as he thought that Mr Roberts had been driving whilst over the legal limit. PC Harris told Mr Roberts he wished to give him a breath test.

Eventually Mr Roberts got out of the car and went to the rear of it. PC Harris said that he could smell alcoholic liquor on Mr Roberts' breath at that stage. PC Harris asked Mr Roberts to take a breath test and asked him to wait there whilst he fetched the test kit from the police van. As PC Harris reached into the van, he saw Mr Roberts running away past his car and along the fence towards the compound gates. PC Harris concluded that Mr Roberts did not wish to be breathalysed and was trying to escape. PC Harris shouted to Mr Roberts to stop. He did not. PC Harris shouted to him again to stop. He said that if Mr Roberts did not stop he would send the police dog. Mr Roberts did not stop. At that stage PD Oscar was taken out of his cage in the van.

PD Oscar did not have a collar on him nor did he have a leash. The judge found that at first PC Harris held the dog by the scruff of his neck. PC Harris called to Mr Roberts again to stop and said that he would otherwise let the dog on him. Mr Roberts did not stop but ran towards the compound gates. PC Harris then shouted "Stop him" to the dog, which is the dog's order to go and seize a man who is running away.
...
When the dog was let go, Mr Roberts was trying to climb the compound fence. It was accepted at the time that the dog was a well-trained police dog and that PC Harris was a well-trained police dog handler. The dog was trained to look for someone running and then to try and stop that person. The dog would try to grab the person's right arm to achieve this object. If the person stopped running, the dog would circle the person or stand back and bark.

PD Oscar ran towards Mr Roberts and barked at him. Mr Roberts failed to climb over the fence and dropped to the ground. At that point the dog did not bite Mr Roberts. PC Harris, who had a torch, was trying to get in radio contact with other police officers to assist him and he was also trying to catch up with Mr Roberts. As he did this, Mr Roberts was saying to the dog "Get off, stupid dog" or words to that effect. He was also raising his arms so that the dog could not get them and he was batting and pushing the dog off.

PC Harris saw PD Oscar bite Mr Roberts' right arm as Mr Roberts was running along the fence, which was on Mr Roberts' left side. This slowed Mr Roberts down and he tried to kick the dog, who held on to Mr Roberts' arm. At this point PC Harris caught up with Mr Roberts and the dog but PC Harris was then hit across the throat by one of Mr Roberts' arms. PC Harris continued to tell Mr Roberts to stand still but he got no response. He asked Mr Roberts to stop and give himself up, but Mr Roberts ran towards his car, saying at some stage "Get lost."

At this point PC Harris had hold of PD Oscar. PC Harris warned Mr Roberts again that if he continued to move he would send in the dog. PC Harris did not want Mr Roberts to get back to his car as he did not know what might happen then. PC Harris warned Mr Roberts again but he took no notice.

PC Harris released PD Oscar to stop Mr Roberts and then PC Harris ran with the dog towards Mr Roberts. PC Harris grabbed some of Mr Roberts' clothes whilst Mr Roberts was kicking and moving his arms. PC Harris heard the dog yelp. PC Harris was hit on the right side of his face by Mr Roberts at some stage whilst PC Harris was trying to restrain Mr Roberts and get him onto the ground. There was a struggle between the two men and they fell to the ground together. At this stage PD Oscar was biting Mr Roberts, but PC Harris did not know where. A police dog is trained to bite a person who is fighting a police officer and who is not complying with an order from the police officer and who is on the ground. Moreover if the dog is punched or kicked the dog is trained to fight back.

PC Harris then called off the dog."

OK: If you read that, which Mr Harris agreed for the purpose of his appeal was accurate, you, if you are like me, do not understand what chance of success Mr Harris had in the Court of Appeal.

This is the core of the appeal:

Mr Roberts was a 57- or a 58-year-old man who had drunk considerable amounts of alcohol, as PC Harris believed he had. Mr Roberts could not therefore be guaranteed to react sensibly if the dog was released on him. His reaction was unpredictable. Moreover PC Harris knew that there was a range of reactions that a person who was drunk might have to a dog released to stop him.

Thus, even though being old and drunk would not be a defence to the offences Mr Harris committed those facts did entitle him to damages for the manner of his arrest.

Wow! The legal profession hits a new low?

Oh, PD Oscar seems to be an excellent cop, now sadly dead. Here is what his handler said about him:

PC Harris said that Oscar's death had come as a bitter blow: "He was very special and excelled as a police dog, a pet and a very good mate."

Be ashamed Mr Walker. Be very ashamed.

Terrorist Mark Haddock Hides His Face

Mark Haddock (an alleged murderer but only in prison for GBH* with intent) has won the right to hide his face, at least for the time being.

No-one can publish his picture; that is, a picture of his new face. Obviously, we can still publish his old face:
Well, let us hope that this attempt to hide from his former friends in a terrorist organisation works better than the last one:

This is not a man deserving of the sympathy of the court or of its protection. However, the protection is limited - see the title link.

If you want to know who Mark Haddock is you might start with his wiki entry.

Haddock was an insider in the UVF* and latterly a Special Branch Informer. It has been said:

There would have been more people in the cemeteries of Northern Ireland if we hadn't run people like Mark Haddock

But is that true? Others think that he put a lot of bodies there himself.

*GBH = Grievous Bodily Harm (for when you get away with murder)
*UVF = Ulster Voluntary Force (a Protestant paramilitary organisation)

Ladd v Marshall Still Rules After Over 50 Years: Time to Abandon It?

Ladd v Marshall (see the title link) is the most important decision governing appeals in England and Wales.

It is also a decision, essentially, of Lord Denning. That alone would make it worth reading. Although a 1954 decision it is only much more recently available over the internet.

The core of the decision as follows:

The principles to be applied are the same as those always applied when fresh evidence is sought to be introduced. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions mast be fulfilled: first, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence most be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive: thirdly, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

Bailii does not seem to add numbers to the paragraphs of old decisions but the above is about half way down.

The problem with Ladd v Marshall is that it can be used as a lazy excuse by the Court of Appeal to turn a blind eye to otherwise exculpatory evidence.

QUESTIONS:

Should we forget this decision and allow our appeal courts to simply decide whether someone was really guilty or not?

After all, if someone is not guilty why should he/she be kept in prison simply because his incompetent legal team failed to find evidence that they could have done if they had been competent?

Samuel Edwin Ashby: The Abusive Aussie Vet

Apparently, Mr Ashby felt that it was a defence, to a charge that his multiple abuse of staff and customers at four different pharmacies was professional misconduct, that he was just a typical Aussie loudmouth. Err, no, mate.

This case is, in the real sense of the word, a tragedy. Mr Ashby has been destroyed by a fatal flaw in his own character. He clearly believes himself to be a wonderful pharmacist and that those he was compelled to work with were, simply, his inferiors. Even if he was right, it is that belief that has lead to his downfall.

If you read this case you will find the sad conclusion:

MR ASHBY: I have no money. I cannot pay anything. I have nothing left.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: That does not stop the court from making a costs order, but you say you have got no means?

MR ASHBY: No. I have nothing left.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Anything else you want to add in relation to that?

MR ASHBY: No.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: There will be an order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £14,482.82.

MR BRADLEY: I am grateful.

Mr Ashby was not a King, or even a high ranking politician, so this tragedy is not properly to be described as Shakesperian, but it has the essential elements of such tragedy; just on a smaller, perhaps more human, scale.

Victim Of Rapist Lottery Winner Allowed To Sue After 20 Years!

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

This case has been to the House of Lords already and changed the law in the sense that they decided that the shorter 3 year limitation period for bringing claims for personal injury applied to intentional assaults rather than the longer 6 year period generally applicable for other torts.

That was a victory for the rape victim. Why? Because the 3 year period can be extended in exceptional circumstances but the 6 year period cannot.

Whether the period should be extended was referred back to the High Court and its decision was released on the internet today. See the title link.

Mr Justice Coulson has given the Claimant the extension and allowed her action to proceed against her rapist. Instinctively, we probably all feel that he has made the right decision. Why should the undeserving £7 million pound lottery winning rapist not compensate his victim?

Legally, I am less sure. Mr Justice Coulson has done his very best to render his decision appeal proof. I am not sure that it, in fact, is.

Here are his reasons for exercising his discretion in the Claimant's favour:

"... When considering all the circumstances of this case, I have identified a number of factors in the defendant's favour. These include, in particular, the length of the delay, the possible difficulties for the defendant on some aspects of the evidence on causation caused by that delay, and the payment of the £5,000 by the CICB. However, I have concluded that the factors in the claimant's favour are more numerous and of significantly greater weight. They lead me unhesitatingly to conclude that equity requires that the discretion under section 33 be exercised in her favour.

Those factors include in particular:

(a) The nature and seriousness of the underlying tortious wrong;
(b) The fact that one of the consequences of that wrong was the defendant's impecuniosity (because he was unable to earn money by which he could otherwise have met a judgment for damages);
(c) The fact that, prior to his lottery win, the defendant's impecuniosity meant that he was simply not worth pursuing in an action for damages. This was the principal reason for the claimant's delay and one that I consider to be reasonable on the particular facts of this case;
(d) The fact that the claimant acted promptly following the defendant's release from prison and his lottery win:
(e)The fact that the 'clinically significant' second bout of PTSD in 2004 will be capable of being fully addressed by both parties at any trial."

Do these factors fully and necessarily trump the purpose of our limitation legislation; which is to enable potential defendants to know when the risk of a claim against them has expired and they can rest easy?

Well, Mr Hoare certainly has the resources to explore this question on further appeal.

No-one, I think, is going to wish him luck. It emerged after the verdict that this little bastard had "six previous convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault." A less attractive client would be difficult to envisage.

I would not touch him with a barge pole and it can hardly be defamation to describe him, quite simply, as a piece of low life scum. Hopefully, he will spend any part of his fortune that does not go in damages to the Claimant on legal fees!

And, what about his other six proved victims? They should be consulting lawyers now.

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

A small picture of a small man. You will need the picture as he lives under aliases.

QUIZ QUESTION: What were they thinking of when they let this man out?

Snake Man Escapes By Slithering Out Of Jail In Vienna

The title link is to a Reuters news item. It begins:

"A man has escaped from his Austrian jail cell by squeezing through a food hatch in the door..."

Let us hope the Snake Man is not now in Austria teaching his techniques to Josef Fritzl. Also, please not to the new Austrian Axe Man.

WHAT IS AUSTRIA COMING TO?

This is a selection of articles in The Times. I am a blogger not a newspaper so do not expect "balannce" in the selection. Articles are selected on the basis that I find them interesting; just as the link above to India Knight's opinion was chosen by me as the most interesting link.

Austria: ‘We have to ask what’s going wrong’

Experts reveal that one in six girls in Austria abused at home

Austria fights back against 'Land of Dungeons' tag

Mr Loophole Does It Again!

Those of you who are not criminal defence lawyers may raise the odd eyebrow at his successes but Nick Freeman has clearly earned his self-bestowed title of "Mr Loophole". Well, apparently, it is a registered trade mark. No doubt, this is to prevent unfair competition with such an otherwise likable man who is a stalwart of his local community.


His latest coup is to have successfully defended Andrew Flintoff against a speeding charge (87 mph in a 50 mph zone) because the notice was sent two days late.


I entirely agree that the defence, although technical, was entirely justified. The Crown Prosecution Service must be held strictly to statutory requirements for a successful prosecution.

I am not sure all of the non-lawyers who do not read this site anyway will necessarily agree.

That, however, is a matter for Parliament.

I do think legal aid criminal lawyers should be learning a few tricks from Mr Freeman. Surely, these defences ought to be available to all and not just the rich and famous who can afford Mr Freeman.

A Sloppy Case

A headline in The Times today is as follows:

'Sloppy' justice system set criminal free to stab an ainnocent man

I think that "ainnocent" could reasonably described as "sloppy" when emanating from a major news organisation; but, no matter. They will probably change it quickly and before you get to the title link.

The error also does not matter at all. It is merely ironic. The content of the story does matter.

The victim is pictured at the head of this post. He was killed by this man:

Terror or Freedom?

The Times reports today that the High Court is about to deliver a new blow on terror to the government. See the title link.

I hope they are right. According to the article in The Times:

The government has used subordinate legislation to deny terrorist suspects the right to get legal advice, make them apply to the executive for £10 a week expenses (pardon? are we trying to starve them to death?), restricted their right of appeal to an appeal to the body that made the original decision and denied them access to any information that would enable them to establish grounds for an appeal.

Has it really gone this far?

It also seems that these truly draconian rules have been brought into force without being debated in parliament.

I almost refuse to believe that any Uk government would descend into this Stasi nightmare. I assume that The Times is not making it up, however.

Weird Law: Issues of Consent In Rape Cases

I do not usually post on criminal law but this case arrived on BAILII today and the deception practised on the victim is just so strange. This is from the judgment:

"We must summarise the facts of this bizarre and unpleasant story. The victim was a student. She went to college in 1999 where she met the appellant. They became very good friends, and in 2002 a sexual relationship began. Consensual intercourse took place, usually in hotel rooms booked by the appellant. After a few months the complainant started to receive threatening text messages and telephone calls. These messages continued throughout her student days, first at college, and later when she went to university. Something of their intimidating nature can be captured in comments like "we are going to kidnap you"; "we are going to convert you"; "we are going to kill you". The complainant confided in the defendant. At first she believed that the messages came from Muslim students at college. However when she left college and went on to university, the messages continued, and she continued to share these worries with the appellant. He was responsible for all the messages, but purported to give her every reassurance that he, together with his friends, would be able to protect her."

It gets weirder:

"In due course a text message to the complainant stated that PC Ken had died, and that PC Bob had taken over the investigation. PC Bob was as fictitious as PC Ken. All the messages were coming from the appellant. Some correspondence followed, until PC Bob fell out of the picture. The appellant told her that PC Bob had accepted bribes and had been sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment. Thereafter, yet another fictitious police office, PC Thomas, was created. The complainant received a message from PC Thomas that he had taken over the investigation. The process continued as before. The complainant was to provide statements by text. When she failed to do so, she was told that the perpetrators would be getting away scot free.

The complainant had no idea that the appellant was responsible for this entire process. She was concerned about their ongoing relationship, and during the last two or three years tried to break it off. Whenever she sought to do so, she would receive text messages from the different police officers, telling her that the appellant had tried to kill himself and that she should do her duty and take care of him. She was told that she should sleep with the appellant, and that she would be liable to a fine if she did not. She received something like fifty such demands over a four year period. On each occasion she complied with them and had intercourse with the appellant in a hotel room. But for the messages from the fictitious police officers, she would not have done so."

The 8 year sentence was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. I really have nothing to add. I am not a criminal law specialist. View the title link if you are interested.