Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[TheNewSaint]

I suspect Tom's logic is that winning the criminal case will prove that he owns the house. He'll certainly present it to the GOOFY crowd that way if he wins. Or as further proof of the conspiracy if he loses.

My fear is that the conviction will be abandoned due to judicial indifference. On the surface, it is a minor charge against a pathetic old man who is skilled at playing the victim card. I hope the court is aware of the implications, and upholds the guilty verdict.

Tom Crawford has strutted and fretted his hour upon the stage, and needs to be heard no more.

[#six]

Something else he doesn't understand. The High Court deemed that he lost his house. In the UK a lower court cannot over rule the decision of a higher court. So what ever the outcome he gets, it will never be the outcome he is hoping for.

[Interobang]

I assume this is, as others here say, an appeal against a conviction of criminal damage. I suppose Tom will try (and fail) to convince the court that he owned the house.

This *IS* an appeal against his sentence/guilty verdict. However he's planning on bringing the same old arguments out, over ownership etc.

He is also trying to have his conviction turned to burglary, but has not still said what he stole from the house.

?!

[littleFred]

I recall that he wanted to be charged with burglary but the police didn't oblige him. Tom seems to think the accused person can choose what he wants to be charged with. I hope he'll try that on Friday:

"Your honour, I want to overturn my conviction of criminal damage, on the grounds that I was really committing burglary."

"Would you plead guilty to burglary?"

"Certainly not! I was burgling my own house! But I insist on being charged with burglary so I can be found not guilty."

"I find you guilty of being a complete nutter."

[TheNewSaint]

Why burglary? Seems to me criminal damage is just as good for Tom's purposes:

Therefore the following elements need to be established:

Damage
To Property
Belonging to another
That was damaged without lawful excuse
Intention to cause the damage / recklessness as to whether the damage would be caused

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/criminal-damage/

He can trot out the "but it was my property" argument just the same. Does burglary give him a better shot at his precious jury trial, or something?

[notorial dissent]

He would have had to have been charged with burglary to begin with, and he wasn't, he was prosecuted for damage and that is what and all he was ever convicted of. So he can want all he wants, but it isn't going to change a thing. His appeal is on the damage charge and that is all. That is the ONLY thing they will hear or consider.

[The Observer]

I keep wondering why a decent and empathetic poultry solicitor has not taken up the case of Betty and sued Tom for causing the loss of her home?

[exiledscouser]

Why burglary? Seems to me criminal damage is just as good for Tom's purposes:

Therefore the following elements need to be established:

Damage
To Property
Belonging to another
That was damaged without lawful excuse
Intention to cause the damage / recklessness as to whether the damage would be caused

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/criminal-damage/

He can trot out the "but it was my property" argument just the same. Does burglary give him a better shot at his precious jury trial, or something?

in short - yes. Burglary is triable 'either way' meaning a defendant can opt for a jury trial in the Crown Court.

Criminal damage under a certain monetary threshold is summary only meaning its dealt with by the magistrates. The only route to Crown is an appeal which is Tom's strategy. However he and his supporters seem to think that the absence of a jury is somehow "corrupt" which is patent nonsense. Why should the criminal justice system make an exception just for him?

Perhaps if he'd committed a more serious offence he might have got his wish.

Well the master plan comes to fruition in a couple of days so we shall see!

[AndyPandy]

Has he even been granted Leave to Appeal or is this the Leave to Appeal hearing ?

Leave to Appeal

This process of application for appeal is known as an application for Leave to Appeal and will be considered initially by a single judge. This applies irrespective of whether the appeal is for the conviction or the sentence.

How quickly after sentencing should leave for appeal be applied for?

Leave for appeal should be applied for within 28 days of the sentence being handed down.

Decision of the single judge

The single judge will decide whether or not the application will have a reasonable chance of succeeding and is there to stop appeals that have little grounds of succeeding making their way to court and wasting valuable time.

Will all applications go through this process?

All applications for appeal against criminal convictions or sentencing are required to go through this process.

Will the judge provide his reasons?

The judge will always provide his reasons for either letting the appeal go through to the court or for rejecting it in writing.

What will happen if an application for Leave to Appeal is granted?

If an initial application for Leave to Appeal is granted by the single judge then the application will move on to the full court whereby the application for appeal will be heard in full. During this appeal process witnesses will be able to give evidence and the arguments in favour of the appeal can be granted or refused by the court.

[Interobang]

Has he even been granted Leave to Appeal.

He was granted Leave To Appeal, yes. Why, heaven only knows.

?!

[Forsyth]

Why burglary? Seems to me criminal damage is just as good for Tom's purposes:

We discussed this a bit up-thread but one key difference is that, assuming all other elements are met, then it is a defence to burglary that you own the property, and it is a defence to criminal damage that you honestly believed that you owned the property. Tom wants to use the case to prove that he really owns the property, not that he just believes that he owns the property, so he needed this to be a burglary trial not a criminal damage trial.

The fact that he can no longer achieve that which he set out to achieve doesn't appear to have diminished his enthusiasm, however, which suggests that he plans on another special 'interpretation' of the verdict.

Does burglary give him a better shot at his precious jury trial, or something?

That as well.

[Forsyth]

He was granted Leave To Appeal, yes. Why, heaven only knows.

I think it's either automatic or nearly so for cases first heard in the magistrates court.

[aesmith]

Right of appeal is automatic from a Magistrate's Court conviction, so long as a proper application is made. Appeal against conviction is a re-hearing, and I think the sentence can be varied either way (presumably within guidelines).

[SteveUK]

Auto from the magistrate upwards. That means that when he loses the next round , it's the end of the road for our hatted friend.....

[rumpelstilzchen]

Auto from the magistrate upwards. That means that when he loses the next round , it's the end of the road for our hatted friend.....

Not so fast. Many of us remember the jurisdiction of the Asda teashop.

[Bones]

Not so fast. Many of us remember the jurisdiction of the Asda teashop.

Some of us (i.e me) had forgotten all about that.... remembering it now has made me laugh - thank you

[TheNewSaint]

Criminal damage under a certain monetary threshold is summary only meaning its dealt with by the magistrates. The only route to Crown is an appeal which is Tom's strategy. However he and his supporters seem to think that the absence of a jury is somehow "corrupt" which is patent nonsense. Why should the criminal justice system make an exception just for him?

Good to know. In fact, someone says this to Tom on the aforementioned GOODF thread (which has a whopping 6 responses):

Appeals are never held in front of a Jury, never have been and I doubt they ever will be.

Thank you and Forsyth for the thorough answers.

[notorial dissent]

So this, the damage charge, was basically a misdemeanor then? I would have thought the damage would have been sufficient to really nail him, damaging a roof and breaking in through it can't have been cheap to fix. I can't remmeber what our threshold is here, but it isn't all that high.

[SteveUK]

Auto from the magistrate upwards. That means that when he loses the next round , it's the end of the road for our hatted friend.....

Not so fast. Many of us remember the jurisdiction of the Asda teashop.

I must have missed that one. The what exactly ???

[TheNewSaint]

So this, the damage charge, was basically a misdemeanor then? I would have thought the damage would have been sufficient to really nail him, damaging a roof and breaking in through it can't have been cheap to fix. I can't remember what our threshold is here, but it isn't all that high.

According to the link I gave above, the breaking point in sentencing is £5000:

For cases where the damage is less than £5000 the maximum sentence usually handed down will not be greater than six months imprisonment. For offences of criminal damage where the damage caused is over £5000 the maximum sentence will be 10 years imprisonment.

It is possible that Tom's shenanigans resulted in less than 5K in damage. In fact, I think it's likely to be less than that, or we'd be hearing about "Tom Crawford facing ten years in prison for trying to reclaim his home."