Chrissy Morris - Acquitted. Bailiff failed to show the writ.

[zeke]

On 19 April 2018, Minshull Street Crown Court dismissed a charge against Chrissy Morris for obstructing an enforcement agent acting lawfully because the obstructed enforcement agent wasn't acting lawfully at the material time.

Police had charged him under Paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which states:

• (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

However, the bailiff failed to show the writ of control to the person in authority of the premises, and therefore he was acting in breach of Paragraph 26 of the Schedule, which states:

• (1) The enforcement agent must on request show the debtor and any person who appears to him to be in charge of the premises evidence of—
  
  • (a) his identity, and
    (b) his authority to enter the premises.

As the writ of control confers the power to enter premises, the enforcement agent was not acting lawfully from the point the bailiffs failed to show it on request to the person in authority of the premises.

[westcunttree]

I was advised that at a Queens bench court hearing Manchester 19th April the judge ruled if any court order does not carry a court stamp and signed by a judge the said paperwork is a fraudulent document.
"R v MORRIS " Crown Court Manchester 2018

?

[westcunttree]

So is there recourse now as apparently they all have to be signed etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSBOKww9YnE

[zeke]

Thats interesting work. Well done.

But you were cleared because the bailiff was not acting lawfully when he failed to show the writ to the person in authority of the premises.

Nearly every paragraph 68 charge fails because the defence shows the bailiff was not acting lawfully, The law says:

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

[westcunttree]

So if there is no Writ then there is no valid claim for repossession, is that right?

[zeke]

The writ confers the enforcement power, if there is no writ, then there is no enforcement power.

If the bailiff has a writ, then he must show it to anyone who appears to be in authority at the premises being attended.

Failure to show the writ places the bailiff in a position he is no longer acting lawfully because is he in breach of a statutory provision, 26 of Schedule 12 of the TCEA 2007.

That is why a person accused of obstruction is not guilty of the offence after a refusal to show the writ.

[animator123]

Hi anyone have any links to the judges decision or case information? I have a similar case to this and could really use the judges comments about the court seal being missing. Any links would be super helpful.

Thanks,

[Righteous_Anger]

What did the accused do to 'obstruct'? By not letting said bailiff enter home? Something else?

[zeke]

The bailiff must be "acting lawfully" because he breached paragraph 26 by refusing to show evidence of the enforcement power, he was not guilty of the offence.

[Syd Snitkin]

To further clarify, the wrong form was used for the eviction so the bailiff had no enforcement power. It's possibly opened up a can of worms as it seems this form has been used incorrectly for countless evictions.

[Righteous_Anger]

The bailiff must be "acting lawfully" because he breached paragraph 26 by refusing to show evidence of the enforcement power, he was not guilty of the offence.

Dear Schedule,

A bailiff calls you a a "f**king Asian scum" and "Pa*i c**t". The bailiff then grabs your mobile whilst you are filming, as attested by a 3rd party witness in statement. As usual, their police pals arrest you (OutlawIPCC calls them accomplice), manhandles you, shouting at you and all. You get arrested and get charged with a Paragraph 68.

Said bailiff (so-called key witness) then fails to turn up in court and according to the CPS, the Police tried so hard to trace him (some 15 months!) but failed, so the CPS had no choice but to drop their very strong Paragraph 68 case. Of course, you find said bailiff in 15 seconds but the CPS refuse to revive their 'strong case'.

What do you make of this?

[zeke]

The evidence and witness account of the defense may cause the prosecution to fail. The court does allow the witness to replay swear words and racist remarks made about a defendant. That is probably why the paragraph 68 case never went ahead because it exposes a bailiff to the risk of a media frenzy.

The court has the power to place the bailiff under arrest for public order offenses while he is on the witness stand.

[John The Baptist]

The evidence and witness account of the defense may cause the prosecution to fail. The court does allow the witness to replay swear words and racist remarks made about a defendant. That is probably why the paragraph 68 case never went ahead because it exposes a bailiff to the risk of a media frenzy.

The court has the power to place the bailiff under arrest for public order offenses while he is on the witness stand.

Righteous Anger is Cam (Cameleous) that nutter from Swindon who you once offered to help

[Amy]

Christ not again. Wasn’t he the one who didn't pay?

[Righteous_Anger]

I am Snake Pliskin.

[Syd Snitkin]

[Richard]

I have read the case notes and the copy of the original writ did not demonstrate any signature. The presiding judge commented it would normally have more than one sheet too. Furthermore the original writ should have been provided when it was required and he gave prosecution every opportunity to provide. Following the ruling prosecution withdrew their challenge to the appeal.