Criminal Record for TV License

bod1467

TVL have no right of entry (at all), so whether a PC is password-protected or not is irrelevant - if you don't let them in (without a court order) then they can't look at the PC anyway.

TonyMMM

Mishomeister wrote: »

Is it not also illegal for a court reaching a verdict guilty without even allowing her to look on what documents are held there against her?

When this went to court what plea did your friend enter - Guilty or Not Guilty ? This is important.

If they pleaded guilty they cannot (normally) then appeal against the finding, only against the sentence.

If they pleaded Not Guilty, a trial would have taken place where the evidence was presented to the court, and your friend would've had an opportunity to give their own side of things. If they were then found Guilty, they can appeal, but there is strict time limit and they would need to identify exactly what grounds they are appealing on.

Mishomeister

TonyMMM wrote: »

When this went to court what plea did your friend enter - Guilty or Not Guilty ? This is important.

If they pleaded guilty they cannot (normally) then appeal against the finding, only against the sentence.

If they pleaded Not Guilty, a trial would have taken place where the evidence was presented to the court, and your friend would've had an opportunity to give their own side of things. If they were then found Guilty, they can appeal, but there is strict time limit and they would need to identify exactly what grounds they are appealing on.

She entered as a not guilty obviously She has never been allowed to see what TV license people have against her.

Equaliser123

Mishomeister wrote: »

She entered as a not guilty obviously She has never been allowed to see what TV license people have against her.

Sorry. I don't believe that. She may not have been part of the process but I bet that was because she buried her head in the sand.

Cornucopia

Perhaps the situation was misunderstood. She should have received by post a copy of all the evidence to be presented against her in good time to prepare. Perhaps she never received it, and expected the info at court - which of course didn't happen.

TonyMMM

Mishomeister wrote: »

She entered as a not guilty obviously She has never been allowed to see what TV license people have against her.

If she attended the Not Guilty hearing she must have seen/heard what the evidence was against her, and had the chance to challenge it ....

Or - did she not attend and the case was heard in her absence ?

Fire_Fox

Mishomeister wrote: »

She entered as a not guilty obviously She has never been allowed to see what TV license people have against her.

Are you 100% sure? This does not sound right. When was she 'not allowed' to see the evidence, when did she ask for it and how?

Mishomeister wrote: »

She has first signed the form and then TV License moron has put a tick saying that she has a TV.

Again did she read what she was signing? Because that sounds like she signed an incomplete form which is very silly when you've just had a row with someone.

musicmaker29

The offence is watching TV as it is broadcast - there appears to be something your friend has missed out of her story here - if you go to court you get a disclosure bundle....

spacey2012

musicmaker29 wrote: »

The offence is watching TV as it is broadcast - there appears to be something your friend has missed out of her story here - if you go to court you get a disclosure bundle....

You can request a disclosure, they often ignore the request and steam roller ahead.
Once they have your name and signature, you dont have a defence .

Cornucopia

Unreliable confessions were given a broad interpretation by the Court of Appeal in R v Fulling (above).


This included:

• Confessions obtained as the result of an inducement - for example a promise of bail or a promise that a prosecution would not arise from the confession;
• Hostile and aggressive questioning;
• Failure to record accurately what was said;
• Failure to caution;
• Failure to provide an appropriate adult where one is required;
• Failure to comply with the Code of Practice in relation to the detention of the accused - for example a failure to allow sufficient rest prior to an interview;
• Failure of the Defence Solicitor or Appropriate Adult to act properly - for example by making interjections during interview which are hostile to the defendant. It is important that prosecutors take into consideration whether confessions can be adduced to be reliable or not by the Courts.

So, the notion of the signature as a "pact with the TVL devil" is very much not the case.

I certainly have heard accounts of TVL staff committing errors 1-5 in the list above. Indeed, number 3 appears to apply to this thread.