http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/default 

Apparently judging from the phone calls and mails I have been getting
there is much more inside the paper too. I will appeal the conviction
and get the issue of Rights of Way in Ipswich aired in the High Court.

My barrister was having job speaking to me because we were surrounded
by well wishers and newspeople. She said the appeal could be by Case
Stated and I do not know what that means. Can anybody explain please?
pete

wrote in message 
news:r4vvb4pladlvh7k3k95ha6b8lkgq2t8aek@4ax.com...
> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/default
>
> Apparently judging from the phone calls and mails I have been getting
> there is much more inside the paper too. I will appeal the conviction
> and get the issue of Rights of Way in Ipswich aired in the High Court.
>
> My barrister was having job speaking to me because we were surrounded
> by well wishers and newspeople. She said the appeal could be by Case
> Stated and I do not know what that means. Can anybody explain please?
> pete
>

If a judge describes you as "wholly admirable" that's good enough for me! 
Well done. An excellent result, in the circumstances.

Case stated means you don't call any new evidence and the issue is 
formulated as a question which the appeal judges have to answer, eg 
something like "can it be lawful to damage a gate which the court has ruled 
is unlawfully obstructing a right of way".

For those who can't get the web page, perhaps you won't mind if I quote:

"In his summing up to a trial at South East Suffolk Magistrates' Court 
yesterday, Judge Cooper said Turtill claimed he had a lawful excuse to cause 
the damage as he believes the area is a public right of way and was 
therefore protecting it. He added: "To my mind he is wholly admirable 
character. He clearly feels strongly about the dock area.  I have a great 
deal of time for you. Whatever one says about him, he is thoroughly public 
spirited. He sees himself as a lonely fighter for the townsfolk of Ipswich."

The court heard how Turtill rammed his car into a closed gate on the Ipswich 
docks in June 2007. A few days later he was trapped inside a gate in the 
dock area after a security guard refused to open it, and used a hacksaw to 
cut through a gate to escape."

> For those who can't get the web page, perhaps you won't mind if I quote:

Since the link wasn't working for me, Google found me:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=news&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED04%20Sep%202008%2011%3A08%3A50%3A687

On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 17:45:07 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:r4vvb4pladlvh7k3k95ha6b8lkgq2t8aek@4ax.com...
>> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/default
>>
>> Apparently judging from the phone calls and mails I have been getting
>> there is much more inside the paper too. I will appeal the conviction
>> and get the issue of Rights of Way in Ipswich aired in the High Court.
>>
>> My barrister was having job speaking to me because we were surrounded
>> by well wishers and newspeople. She said the appeal could be by Case
>> Stated and I do not know what that means. Can anybody explain please?
>> pete
>>
>
>If a judge describes you as "wholly admirable" that's good enough for me! 
>Well done. An excellent result, in the circumstances.
>
>Case stated means you don't call any new evidence and the issue is 
>formulated as a question which the appeal judges have to answer, eg 
>something like "can it be lawful to damage a gate which the court has ruled 
>is unlawfully obstructing a right of way".
>
To clarify that, it is a form of appeal on a point of law. The bench
will get their clerk to formulate the question of law, and,
importantly, any "findings of fact" which they have made. This should
be shown to both sides for comment before it is finalized. The facts
there stated may not be challenged on the appeal, so it is important
to ensure that you agree they are correct.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 17:45:07 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:r4vvb4pladlvh7k3k95ha6b8lkgq2t8aek@4ax.com...
>> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/default
>>
>> Apparently judging from the phone calls and mails I have been getting
>> there is much more inside the paper too. I will appeal the conviction
>> and get the issue of Rights of Way in Ipswich aired in the High Court.
>>
>> My barrister was having job speaking to me because we were surrounded
>> by well wishers and newspeople. She said the appeal could be by Case
>> Stated and I do not know what that means. Can anybody explain please?
>> pete
>>
>
>If a judge describes you as "wholly admirable" that's good enough for me! 
>Well done. An excellent result, in the circumstances.
>
>Case stated means you don't call any new evidence and the issue is 
>formulated as a question which the appeal judges have to answer, eg 
>something like "can it be lawful to damage a gate which the court has ruled 
>is unlawfully obstructing a right of way".
>
>For those who can't get the web page, perhaps you won't mind if I quote:
>
>"In his summing up to a trial at South East Suffolk Magistrates' Court 
>yesterday, Judge Cooper said Turtill claimed he had a lawful excuse to cause 
>the damage as he believes the area is a public right of way and was 
>therefore protecting it. He added: "To my mind he is wholly admirable 
>character. He clearly feels strongly about the dock area.  I have a great 
>deal of time for you. Whatever one says about him, he is thoroughly public 
>spirited. He sees himself as a lonely fighter for the townsfolk of Ipswich."
>
>The court heard how Turtill rammed his car into a closed gate on the Ipswich 
>docks in June 2007. A few days later he was trapped inside a gate in the 
>dock area after a security guard refused to open it, and used a hacksaw to 
>cut through a gate to escape." 

Many thanks Todal. However I really want an appeal where the case is
heard again. I had an excellent barrister and solicitor but neither of
them had read the Ipswich Docks Acts nor understood RoW law. The Judge
and my barrister couldn't find Seaton v Slama which was part of my
defence and the Judge also refused to rule whether or not it was a RoW
which is awkward considering that was my defence. The Judge came to
his decision on the grounds "I" believed it to be a RoW whereas it was
much more than just that. It is a road guaranteed by an Act of
Parliament and referred to in the Ipswich Moorings Case of 2000 which
I have on my computer but do not have a link to.
pete

On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 19:35:04 +0100, "a@b.invalid" <a@b.invalid> wrote:

>> For those who can't get the web page, perhaps you won't mind if I quote:
>
>Since the link wasn't working for me, Google found me:
>http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=news&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED04%20Sep%202008%2011%3A08%3A50%3A687


Thank you. I hadn't seen that but the truth never did come out
correctly in the newspaper nor in  court. I drove onto New Cut East
with my wife and g/son. When we tried to leave we couldn't because the
gate had been closed by remote control by security guards who were
watching me on CCTV. The swing bridge between me and those security
guards was open to shipping and I couldn't cross it. There was no way
I could get out or ask a security guard to let me out so I merely put
the front of my van against the gate and pushed it open. There was not
as much as a scratch on the vans paintwork but I admit the gate did
get quite damaged as I pushed in the opposite direction to which it
was made to open. The second time when I was found not guilty I had
driven the same way onto the dock and as the swing bridge was open for
vehicular traffic I crossed it and drove to the end of Cliff Road
(about a mile) and had tea while watching the yachts. When I wanted to
leave the security guards had been instructed to swing the bridge
closed to vehicular traffic so I went to the security lodge which is
on that side of the swing bridge and asked them to let me out. They
refused so I went to push another gate open but upon inspection I
realised it was too sturdy so I had to saw through the slider which
the padlock was attached too. I then went back to the security lodge
and offered my name and address which they refused saying they knew
who I was. When it appeared in the newspaper as a crime report asking
for information I had to e-mail the cops to tell them what had
happened myself as the security guards hadn't.
pete

On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 20:30:32 +0100, Don Aitken 
wrote:

>On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 17:45:07 +0100, "The Todal" 
>wrote:
>
>>
>> wrote in message 
>>news:r4vvb4pladlvh7k3k95ha6b8lkgq2t8aek@4ax.com...
>>> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/default
>>>
>>> Apparently judging from the phone calls and mails I have been getting
>>> there is much more inside the paper too. I will appeal the conviction
>>> and get the issue of Rights of Way in Ipswich aired in the High Court.
>>>
>>> My barrister was having job speaking to me because we were surrounded
>>> by well wishers and newspeople. She said the appeal could be by Case
>>> Stated and I do not know what that means. Can anybody explain please?
>>> pete
>>>
>>
>>If a judge describes you as "wholly admirable" that's good enough for me! 
>>Well done. An excellent result, in the circumstances.
>>
>>Case stated means you don't call any new evidence and the issue is 
>>formulated as a question which the appeal judges have to answer, eg 
>>something like "can it be lawful to damage a gate which the court has ruled 
>>is unlawfully obstructing a right of way".
>>
>To clarify that, it is a form of appeal on a point of law. The bench
>will get their clerk to formulate the question of law, and,
>importantly, any "findings of fact" which they have made. This should
>be shown to both sides for comment before it is finalized. The facts
>there stated may not be challenged on the appeal, so it is important
>to ensure that you agree they are correct.

But who gets to decide the point of law? I want the point of law to be
the Ipswich Docks Act which proves the gates are illegal and in fact a
Public Nuisance which I merely abated as entitled to by the Acts.
pete

On Fri,  5 Sep 2008 00:20:05 +0100, none@snotmail.com wrote:

>On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 20:30:32 +0100, Don Aitken 
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 17:45:07 +0100, "The Todal" 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> wrote in message 
>>>news:r4vvb4pladlvh7k3k95ha6b8lkgq2t8aek@4ax.com...
>>>> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/default
>>>>
>>>> Apparently judging from the phone calls and mails I have been getting
>>>> there is much more inside the paper too. I will appeal the conviction
>>>> and get the issue of Rights of Way in Ipswich aired in the High Court.
>>>>
>>>> My barrister was having job speaking to me because we were surrounded
>>>> by well wishers and newspeople. She said the appeal could be by Case
>>>> Stated and I do not know what that means. Can anybody explain please?
>>>> pete
>>>>
>>>
>>>If a judge describes you as "wholly admirable" that's good enough for me! 
>>>Well done. An excellent result, in the circumstances.
>>>
>>>Case stated means you don't call any new evidence and the issue is 
>>>formulated as a question which the appeal judges have to answer, eg 
>>>something like "can it be lawful to damage a gate which the court has ruled 
>>>is unlawfully obstructing a right of way".
>>>
>>To clarify that, it is a form of appeal on a point of law. The bench
>>will get their clerk to formulate the question of law, and,
>>importantly, any "findings of fact" which they have made. This should
>>be shown to both sides for comment before it is finalized. The facts
>>there stated may not be challenged on the appeal, so it is important
>>to ensure that you agree they are correct.
>
>But who gets to decide the point of law?

A Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, which means as least
two High Court judges. You can, of course, appear, in person or by
Counsel, and argue your case, but you can't introduce new evidence.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

> Thank you. I hadn't seen that but the truth never did come out
> correctly in the newspaper nor in  court. I drove onto New Cut East
> with my wife and g/son. When we tried to leave we couldn't because the
> gate had been closed by remote control by security guards who were
> watching me on CCTV. The swing bridge between me and those security
> guards was open to shipping and I couldn't cross it. There was no way
> I could get out or ask a security guard to let me out so I merely put
> the front of my van against the gate and pushed it open. There was not
> as much as a scratch on the vans paintwork but I admit the gate did
> get quite damaged as I pushed in the opposite direction to which it

Presumably you have no evidence for the security guards deliberately 
closing the gate, because that would open a whole can of worms wrt to 
false imprisonment.

The district judge said:

"District Judge Cooper said that for the first offence, Turtill could 
have found alternative exits or asked a security guard to open the gate 
for him."

Looking at Google's satellite imagery there appears to be no way of 
reaching the alternative exit north of the barrier that doesn't involve 
crossing a fence.

Was there any way of contacting the security guards?

I suppose this is all moot if the appeal won't hear any new evidence.

In article ,
Don Aitken   wrote:
>On Fri,  5 Sep 2008 00:20:05 +0100, none@snotmail.com wrote:
>>But who gets to decide the point of law?
>
>A Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, which means as least
>two High Court judges. You can, of course, appear, in person or by
>Counsel, and argue your case, but you can't introduce new evidence.

The OP means, I think, not who gets to decide whether the appeal is
successful, which is obviously the higher court.  He means to ask who
gets to decide what the question is that will be put to that higher
court.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On Fri,  5 Sep 2008 03:35:06 +0100, Don Aitken 
wrote:

>On Fri,  5 Sep 2008 00:20:05 +0100, none@snotmail.com wrote:

>>But who gets to decide the point of law?
>
>A Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, which means as least
>two High Court judges. You can, of course, appear, in person or by
>Counsel, and argue your case, but you can't introduce new evidence.

That is difficult but the Ipswich Dock Acts were mentioned in court by
the other side as were RoW. The other side called a solicitor who is
an expert witness in RoW cases and that is where my issue with the
Judge is. He gave me a fair crack of the whip and was very kind when
describing me but the conviction is what I want to challenge as I
believe the wonderful and friendly Judge should have ruled on the
Ipswich Dock Acts instead of saying it was not his field and was the
sort of thing a County Court Judge would handle.
pete

On Fri,  5 Sep 2008 10:30:16 +0100, "a@b.invalid" <a@b.invalid> wrote:

>> Thank you. I hadn't seen that but the truth never did come out
>> correctly in the newspaper nor in  court. I drove onto New Cut East
>> with my wife and g/son. When we tried to leave we couldn't because the
>> gate had been closed by remote control by security guards who were
>> watching me on CCTV. The swing bridge between me and those security
>> guards was open to shipping and I couldn't cross it. There was no way
>> I could get out or ask a security guard to let me out so I merely put
>> the front of my van against the gate and pushed it open. There was not
>> as much as a scratch on the vans paintwork but I admit the gate did
>> get quite damaged as I pushed in the opposite direction to which it
>
>Presumably you have no evidence for the security guards deliberately 
>closing the gate, because that would open a whole can of worms wrt to 
>false imprisonment.
>
>The district judge said:
>
>"District Judge Cooper said that for the first offence, Turtill could 
>have found alternative exits or asked a security guard to open the gate 
>for him."
>
>Looking at Google's satellite imagery there appears to be no way of 
>reaching the alternative exit north of the barrier that doesn't involve 
>crossing a fence.
>
>Was there any way of contacting the security guards?
>
>I suppose this is all moot if the appeal won't hear any new evidence.

Precisely. I couldn't leave any other way as the swing bridge was
closed to vehicular traffic. There were no security guards around
either but there was a telephone apparently which I could have used if
I hadn't been so bloody minded. I never even considered asking a guard
anyhow and just pushed the gate open knowing the guards were watching
me on CCTV. However this is evidence that should have been tested.
pete

On Fri,  5 Sep 2008 13:55:27 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Don Aitken   wrote:
>>On Fri,  5 Sep 2008 00:20:05 +0100, none@snotmail.com wrote:
>>>But who gets to decide the point of law?
>>
>>A Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, which means as least
>>two High Court judges. You can, of course, appear, in person or by
>>Counsel, and argue your case, but you can't introduce new evidence.
>
>The OP means, I think, not who gets to decide whether the appeal is
>successful, which is obviously the higher court.  He means to ask who
>gets to decide what the question is that will be put to that higher
>court.

Yes of course. I want to know what I am up against before committing
myself to a long legal procedure. I am 65 and very busy even when I am
unwell so I want to make sure any time I spend on legal matters are a
good reason for me to follow that course of action.
pete

On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 17:45:07 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:r4vvb4pladlvh7k3k95ha6b8lkgq2t8aek@4ax.com...
>> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/default
>>
>> Apparently judging from the phone calls and mails I have been getting
>> there is much more inside the paper too. I will appeal the conviction
>> and get the issue of Rights of Way in Ipswich aired in the High Court.
>>
>> My barrister was having job speaking to me because we were surrounded
>> by well wishers and newspeople. She said the appeal could be by Case
>> Stated and I do not know what that means. Can anybody explain please?
>> pete
>>
>
>If a judge describes you as "wholly admirable" that's good enough for me! 
>Well done. An excellent result, in the circumstances.

Is it possible for me to appeal to the Crown Court a judgement from a
District Judge or can I appeal to another place instead of taking the
route of  Case by Statement?
pete

wrote in message 
news:kva3c459s4ck1jqtlj72qsiusf0nlhssq1@4ax.com...
>
> Yes of course. I want to know what I am up against before committing
> myself to a long legal procedure. I am 65 and very busy even when I am
> unwell so I want to make sure any time I spend on legal matters are a
> good reason for me to follow that course of action.
> pete
>

Can I ask who is paying for this case? I have a nasty feeling that I am 
footing part of the bill.

I thought you did really well, though! Congratulations on your conviction. 
;-)

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:48c95465$0$2516$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>  wrote in message
> news:kva3c459s4ck1jqtlj72qsiusf0nlhssq1@4ax.com...
>>
>> Yes of course. I want to know what I am up against before committing
>> myself to a long legal procedure. I am 65 and very busy even when I am
>> unwell so I want to make sure any time I spend on legal matters are a
>> good reason for me to follow that course of action.
>> pete
>>
>
> Can I ask who is paying for this case? I have a nasty feeling that I am
> footing part of the bill.

If it's legal aid, and if there is a legitimate legal issue about 
obstruction of rights of way, then it's money well spent.

>
> I thought you did really well, though! Congratulations on your conviction.
> ;-)

Was that sarcasm?

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:6it3faFdrliU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "GB"  wrote in message
> news:48c95465$0$2516$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>  wrote in message
>> news:kva3c459s4ck1jqtlj72qsiusf0nlhssq1@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Yes of course. I want to know what I am up against before committing
>>> myself to a long legal procedure. I am 65 and very busy even when I am
>>> unwell so I want to make sure any time I spend on legal matters are a
>>> good reason for me to follow that course of action.
>>> pete
>>>
>>
>> Can I ask who is paying for this case? I have a nasty feeling that I am
>> footing part of the bill.
>
> If it's legal aid, and if there is a legitimate legal issue about
> obstruction of rights of way, then it's money well spent.

Hmmm,  by doing a bit of criminal damage (or not as the case may be) Pete 
has effectively managed to get legal aid to further his footpaths campaign 
in Ipswich. I'm really not convinced that's what our taxes should go on. I'm 
not dead against it, just rather unconvinced.


>> I thought you did really well, though! Congratulations on your 
>> conviction.
>> ;-)
>
> Was that sarcasm?

Actually, it was not intended to be hurtful, so it was irony rather than 
sarcasm. I really did think that Pete did extraordinarily well. There can't 
be many people convicted of criminal damage who get commended by the judge 
as a good citizen. In fact it's probably unique. Sorry if I wasn't clear, 
but that was all meant to be implied by the ;-) bit.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:10:05 +0100, "GB" 
wrote:

>Actually, it was not intended to be hurtful, so it was irony rather than 
>sarcasm. I really did think that Pete did extraordinarily well. There can't 
>be many people convicted of criminal damage who get commended by the judge 
>as a good citizen. In fact it's probably unique. Sorry if I wasn't clear, 
>but that was all meant to be implied by the ;-) bit.

The problem being the Judge refused to consider the Ipswich Dock Acts
or the issue of whether or not it was a RoW as that was my defence. I
got off very lightly if I was indeed causing criminal damage. Another
telling point in the Judges remarks was that if he found me not guilty
then he would be giving everybody the green light to break down gates
they didn't approve of. That is not quite the point and also I
maintain it is lawful to break down any unlawful gate across a RoW but
I was never asked that question. It also must be born in mind this
particular RoW was not created by dedication. It was created by
Statutory Instrument i.e. The Ipswich Dock Act which was quoted
extensively in the Ipswich Mooring Case.
http://web.uct.ac.za/staff/jgibson/iczm/cases/ipswich1.htm
pete

none@snotmail.com wrote:
>  I
> maintain it is lawful to break down any unlawful gate across a RoW but
> I was never asked that question. 

No it is not! Neither is it lawful to shoot burglars
in the back.

"Alan Jones"  wrote in message news:gadp05$p36$1@aioe.org...
> none@snotmail.com wrote:
>>  I
>> maintain it is lawful to break down any unlawful gate across a RoW but
>> I was never asked that question.
>
> No it is not! Neither is it lawful to shoot burglars
> in the back.
>

You sound very sure, but cite no law.  I think the OP was abating a 
nuisance.  I think it is certainly arguable that if a public right of way is 
obstructed by a fence or gate, such that in law it would have been possible 
to get an injunction requiring the removal of the obstacle, any person who 
wishes to use the land would be entitled to abate the nuisance by removing 
all or part of the obstruction (within reason, and providing the action did 
not cause a risk to health and safety).  It is certainly well established 
that if a neighbour's branch is hanging over your land, you are entitled to 
cut it off, though must ensure you give it back to your neighbour.

Here's a case which might conceivably be relevant.

Cunningham v MacGrath Bros
The defendants' workmen left ladders against a wall in such a position that 
they partially obstructed a public footpath. During the absence of the 
workmen some person or persons unknown removed them to an adjoining lane but 
left them in an unsafe position. The plaintiff was injured when one of the 
ladders fell as she was passing along the lane.
Held, that a person responsible for creating a nuisance should anticipate as 
a reasonable and probable consequence that some person in pursuance of his 
rights would attempt to abate the nuisance and in so doing would create a 
danger and accordingly that the plaintiff was entitled to damages.
Judgment date: January 1, 1963

and another

LE Walwin & Partners Ltd v West Sussex CC
Where a judgment in rem has been laid down as to the status of a highway, an 
estoppel will operate against those seeking to denigrate from it. In 1958 
quarter-sessions gave a judgment in rem as to the status of a bridleway. P 
owned the subservient tenement. The bridleway had a gate across it, 
preventing vehicular access, placed there in 1967 by the local authority 
under statutory authority as a coast protection measure. D took steps to 
remove the gate because it was obstructing the highway. P took proceedings 
contending (a) that the dedication of the highway had been subject to P's 
right to erect a gate thereon, and (b) the obstruction was a lawful 
obstruction, having been placed there by statutory authority.
Held, dismissing P's claim, that (1) P was estopped from claiming a 
conditional grant by reason of the fact that the matter had not been raised 
in the previous proceedings, and (2) there was nothing in the Act under 
which the local authority had been operating to allow them to obstruct a 
highway. (Henderson v Henderson [1843-60] All E.R. Rep. 378 referred to, R. 
v. Secretary of State for the Environment Ex p. Hoodreferred to and Yat Tung 
Investment Co. v. Dao Heng Bankreferred to).
Court: (Ch D) Chancery Division
Judge: Plowman, V.C.
Judgment date: July 31, 1975

As to whether it might be lawful to shoot burglars in the back, I think it 
might well be lawful in some circumstances.  A burglar who has threatened 
you with bodily harm, then turns his back on you so that he can reach for 
his gun, might deserve to be shot.

The Todal wrote:
> "Alan Jones"  wrote in message news:gadp05$p36$1@aioe.org...
>> none@snotmail.com wrote:
>>>  I
>>> maintain it is lawful to break down any unlawful gate across a RoW but
>>> I was never asked that question.
>> No it is not! Neither is it lawful to shoot burglars
>> in the back.
>>
> 
> You sound very sure, 

Turtills 'defense; to criminal damage was tested in court and he lost.
It is as simple as that.

If the DJ is who I think he is, he rejoices in the soubriquet of 'Custody Cooper'. He is 
known in the trade as, shall we say, a bit of a character.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:00:15 +0100, none@snotmail.com wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:10:05 +0100, "GB" 
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, it was not intended to be hurtful, so it was irony rather than 
>>sarcasm. I really did think that Pete did extraordinarily well. There can't 
>>be many people convicted of criminal damage who get commended by the judge 
>>as a good citizen. In fact it's probably unique. Sorry if I wasn't clear, 
>>but that was all meant to be implied by the ;-) bit.
>
>The problem being the Judge refused to consider the Ipswich Dock Acts
>or the issue of whether or not it was a RoW as that was my defence. I
>got off very lightly if I was indeed causing criminal damage. Another
>telling point in the Judges remarks was that if he found me not guilty
>then he would be giving everybody the green light to break down gates
>they didn't approve of. That is not quite the point and also I
>maintain it is lawful to break down any unlawful gate across a RoW but
>I was never asked that question. It also must be born in mind this
>particular RoW was not created by dedication. It was created by
>Statutory Instrument i.e. The Ipswich Dock Act which was quoted
>extensively in the Ipswich Mooring Case.
>http://web.uct.ac.za/staff/jgibson/iczm/cases/ipswich1.htm

As has been pointed out here several times, your bona fide belief that
you were entitled to act in the way you did is a complete defence in
itself, and it was therefore not necessary for the court to consider
whether tht belief was justified, since it could make no difference to
the result. I share your feeling that this is unstiasfactory, but
there is no real doubt that the course the judge took was legally
correct. To get a ruling on the actual validity of the RoW you would
probably need to bring an action for a declaration - the criminal
courts will not resolve this question, either at first instance or on
appeal.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

"Alan Jones"  wrote in message news:gae8lu$sne$1@aioe.org...
> The Todal wrote:
>> "Alan Jones"  wrote in message 
>> news:gadp05$p36$1@aioe.org...
>>> none@snotmail.com wrote:
>>>>  I
>>>> maintain it is lawful to break down any unlawful gate across a RoW but
>>>> I was never asked that question.
>>> No it is not! Neither is it lawful to shoot burglars
>>> in the back.
>>>
>>
>> You sound very sure,
>
> Turtills 'defense; to criminal damage was tested in court and he lost.
> It is as simple as that.
>

Yes, yes. We've moved on. We're talking about the prospects of an appeal.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:35:04 +0100, Don Aitken 
wrote:


>As has been pointed out here several times, your bona fide belief that
>you were entitled to act in the way you did is a complete defence in
>itself, and it was therefore not necessary for the court to consider
>whether tht belief was justified, since it could make no difference to
>the result. I share your feeling that this is unstiasfactory, but
>there is no real doubt that the course the judge took was legally
>correct. To get a ruling on the actual validity of the RoW you would
>probably need to bring an action for a declaration - the criminal
>courts will not resolve this question, either at first instance or on
>appeal.

That is my problem. The only course open to me is through the criminal
courts. It is also very important to me to have the conviction
overturned.
pete