Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

First rioter given eviction notice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 01:40 PM
Original message
First rioter given eviction notice
A council tenant whose son has appeared in court charged in connection with Monday night’s disturbances in Clapham Junction will today (Friday) be served with an eviction notice.

The tenant is believed to be the first in the country to now be facing the prospect of losing their council-owned home as a result of Monday night's rioting and looting.

The notice is the first stage in the legal process of eviction. The notice gives warning that the council will be seeking possession of the property and that an application will be made to the courts seeking the tenant's eviction. The final decision will rest with a judge sitting at the county court.

Neither the tenant nor their son can be named at this stage for legal reasons.

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/10626/first_rioter_given_eviction_notice
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. From what I can read in that article it appears that the parent
Edited on Fri Aug-12-11 03:45 PM by fedsron2us
is being evicted as a result of the child's crime.

There is no suggestion they participated in the riot or looting.

That is not justice even if legal under the civil terms of the tenancy agreement.

Guilt by association is a poor basis for a legal system. Similarly handing out 6 month sentences to people with no criminal records for stealing a £3.50 case of water from an already looted store is not going to solve anything. Punishment should fit the crime so those guilty of instigating the riots and looting or endangering life should face the harshest sentences.

I know you have been suggesting that the number of cases being sent to the crown court is a sign that tougher treatment awaits the more serious criminals but the risk is that juries in these courts may well not find them guilty if they do not cop a plea and the evidence held by the prosecution is found to be weak. This is particularly likely where some time passes between the riots and the trial taking place. In the meantime those who have been before the stipendiary magistrates have often been handed excessively heavy sentences under the summary justice dished out in those courts.

Does anyone know how many leading gang members have been banged up so far ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-courtrooms-country
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-11 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. how many leading gang members ?
There are not necessarily many "gangs" as such and to the best of of my knowledge the answer is none so far.

With the regard to "Guilt by association" - the technicality appears to be that this particular tenancy agreement is in the family name, not just the mother's, and as such the offender is a tenant. Its compounded by him living in the actual area where the offence, whatever it was, occured - in other words possibly trashing his own neighbourhood. I'm guessing you're aware that at least some of Clapham is London Borough Wandsworth.

The absurdity is of course that if evicted the family would have to be rehoused under a different Act.

I don't profess to know what the answer is here. Apparently the legal aspects of Vicarious Liability and Intentionality
may have some bearing on the subject of the tenancy agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fedsron2us Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-11 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
3.  The mother has an 8 year old daughter
who is now going to be punished for her adult siblings crime. Surely if they want to punish the son( who apparently has not even been convicted yet) then he is the one.who should lose the accommodation with the others being rehoused in a one bedroom flat. It appears additional punishments are being heaped on the families of poorer rioters. Will similar justice be meeted out to the multi millionaire parents of the girl caught with £ 5000 of gear in her car? Somehow I doubt it.

I am all for punishing law breakers but at the moment vengeance seems largely aimed at the second wave of opportunist looters not the first wave of rioters and arsonists who did most of the damage. Duggan, whose death sparked the riots had a lot of underworld connections and it seems that in the earliest stages there was some organised criminals directing events. When are they going to get their collars felt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-11 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Somehow or other
I don't think the girl caught with £ 5000 of gear in her car actually lives in a council house.

You know the ropes - tenancies can only be passed down the line if they are joint. Families can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oldironside Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Very much my feeling.
Unfortunately, the first wave of looters were experienced enough to cover their faces. Nicking them isn't going to be easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Great post.
I fear that, as often, the most punishment will go not to the most serious criminals but to those who are easiest to get at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-11 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. stealing a £3.50 case of water
If there's a fault here its in our laws concerning theft and associated issues. Those laws currently make no distinction whatsoever on value of goods. So - to change the situation would need a change in the law.

The downside of such a change could be over to US style based on value above or below $400 or $500 and associated side issue applicable in some States.

See here :

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving under $400 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, previous convictions for robbery and attempted robbery, sentence later reduced to six years).<9> In Rummel v. Estelle (1980), the Supreme Court upheld life with possible parole for a third-strike fraud felony in Texas, which arose from a refusal to repay $120.75 paid for air conditioning repair that was subsequently considered unsatisfactory.<10> Rummel was released a few months later, after pleading guilty.<11>

In California, first and second strikes are counted by individual charges, rather than individual cases, so a defendant may have been charged and convicted of "first and second strikes", potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the passage of the law. Convictions from all 50 states and the federal courts at any point in the defendant's past, as well as juvenile offenses that would otherwise be sealed can be counted (although once a juvenile record is sealed, it cannot be "unsealed"; it does not exist any longer and there is no longer any record to be used as a prior conviction), regardless of the date of offense or conviction or whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain. It is up to the prosecutor's discretion how many charges to levy against a defendant for a single criminal event.<12>

Defendants already convicted of two or more "strike" charges arising from one single case potentially years in the past, even if the defendant was a juvenile at the time, can be and have been charged and convicted with a third strike for any felony or any offense that could be charged as a felony (including "felony petty theft" or possession of a controlled substance prior to Proposition 36 (see below)) and given 25 years to life. (In the California Supreme Court decision People vs. Garcia, 1999, the Court withdrew residential burglary from the juvenile strike list. For a juvenile residential burglary to count it must also be adjudicated in combination with another felony such as armed robbery, which is a strike. Out of the over 43,000 second and third strikers in California prisons today, none has received a prior strike for residential burglary as a juvenile.)

It is possible for a defendant to be charged and convicted with multiple "third strikes" (technically third and fourth strikes) in a single case. It is also possible for multiple "third" strikes to arise from a single criminal act (or omission). As a result, a defendant may then be given two separate sentences that run consecutively,<13> which can make for a sentence of 50 (or 75, or 100) years to life. 50 years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade (more information below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law

Personally I'd leave things be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jeneral2885 Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-11 03:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. So while terrorists
are given protection under the ECHR, families are thrown out becuase their children got mixed up with the wrong crowd?

Gee, not even dictators think of such ideas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-11 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. His name is down as tenant
Tenancy agreement was in the name of the whole family. It may be that if this really does come to anything it will just be him who's evicted. He's 18 years old so not a minor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC