Boxer blocked in by selfish ****s, gets angry and is charged
Discussion
allergictocheese said:
because they didn't like the way they were being spoken to
I've been in this position before and despite asking the van driver (without swearing) 'why are you blocking my drive?' he gave a less than pleasant response, which could have prompted me to escalate my tone. They should have moved their vehicle anyway rather than walking away. Both sides were in the wrong.allergictocheese said:
They were at the car and were made aware by Chisora that he wanted them to move their vehicle. They refused to do so and instead decided to leave him blocked in whist they went about their business. At the point they refused to move their vehicle the intention is patently to keep Chisora from being able to move his and the offence is made out. That they were planning to go to the Post Office before, during or after is neither here nor there, as there is no rule that says there can only be one intention. People often do things for a number of reasons and if any one of them matches the offence here, it is complete.
There's one "rule" that says you need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt - good luck with that in these circumstances. The intention, not planning, to park to go to the post office is of fundamental importance. There can be multiple intentions, but the actions in which intentions are proven from, and inferred from need to be present to satisfy the evidential threshold. The intention is far from "patently obvious" when they refused the second time. You're really going to rely on the part where Chisora's committing his offence to suggest they formed the intention? When they were being threatened? What account would the driver give? Any duty solicitor would have little issue with these circumstances in making it so the intention were far from satisfied for the offence. It's tenuous in theory, it's never going to occur in reality, which is where the discussion lies since you said they should have been dealt with for the offence.
It's not designed for these circumstances and to catch mere obstructions. It's designed for people whose intention is centered around preventing a vehicle from moving, not as an indirect consequence of another act.
La Liga, you're making a simple thing very complicated.
The defendant was asked and had opportunity to remove the obstruction. When asked why they didn't, and instead ignored Chisora and left the obstruction in place, what do you think they would say? They knew that Chisora wanted out. They knew that by not moving their vehicle he couldn't achieve that and by ignoring his request to move and leaving the scene they intentionally prevented him from leaving.
Yes, its an entirely academic discussion and it was unlikely anyone in those circumstances would face action, however that doesn't mean we should ignore what is as plain as the nose on your face.
The defendant was asked and had opportunity to remove the obstruction. When asked why they didn't, and instead ignored Chisora and left the obstruction in place, what do you think they would say? They knew that Chisora wanted out. They knew that by not moving their vehicle he couldn't achieve that and by ignoring his request to move and leaving the scene they intentionally prevented him from leaving.
Yes, its an entirely academic discussion and it was unlikely anyone in those circumstances would face action, however that doesn't mean we should ignore what is as plain as the nose on your face.
Hugo a Gogo said:
so Chisora parked on their residents parking area, and got lairy because they wouldn't leap into action and move immediately to let him out?
which one was selfish again?
Hugo: Oi .. come back here! why have you left your car across my driveway?which one was selfish again?
(*)Hole: You what?
Hugo: You're blocking my drive! I need to get my car out. Can you move your car please? Now!
(*)Hole: Don't stress mate. We'll move it when we've visited the post office.
fido said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
so Chisora parked on their residents parking area, and got lairy because they wouldn't leap into action and move immediately to let him out?
which one was selfish again?
Hugo: Oi .. come back here! why have you left your car across my driveway?which one was selfish again?
(*)Hole: You what?
Hugo: You're blocking my drive! I need to get my car out. Can you move your car please? Now!
(*)Hole: Don't stress mate. We'll move it when we've visited the post office.
I suspect that they were probably sick of coming home to find strangers taking all the places in their resident's car park, and didn't feel inclined to snap to attention when one of the strangers demanded they drop what they were doing and let him out immediately. I think they probably were being deliberately unhelpful. If I came home to find someone had dumped his car on my drive, I wouldn't feel particularly bad about blocking him in if was that or park somewhere else, nor be particularly inclined to put myself out to facilitate his speedy exit.
allergictocheese said:
s54 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Preventing the vehicle from moving by any means without lawful authority is an offence. The vehicle being on your property does not give you lawful authority.
I know all about this one. I used to own a flat with a garage underneath across the road from a row of shops. I used to leave my garage open while I was at work (could be bothered getting out of my car to close it on way out and open it on the way back). Cheeky buggers would regularly park in my garage whilst popping into the shops. One day I popped home for lunch and found a strange car in my garage. I thought it would be funny to shut and lock the door, did so and drove back to work giggling. When I got home at night a police notice was stuck to the garage door asking me to "CONTACT POLICE IMMEDIATELY". The officers attending didn't see the funny side at all, took the matter very seriously and were quite t
tty in their manner. Tannedbaldhead said:
I know all about this one. I used to own a flat with a garage underneath across the road from a row of shops. I used to leave my garage open while I was at work (could be bothered getting out of my car to close it on way out and open it on the way back). Cheeky buggers would regularly park in my garage whilst popping into the shops.
One day I popped home for lunch and found a strange car in my garage. I thought it would be funny to shut and lock the door, did so and drove back to work giggling. When I got home at night a police notice was stuck to the garage door asking me to "CONTACT POLICE IMMEDIATELY". The officers attending didn't see the funny side at all, took the matter very seriously and were quite ttty in their manner.
This strange car you found in your garage...it wasn't white with a big red stripe down the side, with a funny looking roof-rack adorned with lights, and have a couple of snoozing coppers in it, by any chance? You did check that before you locked the garage door, right?One day I popped home for lunch and found a strange car in my garage. I thought it would be funny to shut and lock the door, did so and drove back to work giggling. When I got home at night a police notice was stuck to the garage door asking me to "CONTACT POLICE IMMEDIATELY". The officers attending didn't see the funny side at all, took the matter very seriously and were quite t
tty in their manner. Hugo a Gogo said:
so Chisora parked on their residents parking area, and got lairy because they wouldn't leap into action and move immediately to let him out?
which one was selfish again?
Phers seem to be very precious about property and ownership except when it comes to parking on other people's property when a lot of them seem to think you should be able to do what the heck you like.which one was selfish again?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff