Godmanchester, House of Lords Session 2006–07 [2007] UKHL 28 on appeal from: [2005] EWCA Civ 1597 ..clarified the stealthy activity to procure bridleways at the borders of Uffculme and Culmstock (Devon) was not achieving; so when the public inquiry took place on 18 Sept 07 it was tainted with bias and skulduggery; it was a sham. From the facts of the Culm Valley, it is reasonable and rational to infer, DEFRA’s vice* like grip during changes to the Definitive Map, affronts the principles of natural justice. DEFRA appears born to exploite Lord Woolf’s Report.
[*Extreme moral corruption; depravity; evil; grossly immoral or degrading habits or conduct.]
From Bribery and Corruption in the City [A lecture by Nicholas Cooke QC, 30 October 2018]:
“Crime thrives in a social environment which is conductive to its commission, and it harms the society which spawns it most of all. That is as true of bribery and corruption as it is true of knife-armed postcode gangs. If the common ethical code that prevents the vast majority from offending in a particular way begins to break down, there is a serious problem.” ~
We can see, and judge for ourselves from the plethora of prior hearings of the common law of England & Wales, that politics is stifling justice in a manner that is exploiting the UK’s police forces inability to keep up with the criminal element working illicitly within public office.
This has to change, good society demands its civil and community councils to affront all, any, corruption within; schools should be environments that promote holistic values and respect for others; if parish and county councils are tainted with secret agendas of bad faith – conspiracy to defraud and overt political bias – activities that challenge rational and reasonable truth in quasi courts and tribunals: kangaroo courts; the core values of a community is affected, the generic mental health within a community fails, and an authoritarian atmosphere prevails via stealthy activity, lies and deceit.
From observing the evidential facts and performances put forward by Devon County Council and its parish councils in the upper Culm Valley in their war against the farming community re public rights of way; it is quite clear that they’ve allowed the British Horse Society (BHS) to put the cart before the horse, have organised and lived a policy of lies; working together, they have had an agenda against truth being heard, and have flaunted their ability not to be challenged by others effectively.
..In 1907 the Central Criminal Court (A.K.A., The Old Baily) was opened by King Edward VII; a century (100 years) later, a decade after Hilary Benn’s party came to power, DEFRA was using its agent provocateurs to destroy the credibility of the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way; thus by 2007 many highly positioned administrators of the Definitive Map had lost their moral compass and calculated that desire and suitability for use: tracts of land would be made public, could be appropriated (taken from the owners) and marked on the Definitive Map accordingly.
In the Del Basso case Judge Baker QC’s remarks follow the findings of Cassell & Co…
Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome (No. 2) [1972] A.C. 1136 is identified in Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgement in the Cause IN RE PINOCHET Session 1998-99. In the Cassell & Co. Ltd. case:
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest: “I do not think that the word “calculated” was used to denote some precise balancing process. The situation contemplated is where someone faces up to the possibility of having to pay damages for doing something which may be held to have been wrong but where nevertheless he deliberately carries out his plan because he thinks that it will work out satisfactorily for him.”
At the heart of DEFRA’s mechanism of public fraud is the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol, it is reasonable to compare “Crime thrives in a social environment..” (above) to the Del Basso case:
Mr Luigi Del Basso and Mr Bradley Goodwin appear to have thought that they could treat the planning laws with a high degree of contempt and that the consequences would not be too severe. How wrong they were. In a judgment given on 19 May 2010 the Court of Appeal has confirmed a criminal confiscation order against them of £760,000.
The story begins in 1999, when Mr Del Basso had an interest in a company which owned land in Bishops Stortford, Essex. Planning permission was obtained to use the land to provide parking for those attending matches at the local football club, permission being restricted to match days.
Shortly afterwards, the company began using the land for a park and ride facility for passengers using Stansted Airport. It did not obtain planning permission: it appears that it did not apply. The local authority planning department wrote numerous letters stating that planning permission was required and insisting that the unauthorised business should cease.
In 2003 the local authority served an enforcement notice. There were appeals, as far as the High Court, but all were unsuccessful. In the meantime, the parking business expanded.
In September 2004 the local authority commenced a prosecution for failing to comply with the enforcement notice. There was a conviction in 2005, and fines were imposed. Attempts to appeal failed.
In November 2005 a further prosecution was commenced. By this time the land was owned by a company in which Mr Del Basso and Mr Goodwin held 50% of the shares. They were named as defendants in the second prosecution. In July 2007 they pleaded guilty. This time, the conviction was followed by an application for a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
That application was initially heard by Judge Baker QC, who determined that the illegal operation had produced a “benefit” of £1.8 million, of which £760,000 was available. He made a confiscation order in that amount. The case went to the Court of Appeal, where on 19 May 2010 Lord Justice Leveson gave a detailed judgement. This shows that once a case enters the realm of the criminal law, there is a real risk that a substantial confiscation order may be made.
The power to make a confiscation order arises under s6 POCA. The key elements include:
-That the Defendant must be convicted in the Crown Court;
-That the Court must decide whether the Defendant has benefited from general criminal conduct (if it determines that he has a “criminal lifestyle”) or from the particular criminal conduct of the offence.
If the conclusion of the Court is that the defendant has benefited from either general or particular criminal conduct, s6 POCA concludes by specifying that the court must (a) decide the recoverable amount, and (b) make a confiscation order requiring the defendant to pay that amount.
Mr Del Basso and Mr Goodwin had been convicted in the Crown Court. The Court of Appeal considered detailed authorities on the meaning of “benefit” for the purpose of s6 POCA and concluded that the benefit gained is not the profit, i.e., whatever may have been made net of all expenses, but that it is the total property or money made by the defendant as a result of his criminal activity: in this case half the total turnover of the illegal parking business. Thus although Mr Del Basso had produced evidence that over a number of years his income from the operation had not exceeded £125,000, nevertheless a confiscation order was made in the sum of £760,000.
There are lessons to be learned by the owners and directors of businesses which may come into conflict with planning and other regulatory authorities. There are an increasing number of criminal offences under which the regulators may prosecute. The ultimate sanction may not therefore be a fine, but a substantial and crippling confiscation order.
In the Del Basso case, Lord Justice Leveson concluded by quoting from the final remarks of the trial judge, Judge Baker QC, who said:
I have received the strong impression that neither the [appellants] nor their accountants appreciated fully the risk that the companies and individuals involved in the park and ride operation faced from confiscation proceedings. They have treated the illegality of the operation as a routine business risk with financial implications of the form of potential fines or, at worst, injunctive proceedings. This may reflect a more general public impression among those confronted by enforcement notices with the decision whether to comply with the law or to flout it. The law, however, is plain. Those who choose to run operations in disregard of planning enforcement requirements are at risk of having the gross receipts of their illegal businesses confiscated. This may greatly exceed their personal profits. In this respect they are in the same position as thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. Case: Del Basso & Goodwin v. R [2010] EWCA Crim 1119 gtk399.wordpress.com/2010/06/
~
The above has a sinister resemblance to DEFRA’s Mr Peter Millman’s malicious falsehood of inverting the credibility of the innocent with the conspirators of bad faith. Consider a role-play reversal of the key players in the above authority:
When the Travelling-forum: Coombes, Rudge, Parsons, Spurway and Kind are accountable for bad faith & fraud are assisted by the office of the Secretary of State DEFRA; does the distinction between Judge Baker’s: ‘In this respect they are in the same position as thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers.’, and the damage to society identified by Mr Nicholas Cooke QC, not apply; they appear comparatively one and the same view; conspiracy to defraud is bad society.
With agreement that crime is not an acceptable lifestyle in good society, and that it’s worse if done by those paid from the public purse – work in a public office that undermines the justice system. Nepotism, Jobbery and entryism contribute to the vices of nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance: Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England setting a precedent in mis’, mal’ and nonfeasance.
The Del Basso and Godmanchester cases clearly identify the difficulties that those in conspiracy to defraud have to accept* having destroyed the credibility of the Definitive Map; changes have to be based on fact – not fiction supported by bent inspectors &/or DEFRA’s string pulling puppets; those deftly working hand-in-glove at the Planning Inspectorate to fraudulently procure public rights of way in the Culm Valley – as if they are rabbits or tissues from a magician’s hat, snared themselves with their own wirey wirrwar; they’ve made the Definitive Map a farce.
Too much wandering (as in magic wand) from the truth has taken place to miraculously show the discovery of public rights of way at Five Fords, Uffculme and Culmstock, where they do not exist. In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington, (1932) 48 TLR, 215, Lord Dunedin said:
“People must guard against reasonable probabilities, but they are not under duty to guard against fantastic possibilities“.
When one stops to consider the hawking & hood-winking that exists, takes place The Planning Inspectorate; one has to consider what came first, Edward III’s special licence to Sir R Cogan to make a park from his wood of [Uffculme] and three hundred acres (one acre is 220 yards by 22 yards), on 17 March 1336; or the Planning Inspectorate – also governed by the common law of England and Wales, that insidiously hides behind King Edward III’s words, those exclaimed in circa 1248 – according to the records of the king’s wardrobe?
The rule of estoppel applies to the illicit and conspired activity to defraud that DEFRA appears designed: the political machinary, mechanism to facilitate many illicit changes to the Definitive Map, ..a map now broken by those without moral compass; those deviating from the principles of natural justice include Hilary Benn whilst Secretary of State DEFRA; criminal activities seen inside the Planning Inspectorate linked to Mr Benn, let he not forget this country’s democratic.
In Allen v. Flood [1898] AC 1 Lord MacNaghten discussed the principle underlying Lumley v. Gye; the following clearly lends itself to the corruption at Five Fords: “[W]here the act itself to which the loss is traceable involves some breach of contract or some breach of duty, and amounts to an interference with legal rights…the immediate agent is liable, and it may well be that the person in the background who pulls the strings is liable too, though it is not necessary in the present case to express any opinion on that point.”
He emphasised the absence of a conspiracy: “the decision of this case can have no bearing on any case which involves the element of oppressive combination. The vice of that form of terrorism commonly known by the name of ‘boycotting,’ and other forms of oppressive combination, seem to me to depend on considerations which are, I think, in the present case conspicuously absent.” ~
..of course of action, conspiracy is not absent in the upper Culm Valley. To the contrary; a cart wheel conspiracy – complex conspiracy to defraud has taken place. It’s well published that the purpose of a public inquiry re public right(s) of way (on land) is to establish whether in fact they exist – from regular public use – a consistent path between two points at specific locations,* for twenty years or more,** or from the overt activity or grant of the landowner(s) concerned.
[*Not from aimless, loose, indiscriminate wondering. **20 years … Highways Act 1980.]
Desireability for use, suitability for use and/or what people would like the situation to be, are not factors that an Inspector appointed by DEFRA/Planning Inspectorate can consider, but it is an absolute fact that they appear selected for deft dexterity, impropriety bent towards stealth.
Mr Benn’s agenda appears to have wilfully affronted the Parliament of England and Wales and its common law; the criminal acts that festered from his wise promotion of brazen skulduggery others, cause me to recall the judgment of Sir 0. Pepys, at the Rolls (c), on the original hearing:
“It does indeed,” observes his Honor, “become the duty of the Court, when transactions of long standing are brought before it, most anxiously to weigh all the circumstances of the case, and to consider what evidence there may have been, which, from lapse of time, may be lost. But beyond this, in cases of fraud, I think time has no effect. Were it otherwise, the jurisdiction of the Court would be defeated, not because the case was not one for its interference, but because the author of the fraud had been enabled to continue his deception till such a time had elapsed as to prevent the interference of the Court Such, fortunately, is not the law; and those who may be disposed fraudulently to appropriate to themselves the property of others, may be assured, that no length of time will secure them in the enjoyment of their plunder..”
[Interval]