On January 12, 2024, we submitted a detailed Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Lewisham Council concerning its legal department and planning enforcement officers’ aggressive prosecutions of ordinary citizens. The FOI aimed to uncover the council's expenditure on criminal legal advice and prosecutions, with a focus on cases involving external legal firms like Browne Jacobson, exacerbating costs for taxpayers. The goal was to ensure transparency and accountability in the council's actions and unchecked legal spending. Little did we realise, there's more to this story than meets the eye. TheBigRetort...
Lewisham Council's response to our Freedom of Information Act request was unsurprising. Its position was to invoke Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, citing excessive costs as grounds for refusal.
A familiar retort. However, this type of refusal from the team headed by Jeremy Chambers, Director of Law & Corporate
Governance, underscores a systemic
barrier to transparency and accountability within local government, leaving
constituents unaware of the council's actions and expenses, and the true
reasons for its escalating planning prosecutions. It also opens up the shapeshifting grifters inside the ivory tower to some scrutiny.
Exploitation of the POCA System
Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose vital information sheds light on an alarming pattern of exploitation within the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) system by local councils. This system, meant to combat actual criminal activity and seize proceeds from unlawful conduct, appears to have been manipulated by councils to target ordinary citizens for minor infractions, akin to a mugging exercise on steroids.
For instance, Kevin Bottomley, a local DIY
shopkeeper in Lewisham, reported below, faces prosecution for storing sand, cement, and timber
at the side of his store KJ Building Supplies. The case has now escalated to Woolwich Crown Court, and at some cost. Where the absence of a jury may
conceal from the public that Lewisham Council is netting £62,600 of what it
alone determines is the proceeds of crime rather than benefits of honest public servitude. Yes, you heard that right, a DIY
merchant flogging building materials on which taxes and VAT have already been
paid has worked for nothing. One wonders how that fits with Lewisham's anti-slavery policy.
This outrageous exploitation is compounded by the Home Office's Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS), where the investigating and prosecuting authority, in this case, Lewisham Council, benefits financially from the prosecution. Raising concerns about conflicts of interest and a convenient lack of checks and balances.In other words, planning lawyers are furtively going up the ARIS of Lewisham’s constituents in order to bloat their own wages.
Implications
However, there is a preceedent in defence of such actions, Lewisham Council take note. The Court of Appeal's March 8, 2019 ruling in Wokingham Borough Council v. Scott and others upheld the cessation of prosecutions against 11 defendants, finding that the council's improper consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) and failure to apply the public interest test warranted an abuse of process, highlighting the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal standards in prosecuting planning matters.
Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose key information raises serious doubts about its commitment to accountability and the public interest, and fairness in the planning enforcement system. By concealing data on expenditure, recoveries, and legal proceedings, the council undermines principles of open governance and perpetuates a culture of secrecy and distrust. It also leaves the way open for its planning lawyers to make money off the backs of unintended victims. A banditry that is led by overzealous planning enforcement officers, who themselves evade scrutiny.
Conclusion
The journey to uncover Lewisham Council's dodgy legal practices underscores the challenges in holding all local authorities accountable. Despite facing rejection and evasion, it highlights the importance of transparency and scrutiny within local government. Advocating for transparency is vital to ensure that democracy and accountability prevail. The exploitation within the POCA system, with its erosion of checks and balances by in-house belligerent lawyers, is just one aspect of a broader issue demanding sustained attention and action. Not only in Lewisham but nationwide. Lest we witness a repeat of the Post Office scandal.
THE BIG RETORT
7 comments:
This is how the council's make certain that POCA in planning is a deadly, if not indiscriminate and abusive, tool
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
S179 - failure to comply with an enforcement notice
S194 – false or misleading statements on CLUED application
S210 – non-compliance with TPO
S224 – non-compliance with Town and Country Planning Control of Advertisement – (England) Regulations 2007
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
S9 – Carrying out works to a listed building without consent
S43(1) – non-compliance with Listed Buildings Enforcement Notice
The problem is, Lewisham amd others have started to see the value in serving an enforcment notice, in order to print cash. Or, should that be, seize other people's fortunes?
Yes, but they also must consider restraint as soon as a criminal investigation is initiated. The procedures are:
Conviction
The council has to ask a Crown Court to proceed with confiscation order – Section 6 POCA:
The Crown Court must proceed under this section if the following two conditions are satisfied
The perpetrator is convicted of an offence or offences in proceeding before the Crown court; or is committed to the Crown Court for sentence AND
The Prosecutor asks the court to proceed under this section, the court believes that it is appropriate to do so.
It's a well-set trap. If you're innocent you are guilty.
The council usually lays down whether the activity has occasioned over a period of 6 months and defendant has benefited. This is why they hold off on immeddiate prosecution and string the timeline out. Also, in general, four assumptions must be made (S10)
Lewisham Council may end up with egg on its dirty face.
There must be, via the rule of fair balance, the requirement that there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed by the State in, inter alia¸ the deprivation of property as a form of penalty, and the legitimate aim which is sought to be realised by the deprivation. That rule has consistently been stated by the European Court of Human Rights: Jahn v Germany (2006) 42 EHRR 1084, para 93:
“93. The Court reiterates that an interference with the peaceful
enjoyment of possessions must strike a ‘fair balance’ between the
demands of the general interest of the community and the
requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights
[see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth, cited above,
p. 26, § 69].
POCA must be read and given effect in a manner which avoids a violation of A1P1. A confiscation order which did not conform to the test of proportionality would constitute a violation and it is incumbent upon the domestic court to provide a remedy for
any such violation. The appropriate remedy lies in the duty of the Crown Court judge not to make an order which involves such a violation.
am just a builder I use the goy's shop never saw any crime just a man working his bollocks off and its shockimg he is being punished like this.
You are certainly on to something wih this. You may like to attach the followimg https://propertyindustryeye.com/how-councils-deal-with-private-sector-landlords-is-the-next-post-office-scandal-claim/
Post a Comment