Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mla last won the day on April 29

mla had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

182 Excellent


About mla

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Metropolitan Police Service

Recent Profile Visitors

806 profile views
  1. Putting aside the circumstances required to justify in law a search, the suspected dealer every time. Whilst person B may have drugs now in their possession, and person A may not, the intelligence potentially gathered through a lawful stop and search of A (name, address (if given), descriptions, IMEIs, VRMs etc) is 10x more valuable.
  2. Putting whether or not such a thing as a "Registered Owner" exists aside for a moment, as it does not matter for the point of the constitution of the gift, which is the important thing here. If A tries to gift an item X to person B and in doing so must go through legal formalities to do so (such as with land where S1 LPA 1925 applies) but fails to do so, excluding certain circumstances such as the "every effort test" in Re Rose [1952], then the gift fails. Thus, as dad did not go through the formalities of transferring the "ownership" of the car to the daughter then she does not own the car, dad still does. His assertions to the contrary will fail for this reason meaning the determination of whether or not insured under his policy is a matter of contract and if his policy states "another car not owned by you", then he would, prima facia, not be covered by this policy.
  3. Not quite true, I believe:
  4. In your scenario dad has not constituted the gift properly and still owns the car. Why? V5 determines R/K and R/O. To gift the car ownership would have to change via the formalities. Milroy 1862 - equity will not perfect an imperfect gift nor can equity substitute an imperfect gift for a trust Strong v Bird - equity will not assist a volunteer who did not complete formalities Re Rose 1952 - does not apply as no effort to undertake formalities Re Pennington 2002 - does not apply for same reason As to whether insured or not is a contractual matter based on what the policy says, but if states "any other car not owned by the policyholder" then he would not be covered.
  5. Quite! The State and their armed agents will enforce the law as they see it whether the person consents to it or not. They have, put simply, no choice! The FTOL pseudolegal fad is somewhat detached from reality and whilst uses words that sit in the legal vocabulary, they assert they have different meanings. In their world a turnip is in fact a Honda Civic 3 door hatchback. My advice would be to have a quick google on the basis to the constitution of the U.K. and it's history and what a common law jurisdiction is (as opposed to a civil law one). It's massively interesting (and totally relevant) stuff!
  6. This is a hysterical statement that entirely ignores the large number of staff dedicated exclusively to functions like child protection. Those staff are not out on the road issuing tickets because they are full-time doing what we ask of them - investigating serious crime. So those cynics you allude to espousing such a thing are wholly wrong.
  7. Minor infractions of the law are ubiquitous. As said above, one, and notably police supervision, need to balance available resource against risk. If all your available resource had arrested people for being drunk in a public place and you dialled 999 to report someone having been stabbed with a knife and nobody was available, would it be justifiable? I imagine not and this is part of the nexus of discretion. The Judiciary can also apply their discretion when, for example, an unconditional discharge is handed down. "who says what the law and what isnt [sic]" is inviting a complex answer. Parliament spits out statute, it is interpreted by judges (of which differing rules of statutory interpretation are applied) and these decisions may be modified on appeal later on by other judges. Put simply, it is by no means as binary as you would suggest.
  8. Quite. But nicking someone for just being drunk is no way to make friends and influence people. Certainly at an otherwise busy custody, certainly with the otherwise law-abiding public and certainly stops you being invited to the Christmas do! So, be drunk, be merry, be safe and enjoy yourself. Don't get disorderly or so drunk you are incapable of functioning. Former is time in custody and a fine/trip to Mags and the latter (mostly) hospital. All generally come with a hangover!
  9. Indeed, somewhat objective you could say. And whom can provide expert witness evidence -- a police officer! If we decide you are drunk, you are drunk and that is the end of the matter. All the evidence you need to serve a PND to a member of bar staff or to bring into custody for such things as D&D, drunk/incapable, etc.
  10. Arguably both ultra vires. S50 PRA 2002 reads into it S1 CDA 1998 and effectively sets out that "anti-social behaviour" is threshold for A/H/D, person of reasonable firmless, a la S5 POA. This is a fairly high threshold as it would be (without looking at any cases/stare decisis/ratio) the stuff subject to ASBOs. Drinking in public is, on its own, not anti-social, per se. (Other offences may apply) Being homeless is not anti-social.
  11. I love how this scenario starts with "a patriot"! Do keep them coming as they are most amusing, if not a little bizarre, and personally I'm waiting for one that starts with "John: of the Smith family" and a nautical reference of some kind...
  12. Re Dave ... Not sure you'd even need evidence from original as Dave 2 provides the evidence. Also, even if Sam didn't want to hit Dave 2 but actually Dave 1 doctrine of transferred malice would apply. Re horse, putting side the wildly (excuse then pun) imaginative example you have given, my answer is in the negative. The expression "I could eat a horse" and variations therein is a widely used expression to describe hunger and putting to a suspect effectively "you were hungry ten years ago and did you kill that horse" would just be a pony question. I thank you!
  13. 5 parts 1 this statement is about blah and I am the victim, witness or AO to it etc 2 it will mention X, Y and Z people (full dets) 3 any significant oral admissions or really salient points 4 chronological account written in first person covering points to prove but excluding anything superfluous (which is the bit that comes both practice and a wider contextual understanding of the evidential weight of the statement being written will provide, and whether the defence would refute it, in amongst other considerations) 5 willing to attend court Bit of an art form I'm afraid. Go out in a basic car or dedicated scheduled appointment car and you'll have written a whole bunch in no time at all!
  14. That's why we interview them back in the peaceful and relaxed environment that is custody!
  15. Bit of a 'Janet and John' example, but if we are to play on these highly simplistic terms, yes, gets thrown into the car park and the big wide world. We abide by the rules! I'm guessing, if I were to run your example through, wouldn't be long before we see him again, but that's another matter entirely from the legal determination you seek in your OP.