75ZT Community

I was dealing with an application for a football banning order today for a defendant charged with trying to enter a designated sporting event while drunk.

During the course of the application it became clear that the defendant was a staunch supporter of Manchester City. So much so that he had a season ticket every year, travelled to every away game, including internationals and even managed to down fifteen pints of beer before the game (the reason he was in front of my bench today in fact).

Now, as I understand it, a season ticket to Manchester City isn't something that can be purchased for pennies, and it doesn't get you into internationals, quite apart from the transport costs... and the price of fifteen pints at a boozer convenient for the ground on a match-day

I was somewhat surprised then, when he stated that his sole source of income was job-seeker's allowance.

One of the cheaper premiership clubs to have a season ticket for with prices strting at £260 a year.
Cup and other games cost more on top of this.
The away games will cost more and as you say you have the travel costs on the top of this and the beer

If he can do that on job seekers then he could make a mint as a financial advisor

Probably like a finacial advisor and bankers its not him paying for it

That may be his current soul source, however, this does not mean he is without substance. Perhaps a better question is. How much does he have in savings? That could be considerable.

Mick wrote:How much does he have in savings?

According to his means form, nothing.

I would hazard a guess, what is on the form may be rather economical with the truth. How to prove? I would also hazard a guess, it's very time consuming and no doubt expensive to investigate.
Trust no one,

Mick wrote:I would hazard a guess, what is on the form may be rather economical with the truth.

Really?? You think??

Now that thought appals me

raistlin wrote:

Mick wrote:I would hazard a guess, what is on the form may be rather economical with the truth.

Really?? You think??

Now that thought appals me

Give him a whopping great fine regardless....

Joking aside. is there no way of reporting such suspicions, who's remit would it fall into to investigate?

Ragman wrote:Joking aside. is there no way of reporting such suspicions, who's remit would it fall into to investigate?

If the Bench are not satisfied with the financial details given on a means form, they can adjourn for a means enquiry. They can specify the financial evidence they want to see and can insist that the evidence be given on oath, thereby rendering an individual open to a charge of perjury. Audited business accounts can be asked for, along with personal and business bank statements, cheque books, invoices, receipts etc. Quite an onerous and expensive task for the individual concerned I'd imagine. The auditor can also be summonsed to give oral evidence on oath but that is rare.

This would only be done if we thought that there were BIG porkies being told We are used to outgoings exceeding income slightly and quite understand why an individual could not afford to pay fines whilst spending £100+ per week on satellite TV, smoking, drinking etc.

As an example example, I dealt with one case recently where we reserved the case to ourselves after the defendant had given the Court and the local authority a real "run around". We decided the messing about had to stop. The defendant couldn't even remember what he'd put down on the "audited" accounts. Given that we didn't believe what he said and that was AFTER a formal means enquiry, instead of facing fines in the region of £450 he ended up owing the Court just short of £10,000. He was also reported to HMRC, having let slip that his admitted income, of £400 per week, was actually not drawn from his businesses but came from a "casual" cash in hand job transporting scrap cars. I imagine his tax affairs are even now being scrutinised most critically.

He could, of course, have appealed against our decision. That would then have meant an even more detailed examination of his financial affairs before a panel consisting of a Judge and two Magistrates in Crown Court.

So you can see that, if we think the means form is at least partially realistic, we tend to accept it as a basis for calculating fines, compensation, costs etc. A formal means enquiry is something that most people in with any common sense would try to avoid.

Mick wrote:I would hazard a guess, what is on the form may be rather economical with the truth. How to prove? I would also hazard a guess, it's very time consuming and no doubt expensive to investigate.
Trust no one,

As I understand it, he has to support himself without benefits until his savings fall below £16k. Purely academical of course.

So did the means test find a "farm" up his loft? The loft farm can trounce the income of a large real farm in a growing season.

Plenty of jobs pay cash in hand no questions asked