That False Imprisonment Case

Angry Exile trod where I feared not to yesterday and I have explained why on his place, but as the BBC has picked up on the story, I thought I’d expand. On the face of it, I would agree with AE that the defendant in the civil case was hard done by. However, there is a back story emerging that puts a different spin on things. Not least that the police charged Mr Cremer and three others with false imprisonment back in 2008. It’s one thing to conduct a citizen’s arrest when finding out that someone has their finger in the till, it is another matter –  even if satisfying –  to walk them down the street with a placard around their neck stating that they are a thief. There’s that old innocent until proved guilty thing, you know. At that point, Mr Gilbert was an accused thief. Not the same thing at all.

And, as the BBC article reminds us, the original £845 is still being disputed. It seems that although it was paid back, having been obtained illegally, Mr Gilbert continues to claim that it was owed to him.

There is much that seems not to be clear in this case. At its root is a dispute between two people and as is often the case in such disputes, there is more than one side to the story.

All that said, the suing for psychological damage was taking the piss, surely? Such a claim should have been dismissed out of hand. Well, that was my first thought –  actually, it still is my thought but that’s another matter. Five grand plus costs for the humiliation seems like a good return to me. Okay, I know from personal experience that even if you have a strong case, solicitors will preach caution and settling out of court to keep costs down. But, Cremer should have had a solid case, after all Gilbert stole the money and received a police caution for it. Well…

Four people have been charged after a man was escorted down an Essex high street with a “thief” sign round his neck.

Although the case subsequently didn’t proceed, given the lower burden of proof in a civil case, Glibert’s claim had a decent chance of succeeding, which is presumably why Cremer’s lawyers advised him to settle. It would have cost rather more than he ended up paying out.

Now you might –  reasonably –  argue that Cremer was hard done by and that the law is an ass. I wouldn’t gainsay that. I would however, point out that there is a back story that hasn’t been fully told here that puts a different perspective on the events and if Cremer did owe the money as Gilbert claims, my sympathies tend to swing the other way. The other question hovering over all of this is that if the theft was straightforward as Cremer maintains, why did Gilbert only receive a caution rather than full prosecution?

As an aside, I am still owed money from November 2009 by a client and am unlikely to see any of it. No, I’m not about to forge cheques, but people who don’t pay what they owe don’t get a huge amount of sympathy from me, and mine for Cremer is evaporating here.

I could be wrong. Angry Exile could be wrong. The Telegraph and the BBC give only a partial picture and one that is for the most part one sided. I’ll be interested to see how this one develops –  if it does.