TV Licensing Humiliated in Court

TV Licensing is licking its wounds after another of its prosecution cases descended into a humiliating farce in court.

TV Licensing is a trading named used by the companies that enforce and administer the TV licence fee on behalf of the statutory Licensing Authority, the BBC. Capita Business Services Ltd holds the TV Licensing operations contract and employs the majority of TV Licensing staff. It is important to note that the BBC, as Licensing Authority, is ultimately responsible for all matters relating to TV Licensing, which includes the malicious proceedings mentioned in this article.

Steve Heather, 51, from Kent, is one of an increasing army of people making a stand against TV Licensing's oppressive methods of enquiry. In common with Michael Shakespeare he has adopted a lifestyle where he has no legal need for a TV licence. That being the case he wants to enjoy life without unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing.

Increasingly frustrated at TV Licensing's caustic tone Steve exercised his lawful right to withdraw their implied right of access to his property. TV Licensing are quick to quote (mostly imaginary) legislation when it suits, but do not like it at all when the tables are turned. In common with the Shakespeare case Steve's obstinacy had inadvertently set him on a collision course with TV Licensing. It was only a matter of time before, in their eyes, they would try to level the score.

The day of reckoning arrived and TV Licensing went to the extraordinary lengths of obtaining a search warrant for Steve's home. A warrant can only be granted if it is necessary and proportionate to obtain evidence. It is only necessary when the occupier refuses to allow TV Licensing voluntary access to their property. It is only proportionate if TV Licensing have valid grounds to suspect an offence is being committed.

Anyone seeking a search warrant has to make a deposition. This is a statement, on oath, explaining to the Judge or Magistrate why the warrant is necessary and proportionate. We have previously published a copy of the deposition Capita employee Chris Christophorou made in relation to the search of Steve's home. 

Having examined that deposition we were under no doubt that TV Licensing had effectively hoodwinked the Magistrate into granting a warrant on the basis of unreliable evidence. Our damning appraisal was: "Assuming Christophorou's evidence is an honest representation of how detector vans work then it's no wonder the BBC wants to keep their technology under wraps. In a nutshell they're employing bad science, possibly to baffle non-scientifically minded Magistrates into granting search warrants."

Given that TV Licensing's case has now been thoroughly discredited in court it would appear our initial scepticism had some merit. As the trial is over and Steve has been fully vindicated, we can now reveal exactly what happened when his home was searched.

In accordance with TV Licensing policy Steve's home was searched by two of their employees accompanied by the police. Steve was present as they searched, but he refrained from answering questions or giving assistance. They tested a TV set in his front room and, in scenes reminiscent of the Shakespeare case, an image briefly flashed before their eyes. Satisfied that they had just seen a snapshot of BBC One (maybe even The One Show) they left the property and started legal proceedings. However, in a glaring own goal, they failed to confirm exactly what the image was.

The goons trotted off in the smug belief they had captured a split second of broadcast TV which, if true, would have confirmed that Steve was illegally watching TV without a licence. In reality they hadn't seen a TV image at all - they had actually seen the menu from his Sky box. Steve uses a Sky box to listen to DAB radio via his TV set, which the BBC has confirmed is perfectly legal without a TV licence. Yes, you heard correctly - in a feat of staggering incompetence, even by TV Licensing's inept standards, the goons had confused the Sky box menu for a TV programme.

Steve, who is currently undergoing cancer treatment, was charged with an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act 2003, namely that he had used TV receiving equipment without a valid TV licence. He was summoned to attend Canterbury Magistrates Court, where he pleaded not guilty and awaited a trial date. He used the intervening time to prepare his defence and focus on his tiring medical treatment.

The trial was heard before a District Judge at Dover Magistrates Court, where it concluded on 7th September 2012. In a further demonstration of their bully boy tactics TV Licensing had instructed a Barrister to represent them in court. Their final intimidatory gasp was to waste thousands of pounds flexing their legal muscles just to make a point. Despite the prosecution's might Steve managed to keep a level head and refused to be distracted from his pivotal defence argument. In cross examination TV Licensing's own witnesses, the employees who conducted the search, admitted they couldn't be sure what they had seen on Steve's TV screen. That being the case TV Licensing had no evidence whatsoever to secure a conviction. It is noted that at this stage TV Licensing could have wheeled out the incriminating "detection evidence" they had mentioned in their earlier deposition, but refused to do so. No doubt they recognised it would be torn apart in court, as it was torn apart in our earlier article. If that was to happen any last illusion that detection was effective, as the BBC and TV Licensing like to pretend, would be publicly shattered into a thousand pieces.

In summing up District Judge Justin Barron drew attention to the inconsistencies in TV Licensing's case and found Steve not guilty.

Even though the trial is over there are many questions that remain unanswered. For a start how were TV Licensing able to obtain a search warrant on the basis of detection evidence it seems they couldn't have? People should be extremely concerned at TV Licensing's willingness to prosecute on the basis of substandard evidence. How many thousands of innocent people have pleaded guilty to TV licence evasion in the mistaken belief TV Licensing had reliable evidence against them?

Answers on a postcard please. Not that we're in any doubt about the answers already.

Edit (9/6/13): For further information please see the BBC's response to a Freedom of Information Act request on Steve Heather's case. The document confirms that TV Licensing (or rather Capita) refused to allow Chris Christophorou, the goon who laid on oath the deposition statement, to attend court for cross-examination by Steve's defence solicitor. Draw your own conclusions from the one. The document also confirms that the deposition we published earlier is legitimate (not that we'd ever make anything up, but it no doubt crossed the minds of any BBC luvvies who are reading).