Danny Allen vs. TV Licensing: The Conclusion

It is with some regret, although not total surprise, that we report that Danny Allen has been convicted of obstructing the search warrant TV Licensing attempted to execute at his home last December.

This has not been a particularly pleasant post for us to write. Since the result of Danny's trial we've been carefully weighing up the costs of highlighting TV Licensing's result, against the benefits of warning other people in similar circumstances - exceptionally rare as those circumstances are. Loathe as we are to promote any kind of TV Licensing victory, we have decided to outline the facts below as a warning to others on the receiving end of a TV Licensing search warrant.

There can't be many people who haven't seen Danny's hilarious encounter with TV Licensing goon Ian Doyle on YouTube. In case you somehow managed to miss it, you can read all about the events of that cold December day in our earlier post.

The twists in this story since we wrote our follow-up post are quite astonishing and almost defy belief. Back in August we explained how the court had decided TV Licensing were too late to bring charges against Danny. We published a letter from the court, which clearly stated that TV Licensing's charges were being withdrawn.

In a sickening twist of fate, we learnt a week after our follow-up that the court had made a blunder over the dates. TV Licensing had actually lodged their case within the time limits, but the court had overlooked that point due to staff shortages. The court wrote a letter of apology to Danny explaining their mistake and confirming that TV Licensing would be pursuing search warrant obstruction charges after all. We decided not to publish information about the court's mistake, because we didn't want to afford the BBC and TV Licensing the satisfaction of publicity.

A new summons arrived and Danny considered his options. He decided to plead not guilty and his trial was scheduled for 5th November 2013 at Harlow Magistrates' Court. Without going into too many details the famous "Freeman of the Land" (FMOTL) arguments deployed by Danny on the day of the search were rejected by the court.

Danny's lawyer did not dispute the validity of the search warrant or the circumstances in which it was granted, but he did raise a few questions about TV Licensing's attempts to execute it. The court viewed Danny's entire video of the botched search. Those events were thoroughly discussed and considered by the court, so there is little point delving any deeper. Suffice to say all of the possible weaknesses in TV Licensing's case, which were tenuous to say the least, were rebuffed by the court.

Danny was convicted of obstructing TV Licensing's search warrant, contrary to section 366 of the Communications Act 2003. He was fined £100 and has to pay TV Licensing £300 in costs. Perhaps more significantly he now has a criminal record thanks to adopting legally-baseless, albeit populist, FMOTL arguments in an effort to fend off TV Licensing.

We can state, quite categorically, that Danny has never used a TV receiver in his property. We have seen video footage of him telling TV Licensing employees that fact, despite them denying any knowledge of his no-TV status in court. Had Danny allowed TV Licensing access they would have confirmed there was no evidence of unlicensed TV reception. They would also have also suffered untold damage when video footage of their fruitless search was distributed across the web.

Despite TV Licensing having achieved a technical victory in court, there is no denying that Danny's case has been a particularly unedifying experience for them. The way they toyed with proceedings right to the time-limits demonstrates their action was brought more in spite than public interest. After tickling Danny's balls in a protracted bout of legal foreplay, TV Licensing have seen him punished by the court to the tune of £100. That's hardly a significant money shot.

We strongly suspect that TV Licensing's aggressive and legally unjustified targeting of Danny's property stems from the fact he has previously posted anti-TV Licensing videos on YouTube. TV Licensing has previous form for vexatiously pursuing their outspoken opponents, even when there's no credible evidence of unlicensed TV reception. TV Licensing goon Doyle, who previously featured in their botched prosecution of Michael Shakespeare, confirmed to the court that he was often sent to deal with high profile cases. That seems to reinforce the notion that Danny's was a special case.

As we have previously said, anyone who adopts the ill-informed mantra of "search warrants require consent" or "TV Licensing search warrants are a civil matter and not worth the paper they're printed on" is asking for trouble. These arguments have been tested by experienced lawyers in court, instead of unqualified barrack room lawyers chasing popularity. The people coming out with these dangerous rabble-rousing soundbites are not those standing toe-to-toe with TV Licensing.

If their arguments were correct that "Acts are only law if you consent" then the country would be awash with drug dealers immune from prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; people could go about stealing without fear of punishment under the Theft Act 1968; arsonists could torch whatever they liked without worrying about the Criminal Damage Act 1971. I think those examples totally obliterate any nonsensical logic that Acts are not subject to the full force of law.

In the exceptionally rare event that TV Licensing do appear with a warrant, the occupier is advised to co-operate with their search. By far the best option is to avoid all contact with TV Licensing, thus depriving them of any opportunity to obtain a search warrant in the first place.

Please consider everything we have said carefully.

TJoK has produced a final video conversation with Danny Allen, where they discuss his feelings about the outcome.

For further information from "TV Licensing's Most Prevalent Activist" (that's how the BBC describes us) please download our free ebook.