TV Licensing Dubious Evidence Thrown Out of Court

A Merseyside man is celebrating after being cleared of TV licence evasion after TV Licensing presented what can only be described as extremely dubious evidence against him.

Lee Stuart, from Kirkby, does not watch "live" TV programmes on any channel or use the BBC iPlayer, which means he does not legally require a TV licence. Instead he uses non-BBC on-demand services like Channel 4od, My5, Amazon Prime (sign up for 30 day free trial) and Netflix for all of his viewing.

Convinced of the legality of his set up Lee made the fatal mistake of inviting a TV Licensing goon into his home. This is something TV Licensing Blog discourages people from doing, for the simple reason that TV Licensing goons, as Lee's case further demonstrates, cannot be trusted.

Lee dutifully showed the goon his television, which was set up to watch on-demand programmes via a PlayStation. Seemingly satisfied with Lee's compliance with the rules the goon read back edited highlights from the paperwork he had completed during the visit.

Speaking to the Liverpool Echo, Lee said: "It was official, and I agreed with what he had said, so when I was presented with the big white signature box, I just signed it, and then he left. To be honest, I was really made up with myself, thinking I'd beaten the system and proved I didn't need a licence."

Given that Lee was later prosecuted for TV licence evasion, the form he signed must have been a TVL178 Record of Interview form, but nowhere in the article does he mention being interviewed under caution. The TVL178 should only be completed after the occupier of an unlicensed property has been cautioned.

I am sure if Lee had been cautioned he would have mentioned it, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the goon has filled in the form, thereby stitching Lee up, without even bothering to caution him - a gutter trick indeed, but one totally in keeping with TV Licensing's modus operandi.

Lee received a Single Justice Procedure Notice in the post, which he completed with a not guilty plea and elected to attend court in person.

The hearing at Sefton Magistrates' Court dismissed the allegation against Lee, citing the insufficient evidence in the case.

Lee said: "I can see why people just accept it, but I knew I was innocent and I wasn’t paying for a TV licence that I didn’t need so I fought it.

"I'll be totally honest, I was surprised by the outcome and I thought it might be good to share my experience."

Experience shows that TV Licensing is happy to prosecute on the basis of very sloppy (or even non-existent) evidence, because it expects most people receiving an SJP Notice to either ignore it or lack the inclination to put up a fight. If the matter does get to court, TV Licensing will often pull the prosecution at the last minute instead of risk having holes poked in its case (or having its lies exposes in open court).

A couple of concluding points:

• Anyone who does not legally need a TV licence is under no legal obligation at all to TV Licensing. They do not need to engage with TV Licensing and should not do so.
• TV Licensing goons have no automatic right of access to any property. The occupier should never allow them voluntary access, as they cannot be trusted to give an accurate account of any visit.

Further anti-BBC reading:

• Is The True Or Did You Hear It On The BBC?, by David Sedgwick (aff. link)
• The BBC: Myth of a Public Service, by Tom Mills (aff. link)