Incorrect legal advice from George Vella

Report Content

• Issue: *
  Content Other
• Your Name: *
  
• Your Email: *
  

• Details: *
  

Submit Report

George Vella, the admin of the Facebook page, “Police Corruption And wrongdoing” says he helps victims of Police corruption and wrongdoing.

This is a cause I deeply support, however, George Vella is providing incorrect legal advice that can harm you if you act upon said advice.

I spoke to George Vella by private message on a number of occasions, here are some of his glaring misinterpretations of the Law.

Sub-Judice Law – bad legal advice

One was in relation to a conversation whereby my Solicitor had published a very good article on how the Police were wrong to strip search me. https://iaingould.co.uk/2016/06/23/paul-ponting-strip-search-wrong/

George Vella told me that he would not publish this post that my solicitor had put on his anti-police Facebook page about the Lancashire Police strip search of me. The conversation is publish (below)!

He then says my Solicitor had screwed up my case due to sub-judice laws. (George does not understand this law)

When pointed out to George Vella that his ‘opinion‘ was not correct, he argued like a spoilt child!

I provided him with links to resources explaining the sub-judice law to him but he would not have it, he even said a Judge had told him otherwise so must be right?

George thinks he is correct even though every other genuine resource shows he is wrong.  http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sub-judice

George Vella dis-courage’s victims from using solicitors for Civil cases, WHY!

Part 36 Offer – BAD advice.
Another offering of terrible legal advice from George Vella.  Bear in mind George Vella paints a picture of himself as some sort of ‘legal guru’ in civil courts.  This is his message to me relating to a Part 36 offer!

Now let me explain what a part 36 offer (this is in my own words, I am not a solicitor)

When a defendant makes a ‘part 36 offer’, they are making an offer, to the claimant, to settle out of court.

This offer is not declared to the court as proceedings will not have started anyway at this point, and the part 36 offer is NOT declared if proceedings are started a later date.

The Part 36 offer is between the defendant & claimant only, No one else.  If the claimant accepts it, he gets the offer and end of story, an out of court settlement has been reached.

If the claimant refuses the Part 36 offer, in simple terms you go to court. (the reality is, more offers may be made and additional processes may be taken)

Now, in Court, the judge has no knowledge of any part 36 offers.  The Judge listens to the case on its own merits and makes a Judgement, either in favour of the defendant OR the claimant based on the evidence.

If the defendant wins, sorry, you are screwed, you lose. You pay everyone lots of money. (unless you have after the event insurance)

If you win Judgement, you won judgement……BUT, the Judge then makes an award of compensation.

If the compensation awarded is higher than the original Part 36 offer,  you really did win ..Yippeeeee.

If the offer of compensation awarded is less than the part 36, you won Judgement, but you will have to pay all or part of all of the costs, including the defendants as you have deemed to have caused the unnecessary and costly judicial process.  You will pay these costs from the date you refused the Part 36 offer. (again, unless you have after the event insurance)

This can and almost certainly WILL mean you owe out, FAR MORE that you were awarded. So you win morally and lose financially.

What George Vella is saying is utter rubbish. You CAN lose, very easily.  BE AWARE OF HIS ADVICE

If a Part 36 offer is made and it is not likely to be beaten at Court, by not accepting it, you are at risk if the offer is reasonable (in the civil courts eyes).  You could then lose tens of thousands of pounds.  Yes, you get your day in court (taking George Vella’s advice) but could lose you house!

George will then advertise a WIN (on judgement) in the Group even if you lose a shed loads of money (that isn’t his problem!)

Do you really think you can just refuse any out of Court Part 36 offer, just to get your day IN Court….. NO you can’t unless you have deep pockets, a lack of common sense.

This, unfortunately is what the Civil Court is about, it is only about Financial compensation, NOTHING ELSE.

George says you can take an injunction against the CPS to stop them intervening with a Private Prosecution

Utter rubbish.  CPS have a right to review, and take over to run or shut down a private prosecution.

A new article that has been brought to my attention is that George Vella is now saying how Neil (Wilkes) will take out an injunction on CPS from intervening in a private prosecution.   The fact is, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has power under section 6(2) POA 1985 to take over private prosecutions, you cannot get an injunction against this!  CPS is the Crown Prosecution Service, you cannot take an injunction against the CROWN.

Mr Vella has defended the above in his latest rant.  It is 100% clear from the above post that George Vella thinks you can take an injunction, he clearly states “Neil is busy taking out an injunction on the CPS and PSD and if they try to intervene in this case again will find themselves in front of a court for breaching that order”  This is pretty clear he and Neil feels they can take an injunction against the Crown!

George Vella goes on to attack one of my businesses.  With no legitimate reason, George Vella has clearly stalked me, looking up one of my businesses and getting Company records then publishing a malicious attack.  George thinks he knows all of my business developments from reading maybe 3 or 4 company records.  The man in a stalking idiot that has published his stalking habits.