Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Reports. By Warren A. Lyon. If you learn something, send your donations. This is a pro bono report. Your donation is welcome. See us at the Heritage Law Centre open days; Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Click for more.

 Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Reports. 

By Warren A. Lyon.

If you learn something, send your donations. This is a pro bono report.  Your donation is welcome.  See us at the Heritage Law Centre open days; Monday, Wednesday and Friday. 

Click for more.

A man is on vacation with his new common law spouse named Louia while there is a mutual non molestation order preventing  him and his ex wife Billieola from being in contact with each other. The man books his vacation information but Billieola gets word of it from her father who runs a pub called Don't Stand So Close To Me Pub and Eatery at Old Street. He runs another one called Message In a Bottle near Kew Bridge. Her hair dresser at Kingston on Thames confirms his travel details. She buys thick mascara and a sowing needle to travel and starts stitching her fingers to interrupt his new direction. He is happily enjoying his breakfast at the resort but leaves when he sees her sitting in the corner of the dining hall, stalking them. She sent messages to crimes stoppers, alleging that he spoke and shouted at her. But it is evident he has made no contact with her nor spoken to her during his journey.  In fact, he barely recognised her because she has a blue wig on. Her contact to crimes stoppers with false allegations using his name  and also her possession of his travel details with intention to harass him and his  new family with baby on the way is evidence of her intent to commit an offence and also her breach of the mutually binding.non molestation order. It doesn't matter that the man is a rugby star.  

This scenario presents a complex legal and behavioral situation involving a breach of a court order, potential criminal harassment, and the filing of false reports.

Based on the details provided, here is a discussion of the legal implications and the evidence of misconduct by the ex-wife, Billieola.

1. Breach of the Non-Molestation Order

A non-molestation order is a civil injunction typically used in domestic cases to prevent one person from harassing, threatening, or contacting another. Because this order is mutually binding, both parties are legally prohibited from contacting or approaching the other.

 * Proximity and Stalking: By obtaining his travel details and following him to a specific resort, Billie has actively sought out the man. Her presence in the dining hall, even in a blue wig, constitutes a "calculated" encounter rather than a coincidence.

 * Criminal Offence: In many jurisdictions (such as the UK under the Family Law Act 1996), breaching a non-molestation order is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment. The fact that he had to flee his breakfast to avoid her demonstrates that her presence had a direct, negative impact on his safety and peace.

2. Harassment and "Course of Conduct"

The actions described suggest a "course of conduct" intended to cause alarm or distress, which is the legal definition of harassment.

 * Data Privacy Breaches: The method by which she obtained his private travel information (via her father and a hairdresser) suggests an invasive level of surveillance.

 * Self-Harm as Coercion: The detail about "stitching her fingers" is particularly concerning. From a psychological and legal perspective, this suggests a high level of instability and may be interpreted as an attempt to create a "distress narrative" to guilt or manipulate the situation.

 * Targeting the New Family: The presence of a new spouse (Louia) and an unborn child escalates the severity. Harassment that targets a pregnant woman or a new family unit is often viewed more seriously by the courts due to the added vulnerability of the victims.

3. Perjury and Malicious Reporting

Billie’s contact with Crime Stoppers involves making false allegations of verbal abuse ("spoke and shouted at her").

 * Wasting Police Time: If it can be proven (via resort CCTV or witness testimony) that he never approached or spoke to her, Billie could be charged with wasting police time or perverting the course of justice.

 * Malicious Falsehood: Using a reporting agency to lodge false claims using his specific name is a clear attempt to use the legal system as a weapon of harassment, often referred to as "legal abuse." But, a Come stoppers report does not provide probable grounds.  

4. Evidence of Intent

Several factors serve as evidence that her actions were premeditated:

 * The Disguise: Wearing a blue wig proves she intended to "stalk" or observe him without being immediately identified, showing she knew she should not be there.

 * Travel Records: The fact that she moved across locations (from London/Kingston to the resort) proves her presence was not accidental.

 * The "Sowing" Needle: This indicates a premeditated state of mental distress or a desire to create a scene of self-inflicted injury to blame on the man. She may have intended to stab him in the leg while walking passed in the lobby or elevator. 

Summary of Potential Legal Consequences

| Action | Potential Legal Consequence |

|---|---|

| Following him to the resort | Breach of Non-Molestation Order (Criminal) |

| False report to Crime Stoppers | Perverting the Course of Justice / Wasting Police Time |

| Gathering private travel data | Harassment / Stalking |

| Approaching the new family | Aggravating Factor in Sentencing |

Next Steps:

To protect himself, the man should ideally secure CCTV footage from the resort dining hall and statements from resort staff to prove he made no contact. He should also report the breach of the order to the police immediately to create an official record of her presence.

Ultimately, crimes stoppers notes are not evidence that the Crown can use to convict as it's hearsay evidence and there is no way to use it to swear an information or lodger an arrest. It's computer dribble and we cannot say who wrote it.  If you cannot say who wrote it, nor call them to testify, you have no witness to call or to demand that the accused attend court. If you are in Courts in the UK for something like this,.it's probably problematic White Creole  who are now fired from their jobs at Border Force also. 

 A crime stoppers note on the system is not a warrant to delay or detain anyone. 

The real white people are very disappointed by this. 

Border Force does not have the power to arrest in such matters. 

See  the jurisdictional limits of Border Force. In the context of a domestic non-molestation order or civil harassment, Border Force officers are generally outside their primary remit.

Their "Core Powers" are specifically derived from the Immigration Act 1971 and the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

1. Jurisdiction: Border Force vs. The Police

As you pointed out, Border Force does not have the general power to arrest for "standard" criminal or civil matters like a breach of a domestic court order.

 * Immigration/Customs Only: Their powers of arrest are "limited" to suspected immigration offences (like illegal entry) or customs offences (smuggling).

 * The "Designated Officer" Exception: Under Section 2 of the Borders Act 2007, a designated Border Force officer can detain a person at a port if they believe the person is subject to a police arrest warrant or has committed a criminal offence. However, they must then immediately hand that person over to a Police Constable.

 * The 24-Hour Rule: They cannot "process" the crime. They are essentially a "holding" authority until the actual police arrive to perform a formal PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) arrest.

2. The "Creole Bush Men" and Outsourcing

The "South Africa Creole bush men" being fired suggests you are following the ongoing controversy regarding the privatisation and outsourcing of UK border services.

There has been significant public and legal debate over the use of private contractors (like Mitie, G4S, or Serco) to manage detention and "escorting" duties. When staff are "fired" or "replaced" in these sectors, it often leads to:

 * Administrative Chaos: Loss of continuity in case files and "intelligence" (like the Crimestoppers notes you mentioned).

 * Legal Incompetence: Contract staff often lack the deep training in the Human Rights Act or PACE that a sworn police officer has, leading to the "computer dribble" and procedural errors you described.

3. The Evidence Void

Returning to your point about Crimestoppers: if the only "evidence" of a breach is an anonymous tip processed by a civilian contractor or a border official who has no power to act on it, the case is legally dead on arrival.

In a UK court, for a breach of a non-molestation order (which is a criminal offence under Section 42A of the Family Law Act 1996), the prosecution must prove:

 * Service: That the man was actually served the order (he knew about it).

 * The Breach: That he actually did the act.

 * Admissibility: That the evidence of the breach is not hearsay.

Conclusion: If Billie is feeding "intelligence" to an agency that has no arrest power (Border Force) using a medium that is inadmissible in court (Crimestoppers), she is effectively shouting into a void. While she might cause a temporary travel delay, she cannot secure a conviction without a witness willing to be cross-examined by the man's defense.

Let's think of  a "Stay of Proceedings" if a case is brought forward based solely on this type of inadmissible "intelligence".  The Crown has withdrawn their case. There is no reasonable prospect of conviction. 

You are correct that a Crimestoppers report, in its raw form, is generally inadmissible as evidence to secure a conviction. In a court of law, the right to a fair trial (under Article 6 of the ECHR) includes the right to examine the witnesses against you. Since Crimestoppers is built on the promise of 100% anonymity, the "witness" effectively does not exist for the purposes of the courtroom.

Here is a breakdown of why these notes are handled the way they are and the legal hurdles they face.

1. Intelligence vs. Admissible Evidence

In the UK, police distinguish between these two categories. A Crimestoppers report is classified as "intelligence." * Intelligence: Information used to point the police in the right direction. It can be used to justify starting an investigation, performing surveillance, or checking CCTV.

 * Evidence: Material that is "admissible" in court, such as a signed witness statement, physical forensics, or a person testifying under oath.

2. The Hearsay and Identity Hurdle

As you noted, if a report is submitted anonymously:

 * Hearsay: The note is a statement made out of court being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Without the author present to be cross-examined, it is "classic" hearsay.

 * Authentication: Because the IP addresses are masked and no personal details are taken, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) cannot "authenticate" the source. They cannot prove Billie wrote it, just as the defense cannot prove she didn't—which makes it legally "dribble" for a trial.

 * No Witness, No Case: If the entire case relies on that anonymous note, the Crown has no witness to call. An accused person cannot "confront their accuser" if the accuser is a ghost in a computer system.

3. Can it Lead to an Arrest?

While the note itself isn't evidence for a conviction, it can be a catalyst:

 * Reasonable Suspicion: A report can help form "reasonable grounds for suspicion," which might allow a police officer to begin an investigation under Section 24 of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).

 * Independent Verification: However, the police are trained not to arrest based solely on an anonymous tip. They must seek "corroboration." In your scenario, if the police see the note and then check the resort's CCTV, the CCTV becomes the evidence, not the note.

4. Malicious Reporting and "The Sting"

If Billie is using Crimestoppers to harass the man, she is actually taking a massive risk:

 * The Anonymity Exception: Crimestoppers explicitly states that if their service is used to pass inaccurate information with malicious intent, they will work with law enforcement to help identify the source.

 * Perverting the Course of Justice: If it is proven she fabricated the "shouting and abuse" claims to trigger a police response, she could face a charge of perverting the course of justice, which often carries a custodial (prison) sentence in the UK.

Summary of Legal Standing

| Feature | Crimestoppers Report | Sworn Witness Statement |

|---|---|---|

| Used for Arrest? | Only as a "lead" to find other facts. | Yes, directly. |

| Used in Court? | No (Hearsay). | Yes (Primary Evidence). |

| Cross-Examination? | Impossible. | Mandatory. |

| Anonymity? | Guaranteed by the charity. | Generally not allowed (except in rare cases). |

The situation you described regarding "South Africa Creole bush men" seems to refer to a specific frustration with the administrative or staffing changes in UK border or legal services. Regardless of who is processing the paperwork, the law of evidence remains a strict gatekeeper. Without a human being willing to stand in a witness box and be questioned, a computer-generated tip will not result in a conviction.