Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #17 *ARREST*

[tresir2012]

Possibly but the charge was dated November 2018 and specifically listed as 'taking receipt of a Samsung S9 that didn't belong to him'. And listed under the category of receiving stolen goods not burglary.

Therefore it couldn't be Ventnor road as that was January 2019.

The S9 was released in March 2018. Therefore the only burglary it could have been linked to was was the Aug 2018 one where he stole money. I'd have thought they'd have listed it with those items as it would be difficult to state that money has been found in his possession.

It was also one of the later charges against him.

If he'd taken it from a victim of Voyeurism wouldn't it be theft of some form rather than receiving stolen goods?

I am guessing he had an accomplice who stole the S9 and sold/gave it to him, hence the receiving charge.

 

[Newthoughts]

I am guessing he had an accomplice who stole the S9 and sold/gave it to him, hence the receiving charge.

I'd guess that as well. But if they found it in his possession I find it odd that he'd plead not guilty to receiving it given the other charges. Wonder did he give details of where he received it from

 

[Miss_French]

I'd guess that as well. But if they found it in his possession I find it odd that he'd plead not guilty to receiving it given the other charges. Wonder did he give details of where he received it from

Receipt of stolen goods isn't just finding a stolen item in a person's possession that they haven't stolen themselves. It's showing that the person knew the item was stolen, or that they have helped someone remove an item or retain a stolen item. If a stolen phone has been wiped and you buy it from someone you know, you could argue you didn't know it was stolen.

 

[tresir2012]

I'd guess that as well. But if they found it in his possession I find it odd that he'd plead not guilty to receiving it given the other charges. Wonder did he give details of where he received it from

I assume they dropped that charge as he plead not guilty to that - they possibly did not have enough evidence to take that to jury trial.

 

[tresir2012]

Receipt of stolen goods isn't just finding a stolen item in a person's possession that they haven't stolen themselves. It's showing that the person knew the item was stolen, or that they have helped someone remove an item or retain a stolen item. If a stolen phone has been wiped and you buy it from someone you know, you could argue you didn't know it was stolen.

It makes no difference if you knew it was stolen or not. The offence is receiving stolen property and police only have to prove the property was stolen. I have a friend who got a conviction, and the fact he did not know the items he bought were stolen made no difference at court. In this case, for some reason they were not sure about the origin of the S9 phone IMO.

 

[JosieJo]

Imo it was minor in the scheme of things and they couldn't be bothered to prove a denial

 

[JosieJo]

Receipt of stolen goods isn't just finding a stolen item in a person's possession that they haven't stolen themselves. It's showing that the person knew the item was stolen, or that they have helped someone remove an item or retain a stolen item. If a stolen phone has been wiped and you buy it from someone you know, you could argue you didn't know it was stolen.

Yes they have to be aware or "should have reasonably been aware"

 

[JosieJo]

Termination of Proceedings (Including Discontinuance) | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Newthoughts]

I assume they dropped that charge as he plead not guilty to that - they possibly did not have enough evidence to take that to jury trial.

To my knowledge the prosection asked that the charges where he pleaded not guilty were to be left on file not dropped. They wouldn't have got to court without evidence

 

[tresir2012]

To my knowledge the prosection asked that the charges where he pleaded not guilty were to be left on file not dropped. They wouldn't have got to court without evidence

Do you have the source for that? Never mind if not, but if it was quoted at court/or in MSM they were doing that I would be interested in seeing how it was stated.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Do you have the source for that? Never mind if not, but if it was quoted at court/or in MSM they were doing that I would be interested in seeing how it was stated.

Defence submissions now finished
Mr Brook has completed his submissions. The Crown are now seeking a sexual harm prevention order ( SHPO). No details have been read out yet. There are two pages to the order.

The remaining four counts will lie on the court file.

The order would bar Relowicz from any area in the UK populated by students. But the judge has ruled that out. The application for the order bars him from ‘masturbating in public’, which the judge says is strange as that’s already a crime.
Every update from court as Pawel Relowicz jailed

 

[JosieJo]

To my knowledge the prosection asked that the charges where he pleaded not guilty were to be left on file not dropped. They wouldn't have got to court without evidence

Yes there is no verdict so no conclusion, just left on file

 

[tresir2012]

Defence submissions now finished
Mr Brook has completed his submissions. The Crown are now seeking a sexual harm prevention order ( SHPO). No details have been read out yet. There are two pages to the order.

The remaining four counts will lie on the court file.

The order would bar Relowicz from any area in the UK populated by students. But the judge has ruled that out. The application for the order bars him from ‘masturbating in public’, which the judge says is strange as that’s already a crime.
Every update from court as Pawel Relowicz jailed

TY for that link.

"A man who admitted nine chargesincluding voyeurism, stealing sex toys and burglary has been jailed.

Hull man Pawel Relowicz , 25, pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court earlier this week to nine offences.

He was due to stand trial on Monday morning facing 13 criminal charges, but changed his plea on the majority of them, with prosecutors deciding it was not in the public interest to pursue a trial on the remaining four allegations.

Relowicz, of Raglan Street, off Newland Avenue, admitted four counts of voyeurism, three of burglary and two of outraging public decency by masturbating in the street."

So when he did not plead guilty to four out of the 13 charges, prosecutors decided it was not in the public interest to pursue those four allegations, but they do remain on the file.

 

[Newthoughts]

TY for that link.

"A man who admitted nine chargesincluding voyeurism, stealing sex toys and burglary has been jailed.

Hull man Pawel Relowicz , 25, pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court earlier this week to nine offences.

He was due to stand trial on Monday morning facing 13 criminal charges, but changed his plea on the majority of them, with prosecutors deciding it was not in the public interest to pursue a trial on the remaining four allegations.

Relowicz, of Raglan Street, off Newland Avenue, admitted four counts of voyeurism, three of burglary and two of outraging public decency by masturbating in the street."

So when he did not plead guilty to four out of the 13 charges, prosecutors decided it was not in the public interest to pursue those four allegations, but they do remain on the file.

So there was enough evidence but it wasn't deemed in the public interest to try him for them because he'd already pleaded guilty to more serious crimes.

Sounds like a balancing saving the cost of a trial against the fact they wouldn't significantly add to his sentence.

Lie on file - Wikipedia

 

[Plod]

Defence submissions now finished
Mr Brook has completed his submissions. The Crown are now seeking a sexual harm prevention order ( SHPO). No details have been read out yet. There are two pages to the order.

The remaining four counts will lie on the court file.

The order would bar Relowicz from any area in the UK populated by students. But the judge has ruled that out. The application for the order bars him from ‘masturbating in public’, which the judge says is strange as that’s already a crime.
Every update from court as Pawel Relowicz jailed

Interesting that they sought to keep him away from every student area...we don’t know if all his victims in these convictions were students or not. But clearly the prosecution are saying he is a danger to students.

 

[Miss_French]

It makes no difference if you knew it was stolen or not. The offence is receiving stolen property and police only have to prove the property was stolen. I have a friend who got a conviction, and the fact he did not know the items he bought were stolen made no difference at court. In this case, for some reason they were not sure about the origin of the S9 phone IMO.

A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

Theft Act 1968

 

[tresir2012]

A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

Theft Act 1968

Well my friend was convicted and I was a witness that he did not know the items were stolen but it made no difference to the magistrate. He was not jailed however. He didn't handle them he bought them.

As I understand the law, if you did not know they were stolen when you bought them, then you should not be arrested. It depends whether the person in actual possession is believed or not, I guess.

 

[Newthoughts]

It makes no difference if you knew it was stolen or not. The offence is receiving stolen property and police only have to prove the property was stolen. I have a friend who got a conviction, and the fact he did not know the items he bought were stolen made no difference at court. In this case, for some reason they were not sure about the origin of the S9 phone IMO.

I'm sure they did know the origin of the S9 phone. @Joelle88 attended the magistrates court when we first heard of that particular charge of receiving stolen goods and they said it had belonged to a woman.

So IMO it wasn't taken from any of the burglaries he was convicted of and something has made them think it wasn't stolen by him in a separate burglary.

An anomaly in his crime spree. As it was a woman's phone I wonder if it's a sexually motivated anomoly or a financial one.

 

[tresir2012]

I'm sure they did know the origin of the S9 phone. @Joelle88 attended the magistrates court when we first heard of that particular charge of receiving stolen goods and they said it had belonged to a woman.

So IMO it wasn't taken from any of the burglaries he was convicted of and something has made them think it wasn't stolen by him in a separate burglary.

An anomaly in his crime spree. As it was a woman's phone I wonder if it's a sexually motivated anomoly or a financial one.

It's a difficult one isn't it. He probably said he found it and then they would have to have proof where it came from I guess.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

ALL his victims weren't students, his busy boxing night spree of 2 properties he 'allegedly' (not convicted for 1) visited, neither were student properties. It has been rightly argued that most students would have gone home for Xmas at this point (so he may need to broaden his market, so to speak). But its also right to remember that the offence he was convicted of he revisited on at least once other occasion. From what i remember it was the young mum where he left a condom near her kids toys and was peeping through her letterbox too.