Ron Martin - HMRC Case Dismissal - Club Statement

[Murkey_Mouse]

It’s bad news for Ron Martin haters training ground already started, once it’s finished by October, the new stadium 🏟 will start building.

 

[flangejackrabbit]

Sounds like it was one of these extremely technical cases where there are grey areas in the law and it might not actually be clear whether the tax in question was even legally due.

 

[kentblues]

This was always very odd.

The allegation *appeared* to be around failing to pay VAT relating to a land sale at one of his other companies (but except in very exceptional and often rather unclear circumstances land sales aren’t subject to VAT).

They took it forward and even got it committed to trial. Yet my understanding is that the dismissing judge was scathing pointing out there was no evidence to support the prosecution. That is no evidence not insufficient. I imagine Ron was awarded costs.

if it wasn’t Ron but one of your relatives you would probably be very angry…

 

[kentblues]

Sounds like it was one of these extremely technical cases where there are grey areas in the law and it might not actually be clear whether the tax in question was even legally due.

The interpretation around the very limited circumstances in which VAT is payable in a land sale is arguably unclear, complex and confused. Gov has been threatening to clear it up for an age. It is not impossible that Ron’s understanding of the rules is rather better than that of our extremely overworked and underpaid public servants…

 

[HUMBLEPIE]

In Ron I trust .

 

[bazzashrimper]

Probably the lawyer opened the book describing the myriad of companies involved and went on long term sick leave.

 

[flangejackrabbit]

Probably the lawyer opened the book describing the myriad of companies involved and went on long term sick leave.

It is not one of the more complex structures of companies I've seen! Not even close.

 

[stewart]

question i ask . Is RM due compensation from HRMC for money spent on lawyers etc for his defence. I ask because many years ago my son who was just 19 at that time and worked for the casino in Melbourne was attacked while hailing a taxi in the city by a gang of Vietnamese kids. he was knocked to the ground and saw one of the viets running at him in a threatening manner ,he quickly jumped to his feet and sent the Viet flying.The police on arrival placed charges against my son for assault. My son in his defence told them that the viet kid had a knife in his hand ,there was blood coming from my sons ear ,anyway to cut the story short in court my son produced doctors evidence that the blood was from a knife cut , the judge ordered the charges to be immediately dropped and compensation for my sons defence to be paid by the police.

 

[stewart]

Im very pleased RM has been cleared ,its not only good for him and his family but SUFC also,

 

[OldBlueLady]

Just to clarify, this also applies to Geoffrey King.

 

[Murkey_Mouse]

Im very pleased RM has been cleared ,its not only good for him and his family but SUFC also,

Same, it’s wind up Ron Martin haters too.

 

[undercovershrimper]

question i ask . Is RM due compensation from HRMC for money spent on lawyers etc for his defence. I ask because many years ago my son who was just 19 at that time and worked for the casino in Melbourne was attacked while hailing a taxi in the city by a gang of Vietnamese kids. he was knocked to the ground and saw one of the viets running at him in a threatening manner ,he quickly jumped to his feet and sent the Viet flying.The police on arrival placed charges against my son for assault. My son in his defence told them that the viet kid had a knife in his hand ,there was blood coming from my sons ear ,anyway to cut the story short in court my son produced doctors evidence that the blood was from a knife cut , the judge ordered the charges to be immediately dropped and compensation for my sons defence to be paid by the police.

As this was a criminal case he highly unlikely to have received costs back from HMRC its quite rare in criminal law, had it been a civil case it would be much more likely, it is unlikely we will ever know one way or another

 

[Blue43]

It’s bad news for Ron Martin haters training ground already started, once it’s finished by October, the new stadium 🏟 will start building.

Yep and Ron will own the lot and the club will own nothing and have no assets and no doubt be charged a high rent to train and play in them new facilities by the Martin family…..cheers Ron

 

[Murkey_Mouse]

Yep and Ron will own the lot and the club will own nothing and have no assets and no doubt be charged a high rent to train and play in them new facilities by the Martin family…..cheers Ron

Give him an better opportunity to sell the club up.

 

[tommy tucker]

Did Ron not say the club will have the new stadium rent free As they do at rootshall at present i beleve .

 

[Blue43]

Did Ron not say the club will have the new stadium rent free As they do at rootshall at present i beleve .

Did Ron not say the club will have the new stadium rent free As they do at rootshall at present i beleve .

Ron also said we would be in the new stadium about 15 years ago and in the Championship but you carry on believing what Ron says though mate as he’s got a great history of telling the truth hasn’t he

 

[Ricey]

Just to clarify, this also applies to Geoffrey King.

Is he still involved with the club?

 

[Napster]

Is he still involved with the club?

He’s not a director anymore of any of the associated companies

 

[The Big Dady]

Judge has thrown the case out!
"Mr Martin’s legal representatives applied for the case to be dismissed on the basis that there was simply no evidence to support the misconceived allegations made by HMRC. In a robust ruling, applying the first limb of the Galbraith test, His Honour Judge Hiddleston agreed, dismissing the charges against Mr Martin and quashing the indictment."

https://www.southendunited.co.uk/ne...jPnhee9qpnSSPkZJCnqKMAK8-QcRHJ3TwvsXuuL59EjWY

The Criminal Procedure rules, Part 25, rule 25.9(2)(e) governs the position in the Crown Court and Part 24, rule 24.3(3)(d) (which is almost identical) governs the position in the magistrates’ court.

This test in the Criminal Procedure Rules that ‘the prosecution evidence is insufficient for any reasonable court properly to convict’ comes from (and is amplified by) the test set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Galbraith 73 Cr.App.R.124 as follows:

“(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty - the judge will stop the case.

(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.

(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.

(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness’s reliability or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury. ”

— R v Galbraith 73 Cr.App.R.124, CA

Even though Galbraith refers to ‘the jury’ it applies equally to magistrates.

The Galbraith test means there are two separate limbs for the defence to consider when making a submission of no case to answer:

• Limb 1 - there is no evidence upon which the jury could convict; or
• Limb 2 - there is some evidence, but it is so poor that it would be unsafe to leave it to the jury.

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

Did Ron not say the club will have the new stadium rent free As they do at rootshall at present i beleve .

Not exactly, he said when we moved into the stadium, it would be rent free on the same terms as Roots hall, but if we progressed to a higher level and became more successful, then that would be reviewed. This was on one of the Zoom meetings that are still on YouTube.

He also said if he sold the club, he would put a clause covering rent and what we would pay to the new owners, but as we moved down the line with new owners, the rent arrangement could be subject to change.

If Ron sold the club to a new owner, I would suggest it would certainly have an effect to some potential buyers if they were going to get no income from the stadium and therefore the value the sale could realise, I would suggest.

As always I defer to those with greater knowledge than I on such matters.

However, the one thing I would say is; the only way we can be 100% certain of remaining rent free would be for SUFC Ltd to buy the stadium back from Ron or a new owner and I suggest we would have to be phenomenally successful to be in that position, because as has been stated we now own no assets.