Nasty Sandwell Scumbag, Paul Reeves, gets suspended jail sentence

Grab a tea or a pint and get ready for a blockbuster read!

Bent Sandwell Council’s disgraced former Chief Executive, Jan Britton’s  right-hand man, Paul Reeves, was sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court on Friday 25th January, 2024 to a 20 month jail sentence suspended for two years (plus ancillary sentences - set out below)  for housing fraud against - boom, boom - bent Labour Sandwell Council! Reeves has featured many times in this blog (see legal notice below) and is a nasty ****. The perceptive Judge described him as a "thoroughly devious and dishonest man" - as Jan Britton well knew. This detailed blog tells the whole sordid story together with details of the p*sspoor performance of the Sandwell Council prosecution team and our shambolic justice system. When I tell you that Reeves's own barrister started his plea in mitigation by saying that a custodial sentence was "inevitable"  you will guess that something went badly wrong when Reeves escaped with a suspended sentence. Now read on ...

Reeves started at bent Labour Sandwell Council as a gravedigger but was a pal of wife beater, “Dickhead” Darren Cooper, the thuggish “leader” of the Council until that brutal monster died during a drugs and booze orgy on the 2016 Easter weekend. Under the patronage of Cooper and Jan Britton, Reeves started his inexplicable rise through the ranks at the bent Borough whilst, simultaneously, Sandwell became synonymous with corruption, cronyism and incompetence on Britton's watch.

Cooper was involved in at least 16 Twitter accounts trolling myself and my wife (and her employers). His pals in West Midlands Police naturally refused to act against him. Indeed they did exactly the opposite, and began their own vicious vendetta against me personally from 2015 to 2019. Like many trolls, Reeves operated at least two Twitter accounts, and used one of them to join in Cooper's nasty trolling campaign. I informed Jan Britton that one of the trolls was Reeves, or someone impersonating him, way back in 2015 but, of course, Britton knew full well what Cooper, various union reps and employees were up to.

Britton also allowed Reeves to run his own Company, Paul’s Gardens, in addition to his onerous duties as his (male) Rimmer-in-Chief. (The ghastly Britton also had at least two female handmaidens to carry out his orders without question).

Happily, Easter Sunday 2016 did not see the resurrection of the wife beater, Cooper, but another brute was waiting in the wings and weirdo tyrant Deputy Leader, Steve “Squealing” Eling, got the top political job. His paranoia knew no bounds and he set up a paramilitary-style police force to “protect”, er, himself - the so-called Environmental Protection Officers (EPO’s), aka “Eling’s Barmy Army”. The cost of this to us taxpayers was eye-watering but, even more incredibly and as Labour corruption continued on a grand scale, The Squealer and Britton made Reeves leader of this crazy gang where he also became a great favourite of corrupt local cops. This was a senior, Grade J, post. What could possibly go wrong?

There are a number of stories featuring Reeves - some of which have featured in this blog if you want to look them up - but the two most egregious episodes related to (a) the “Becky Nutting” leaks, and (b) the infamous “C*cksucker” trial. Happily, his role in those appalling episodes led to his downfall.

Becky Nutting was Reeves’s then partner (see further below). Suddenly “she” began to send me emails making a series of serious allegations about Reeves’s enemies working at the corrupt Council including senior ones (Skidders passim). Reeves didn’t have a sh*t without Britton holding the cheeks of his arse apart yet “Mr Blackberry” denied all knowledge of what his personally-appointed “head of security” was up to! Given the level of detail sent to me the malicious emails were either sent by Nutting at Reeves’s command or, much more probably, from Reeves himself using her name and email. Incidentally, it was confirmed in the court hearing that Reeves had direct access to Britton - as we always knew.

The scumbag Reeves attacked a Director of the Council, Adrian Scarrott (the cop-shagger who was forced out following the Wragge Report fallout) and, even more viciously, attempted to shaft senior and other managers at the bent Labour Authority including by making allegations of fraud and theft against them. Much of this was described by me on 20th December, 2018 in a post entitled, “Jan’s Leaker - Part Three - SMBC Employees". (Incidentally the allegations also concerned the appalling former Mayor of Sandwell, Derek Rowley, but Labour's bent mates at Sandwell Police also failed to properly investigate his attempted sale of Council property via Facebook.)

Reeves was also directly involved in the “C*cksucker” affair when I used that apt word to describe Jan Britton whilst, unfortunately, having a megaphone in my hand (as one does!) Reeves immediately called his pals in the Bent Blues who appeared almost instantaneously to harass me (try getting them to come out so quickly if your house is being burgled). Regular readers will know the story. The Police (and CPS) couldn’t wait to prosecute me and did not bother to await video and other evidence via my (then) Solicitor. They charged me as quickly as they could (and, deliberately and maliciously, with a more serious offence than a simple "public order" one). At the trial, Jan Britton and Reeves both told exactly the same lie under oath in the witness box, but all to no avail since I was acquitted as soon as the District Judge watched the video footage (which, incredibly, the Bent Blues and the CPS had still not even bothered to do before the trial had actually commenced)!

After the trial I endeavoured to have West Midlands Police prosecute the pair for perjury but, yet again, the Bent Blues protected their pals. Oh, and at the time Britton’s son was working for - yes, you guessed it - West Midlands Police. 

What is so sick about West Midlands Police (and it has to be said, in fairness, that there now APPEARS to be a change of attitude under recent local force leadership in Sandwell) is that in all the matters raised by this blog the Police carry out little or, more usually, NO investigation whatsoever into alleged criminality at the Council despite their considerable legal powers. They are STILL at it now - refusing to investigate the Peter & Pam Hughes/Satnam Sahota activity or the bent Lion Farm and other deals involving Jeremy Knight Adams.

The excuse given by the Bent Blues for not prosecuting the pair for perjury was that - by an amazing coincidence - Britton and Reeves might both simply have been “mistaken” and it was pure chance that they both told precisely the same lie under oath! What I suspected - but didn’t know at the time of my complaint to WMP - was that the pair had actually colluded with respect to their evidence. It later transpired that they had done exactly that, and Sandwell Council itself was so concerned that IT sent documents to West Midlands Police about both Britton and Reeves showing this. Even then, the Bent Blues refused to investigate their chums! Absolutely sickening.

The only good news was that all this - together with Jan Britton’s involvement in the deliberate tampering with evidence in the Simon Hackett Scandal (still ongoing folks - watch this space) led to the downfall of the lying pair.

Another issue - which I cannot discuss here I’m afraid (at least not yet) - led to certain information about Reeves being sent directly to West Midlands Police. In particular, “intel” was sent directly to former Sandwell Chief Super, Richard Baker (now an Assistant Chief Constable). Regular readers will know that “Rich”, as his erstwhile mate The Squealer called him, was - initially - the puppet of Eling and Britton although, to be fair to him, the scales eventually fell away from his eyes and he told the tyrannical Eling, in terms, to “do one”. I can say, however, that information regarding Reeves was supplied directly to Ch Supt Baker on, at least, 7th January, 2019 and 13th February, 2019 but, yet again, no action was taken. Who knows whether his criminality might have been nipped in the bud if Reeves had been investigated at this time rather than him carrying on believing himself to be impregnable? (There is another serious issue arising from all this which I cannot describe at this time).

Reeves was suspended and eventually “left” the Council. He reappeared as a school caretaker (grandly described as some sort of "Facilities Manager) until around October, 2020 when, to universal astonishment amongst The Skidderati, he was also taken on by Holdens Brewery as the new mein host of The Wheatsheaf pub in West Bromwich (on a self-employed basis). Myself and others tried to warn Holdens via social media - including on 12th October, 2020 - what this **** is like but to no avail. Remember - Read The Skidder, Kidders! We know now that Reeves continued with both jobs simultaneously. Shireland Academy, the schools group, were apparently so happy with his work at their West Bromwich Collegiate Academy outpost on Kelvin Way that they allowed him to run The Wheatsheaf on the side!

Incidentally, a number of current and former employees have communicated with me to complain about this scumbag. One comment sums things up nicely,

"Paul Reeves was hated at Sandwell by everyone who knew him - apart from Jan [Britton]"

Alas Reeves had apparently separated from la Nutting and was immediately provided with a two-bedroom flat at Marmion House, Dial Lane, West Brom, by bent Labour Sandwell Council. And woe, the ex-gravedigger seemingly couldn’t live on his pay from the pub and from Shireland Academy, and decided to acquire some extra loot by moving into The Wheatsheaf whilst illegally sub-letting the Council property. See, I told you he was a ****.

He was convicted of numerous false declarations concerning the tenancy contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 and with sub-letting the flat contrary to the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013. The only bit of credit he deserved from all this is that he pleaded guilty to all the charges at the first opportunity at Dudley Magistrates' Court who remitted the matter to Wolverhampton Crown Court for sentencing. Whilst subletting, he also unlawfully tried to use the period of his non-residence to claim his "right to buy". Adding in a claim for the time sent in social housing with Nutting he would have been entitled to a discount of £53,457 had the fraud not been discovered. Oh, and he also claimed a single person discount for occupancy at Marmion House when not actually in residency and, for some of the time being shacked up with at least one named female. 

He was committed by Dudley Mags to be sentenced at Wolvo Crown Court on Thursday 21st September, 2023 but as with those notorious Sandwell Council criminals, Hayre and Rai (Skidders passim), the creaking justice system descended into fiasco. Sandwell Council sought a custodial sentence which the “tariff” merited. Notwithstanding this, the Court listed the matter at the Park Hall Hotel in Wolvo which has been operating as a so-called “Nightingale” or overspill court. But there was an obvious problem with this since the Hotel has no cells or prison transport service so that there was no way Reeves could be imprisoned that day. It is unclear whether Reeves knew this since he turned up without legal assistance in his own car - clearly expecting to be driving himself away afterwards. Unfortunately, bent Sandwell Council's hapless legal department didn't realise this either since they made no application beforehand to move the hearing to the main Court building (an example of the incompetence which was to manifest itself again later on - see below).

At Park Hall, Sandwell's barrister, Mrs Patel, who acted throughout this matter, very fairly advised Reeves to seek legal assistance as his offences merited a custodial sentence. The Judge also believed that prison appeared to be appropriate from the papers before him, and in the absence of any cells at the location had no option but to adjourn the case for a hearing at the main court building in Wolvo.

I had to write to the Court complaining of the completely inadequate sound system in the hotel ballroom/court. Further, and I can’t supply details here for obvious reasons, I also reported a very major defect in the security arrangements at Park Hall - which I am assured by the Crown Court was rapidly rectified!

For reasons that were unexplained, the next Court date was also adjourned and the matter came back to Court on 10th November, 2023. In the waiting area the Prison Service presented Reeves with a “welcome pack” for his impending imprisonment. But, yet again, the case had to be adjourned since, due to technical difficulties, Reeves’s barrister had no access to the court papers and was unable to represent him at the hearing. Once again, justice was delayed and denied, and Reeves walked free.

A short digression:

Alert readers will have noticed that neither this case nor the Hayre and Rai drug-dealing one were brought by those major rimmers of bent Sandwell Council, West Midlands Police. Hayre and Rai were prosecuted, and are now behind bars for a long time, thanks to the National Crime Agency, and Reeves was prosecuted by Sandwell Council itself. It is high time the Chief Constable got a grip and made sure that the "friends of Sandwell Labour" in the force are moved on, and those left start feeling a few collars!

The case continues:

The matter came back to Court on 24th November, 2023 and I trekked over to Wolvo yet again only for the case to be adjourned - AGAIN! Most of another day wasted. 

The case came back on 5th January, 2024 and eventually got going but very late in the afternoon. Unfortunately there was not enough time to conclude the case on that day and, yet again, a new hearing date had to be set - for 25th January (over FOUR MONTHS after the Park Hall fiasco).

Incidentally, this criminal and members of his family tried to intimidate me at the hearing on 5th January, 2024 and I was obliged to write this to the Court on 7th January:

"I have been in communication with you about my press accreditation which has been previously accepted and also forms part of a recent judgment by HH Judge xxxxxxx.

I received an email from you dating 28th November, 2023 confirming that an unidentified Judge had ordered that I may attend the Paul Reeves hearing (Court 4 on Friday, 5th January, 2024) and take notes of the proceedings.

On Friday I arrived at Court very early and sat in the downstairs waiting area doing some work. The Defendant (who has pleaded guilty and was attending for sentencing) came in with three others and began to try and intimidate me - firstly by falsely saying, within seconds of them entering the building, that I was "taking pictures of them". A security man duly accosted me at my table with this allegation. I satisfied him that I was certainly not taking photos of anyone and he was gracious enough to apologise to me.

I should say that I am nearly 66 years-old, have no criminal record (not even a parking ticket) and was a litigation Solicitor for 18 years so that I know how to behave in courts.

During the morning I showed the Court 4 usher your email of 28.11.23 and she took it to check with the Court Clerk that all was well. She confirmed to me that it was. When the case was eventually called on Reeves went into the dock but I was sitting in the public gallery part of the Court. One family member chose to sit directly behind me to intimidate me. When the hearing began the same usher who had approved my press credentials came up to me and asked me to keep my note-taking discreet as the criminal's family had complained to her about it!

I pointed out that I was press and allowed to take notes. The ensuing kerfuffle actually interrupted the case and the usher went to speak privately to the Judge who, happily, gave the family very short shrift. May I also remind you that I wrote to you not so long ago as a law-abiding person pointing out a potentially serious security defect in your arrangements at Park Hall, which is hardly the action of someone wishing to flout court rules.

The fact remains that I was intimidated twice by the Defendant and his family whilst going about my lawful and authorised business. The hearing went part-heard and I shall be attending in my press capacity to take notes of the remainder of the hearing on 25th January, 2024. I trust that the usher and security staff will be made aware of the potential for further intimidation of me by this family on that date and that I will not be hindered in my lawful activity."

Happily the Court were able to put measures into place to protect my ability to report the case without further aggro (apart from one of Reeves's family making absurd pointing gestures at me prior to the final hearing).

A further short digression

Sharp-eyed readers will have noticed the allegation that I was "taking pictures" of the criminal and his party. This was not only untrue but highly unoriginal since Skidderati will know that I faced a barrage of similar false allegations back in 2015 on social media from Sandwell union reps including, inter alia, that I had been in Dudley photographing one on a day I was working all day at the NEC, and that I had been covertly "photographing women" in a Sandwell pub (this false allegation also being made by two union reps and close allies of the wife beater, Cooper). Reeves himself had been directly involved in this pile-on and also falsely accused me of "photographing his kids" - which would have been quite remarkable as, at the time, I didn't even know he had any! 

The Court heard that the tenant who originally moved-in via the unlawful sub-let was allegedly unaware that the property was a Council one although, it seems, she knew Reeves, it is claimed that she thought it was a private rental. This seems odd since, as the Judge (His Honour Judge Ward) pointed out, Reeves told her to say, if she was ever asked about the payments, that they were payments for a car. Later on, she did become aware of the true facts since there were text messages wherein Reeves told her she could remain as a tenant of the premises once his "right to buy" application was successful.

Reeves moved into The Wheatsheaf for a time before shacking up with his new squeeze in Tividale. Facebook images show a presentable woman who one might think would normally not be the type to associate with a loser like Reeves. Curiously, she now has an academic post at a university after being awarded a first-class degree in Criminal Psychology. Perhaps she was using Reeves as a case study lol! Alas it is claimed that the relationship has foundered. The Court was told Reeves is reconciled with Nutting (although allegedly not living with her). La Nutting apparently supplied a reference for Reeves to the Court and she attended two of the earlier hearings.

We saw in earlier posts that bent Labour Sandwell Council were wasting yet more taxpayers' money by sending not one but TWO lawyers to sit behind barristers at hearings. Ms Maher-Smith, a Sandwell Solicitor, told a Tribunal that this ridiculous conduct only applied to cases in which I was involved! Nevertheless, at all the hearings in this case two Sandwell staff arrived each time to sit behind Mrs Patel and I will return to this issue below (although I am not sure both were lawyers).

Let me also explain how Court cases work in the real world as opposed to on TV. Barristers act on the instructions given to them by their Solicitors (in this case, Sandwell Council and Reeves). The Judge will have a file of papers but his/her role is not an investigatory one in our legal system and, aside from the documents, s/he can only rely upon what they are told. I will also mention here that although Mrs Patel was like a rottweiler at the commencement of this series of hearings she was more like the Andrex puppy at the end offering no challenge on certain issues as we shall see below.

On 5th January, as above, the case started very late in the day and the Judge was having difficulty in understanding the niceties of the "right to buy" scheme. Although two SMBC staff were sitting there they were unable to help Mrs Patel to put the matter clearly to Judge Ward. Further, Sandwell claimed via Mrs Patel that the fraud was aggravated by the fact that Reeves was a long-standing member of staff and he had "inside knowledge" of how to "game" the housing system. When the Judge rightly asked what Reeves's employment history actually was, Team Sandwell was unable to provide the information!

Also on the 5th, Judge Ward was presented with a reference which was initially purported to have come from Reeves's employer, Shireland Academy Group (as opposed to The Wheatsheaf). Reeves's barrister - seemingly on instructions from his criminal client - told the Judge that Shireland were so enamoured with St Paul that he was responsible for a big budget and that his job would remain available open to him despite the Court case. The Judge expressed considerable surprise at this and HE (rather than Team Sandwell) pointed out that the "reference" was from a workmate and not from any person in authority at Shireland. Mrs Patel did not challenge this at all.

Of course, The Skidder smelt a stinky rat in Sandwell's inability to provide a job history etc. for Reeves and when the hearing was adjourned yet again wrote to Sandwell's new Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer, "Mike" Jones (please note in particular the sections below in red):

"URGENT - I require confirmation that Mr Jones has personally received this email.

THIS IS A STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION UNTIL 25TH JANUARY 2024 (OR SUCH LATER DATE WHEN THE SENTENCING OF PAUL REEVES IS CONCLUDED)

In my capacity as a journalist I have now attended three hearings in respect of the admitted Housing Fraud by Sandwell Council's former "Head of Security", Paul Reeves.

I am sure you have been given orders not to communicate with me but I am available should you wish to do so if you go through the proper channels.

I am shocked at what has been happening in Court. Most importantly, the Judge last Friday gave SMBC just 7 days to file further information before another hearing on 25th January. 2023. Urgent action is required.

SMBC investigated Jan Britton's former right-hand man for housing fraud. He pleaded guilty at Dudley Mags. I assume that you had at least one member of staff there and probably the same barrister who has attended the same three hearings as myself in Wolvo.

Reeves was sent to Wolvo Crown Court for sentencing and here was the first error by your staff. Although SMBC has been pressing for a custodial sentence neither your solicitors nor barrister seem to have objected to the hearing at Park Hall where there are no cells and no-one can be imprisoned. I knew this beforehand and so why didn't your lawyers? As it was, the hearing had to be adjourned to be heard at the central Wolvo CC where, of course, there are cells and prisoner transport arrangements.

I should also say here that I settled a First Tier Information Rights Tribunal case  against SMBC wherein I had asked for information as to why two SMBC solicitors were turning-up in pairs at hearings to sit behind Counsel when this was an egregious waste of public money. I settled the case upon representations by Ms Maher-Smith that you only blew public money on such staff duplication in cases involving myself. 

In all three hearings in Reeves so far TWO SMBC employees have attended EACH TIME. It may be that one or both are not lawyers - perhaps one is from the housing section? If they are both from housing, why the duplication again? I will comment further on this below.

At the next live hearing SMBC were blameless in that the matter was adjourned due to unavailability of Reeves's Counsel..

On Friday last - 5th January - the hearing started late but your Counsel, who should be well aware of the case after all this involvement, seemed all at sea and, more to the point, she was not helped by the TWO SMBC employees sitting behind her. Her earlier pugnacious manner seemed to evaporate although when I made a comment outside the hearing she snapped that I (yes, me) should produce evidence! Funny that since I thought that was what the taxpayer had been paying your staff to do. (As it is, I have written in detail about Reeves in the blog and some information has been in the public domain for ages.)

Matters arise from Friday's hearing. There is a caveat in that I do not, of course, have access to the paper bundle and so I can only glean matters from the oral submissions.

The main point of concern is that SMBC specifically submitted that the fact that Reeves was a former employee was an aggravating factor in that Reeves was said to be au fait with the right to buy regulations. The Judge asked about his status at SMBC and your legal team was completely unable to say anything. The Defence barrister suggested he had been a gravedigger and then worked on pitch maintenance. In the absence of more, the Judge was not prepared to consider this evidence as aggravating.

What is incredible is that whilst one member of your staff searched on a laptop for Reeves's "CV" (without success) the other sat gazing into space. Why on earth didn't she leave the Court and phone the office? Was this inexperience/incompetence or did she know that at 4pm on a Friday afternoon it was improbable that anyone at the Council would actually still be working?

Of course, his rise was inexplicable given his lack of ability save that he was a personal friend of Darren Cooper, pals with a number of union reps who benefitted from council housing and/or right to buy and was disgraced Chief Executive, Jan Britton's, attack dog. All that is unprovable without witness statements but you can still prepare a record of his CV for the defence and the Judge. This will show that he rose to be head of the EPO force and you should mention that this involved minor level law enforcement.

My understanding is that this scumbag was suspended in 2019 and this can also be mentioned on the record to counter the suggestion from him, via Counsel, that he was a paragon of virtue before the current offences. I wrote in my blog, "Britton's Leaker revealed ..." of 31.03.19, "It was said that Mr Paul Reeves. the manager [sic] who was suspended last week at corrupt Sandwell Council ...". I suspect there will be some difficulty arising from this, however, since although he was apparently suspended I expect that Surjit Tour arranged a confidentiality agreement to stop him blabbing all that he knew, and received the usual Sandwell "golden goodbye". Perhaps Tour supplied him with a glowing reference despite his misconduct hence why he got a job quickly at an Academy school? If Tour has concealed the misconduct in the leaving terms then that will deprive of you a possible alternative argument of aggravated circumstances i.e., that he tried to screw the Council to get back at it because of his dismissal from a well-paid job. I will be interested to hear your Counsel's submissions on all this on the 25th!

Jan Britton also permitted his lackey to run a gardening business on the side.

The Defence barrister alleged that his job with Shireland Academy (West Bromwich Collegiate) will be open to him after sentencing. Your barrister rolled her eyes at this but said nothing. The Judge himself expressed surprise at this noting the fraud conviction and that the Barrister claimed Reeves was responsible for a large budget! (Not to mention other issues of concern arising). The Defence barrister claimed that Reeves must have gone through rigorous DBS checks etc for safeguarding reasons at the Academy but I suspect that the Academy knows nothing about all this - hence why Reeves and his family tried to intimidate me twice on Friday at Court (a matter I have referred to Wolvo CC).

The Judge also pointed out that the reference allegedly from his employers was not from an official source but from a work colleague. Of course, it might backfire if the Academy say that they will continue to employ Reeves despite his fraud conviction, alleged alcoholism etc (although that will certainly be newsworthy) but I still suggest that you contact Reeves's Solicitors and ask them to produce written formal evidence from the Academy as to the true position.

[By a weird "coincidence" one of Reeves's superiors there is Jane Kellas, wife of SMBC former Director, Stuart Kellas.]

It may be somewhere in the papers but I got the impression that the Judge may [not] have been aware that Reeves took over as Manager of The Wheatsheaf whilst still working for the Academy full-time. Perhaps this is clear from the papers but the flow on Friday seemed to suggest that Holdens Brewery's arrangement with him was that he provided a bond to them and was then paid purely on a commission basis with him being responsible for paying staff etc. They were unaware that he was working at the Academy but don't really care - they say Reeves was self-employed as far as they were concerned and as long as the pub was open and staffed anything else he did was his concern. But did the Academy know that he was moonlighting at the pub? Further, Holdens say that Reeves was responsible, as a self-employed person, for completing his own tax returns. I believe you should ask Reeves's solicitors for his tax returns for y/e 2021. 2022 and, if available, 2023. I suspect there aren't any which will cause the Defence considerable embarrassment given the submissions made so far. It is also noteworthy that on 15th July, 2021 Reeves set up a Limited Company using the Wheatsheaf's address - "The Guv's Pub Company Ltd" which was struck off in 2023 without filing any accounts. So where was the commission from Holden's Brewery actually going and where is the evidence.

There are anecdotal allegations concerning other matters surrounding his time at The Wheatsheaf but these are unlikely to be proveable - at least by 25th January. There is a suggestion, however, that Reeves was also renting out the flat at the pub and receiving income from that. If that is true I am sure he won't have been declaring that income either. It may be that you can follow this up since my understanding of the SMBC evidence was that Reeves lived in the flat whilst sub-letting the Council property but then moved to an address in Tividale which I assume is that of his former fiance (allegedly) xxxxx xxxxxx? I believe the pub required someone to be living on the premises and so you should ask Reeves's solicitors who lived in the flat when he was shacked up in lovely Tivi and whether that person (and I think I know who it was) paid rent.

The Judge himself admitted to losing concentration after a long day as the hearing dragged on into the early evening and everyone seemed confused about the right to buy discount. SMBC says that due to previous time in social housing he would have been eligible for a RTB discount in excess of £50k (and it begs the question where Reeves would have got the rest of the money from, specially noting that he became subject to an IVA on 08.06.23). This had a bearing in respect of sentencing guidelines and I don't really understand what the Judge was saying. There seemed no doubt in Court that his discount was calculated on the basis of 15 years residence and your Counsel did rightly say that he would have been entitled to this but for the fraud. I will leave you to work that one out. The fact remains that he made a fraudulent attempt to benefit from right to buy AND he pleaded guilty to that!

There is a question, however, how Reeves, a single man with a full-time job, came to be eligible for a 2-bedroom flat on leaving his wife/partner. Of course, SMBC has form for such arrangements for employees so did Reeves get special treatment from pals on the staff who knew him? Perhaps you can arrange for that to be checked out? Did any of your employees stand to gain financially if the bent deal came off?

There was a bizarre argument that he did the flat up as a home for himself and for the benefit of his visiting children which went pretty much unchallenged except for a joke from the Judge. Your barrister could have posited the alternative view that he tarted the place up so that he could make a profit from sub-letting it, but she said nothing. It was suggested that there is a record in the bundle whereby SMBC staff thanked Reeves for the good condition of the property when he handed over the keys! Can this possibly be true and, if so, how is it appropriate for an employee or employees to say this to him in the knowledge that he has not been living there himself but sub-letting the flat for financial gain? If this submission is actually true were the irresponsible staff his pals again?

At the previous hearing your Counsel had been very anxious to say that the delays in this case were not down to SMBC (something which is arguable given SMBC legal team's failure to move the original listing away from Park Hall). On Friday, however, she sat and said nothing when the Defence Barrister tried to use the stress this series of hearings were having on his Client! Why did your Counsel not jump up and point out that the delay (at least after Park Hall) was due to (a) the DEFENCE barrister being unavailable, and (2) that Friday's hearing was grossly delayed by the Defence barrister being tied-up on another case?

The way your legal team is handling this Reeves might get a bender despite his own Barrister opining that a custodial sentence is inevitable. (which would be extraordinary). Given the amount of taxpayers' money going up in smoke on this debacle and assuming that you still intend to press for a custodial sentence you need to get a grip - or ensure that someone else does."

I would not normally write in this manner had not Mrs Patel (rudely) told ME to produce evidence. The last paragraph was certainly prescient!

There were a few bon mots from Judge Ward during this debacle. In the email I mention how Reeves claimed to have done a lot to "do up" the flat for him and his visiting children before, er, subletting it! There was silence from Mrs Patel but the Judge commented that it was surprising he chose to move out of such palatial surroundings!

The position with Holdens is opaque. The Brewery stated that Reeves left of his own accord and NOT under a cloud. However, two individuals alleged to The Skidder that Reeves had been buying booze from a third party rather than from the Brewery, in league with a named local person. Holdens, so it is said, became aware of this and intervened. This allegation was specifically put to Holdens but they declined to comment. They also declined to say (a) whether their payments were going directly to Reeves or to his Company, and (b) whether Reeves was also paid rent on The Wheatsheaf flat when he sublet that to a named person (known to Holdens).

****************************************************************************

The Skidder has spent many hours tracking back and forth to Wolvo and incurring travel expenses on this story. Small donations welcome via the donations button on the right. If you are reading this on a mobile you need to click through to the website version to find the donations button. Thank you!

****************************************************************************

Reeves's barrister - having called for a custodial sentence - did not cover himself with glory in this matter, and his flukey result was down to the failures of Team Sandwell rather than his own golden oratory. Despite being pulled up by the Judge on 5th January he ploughed a similar furrow last Thursday. Taking a cut onion to his eyes he tried to imply that the subletting had almost been some sort of act of charity and that whilst residents of Sadders on the housing waiting list had indeed been deprived of the property, Reeves had supplied a flat to a woman in need. This was greeted in silence from Ms Patel but the Judge himself jokingly commented that it was such a pity then that Reeves had sought to collect rent from this poor deserving female!

In any event, the Judge was never going to fall for this baloney and he had already heard that  it was alleged (and unchallenged in Court) that Reeves had tried to get access to the woman's flat with a spare key in the early hours of one morning. The Judge described this conduct by Reeves as "nasty". Further, when she moved out, Reeves sub-let the property again to a male (possibly a relative). Reeves's Counsel had posited that the fraud was "unsophisticated" but the Judge disagreed saying that the claiming of the single person discount, the plan to continue to let the property after right to buy, the attempt to conceal the payments as "car" payments, and the further subletting when Reeves was then living with his lover in Tivi showed that this was a not "unsophisticated" and constituted fraud over a prolonged period of time backed my multiple false representations to Sandwell Council.

In sentencing the Judge specifically criticised the Defence's plea in mitigation saying that the points against the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence had almost been "thrown away" by an attempt to minimise issues and to portray Reeves as some sort of "victim". He said directly to Reeves in the dock, "You are NOT the victim".

Bent Labour Sandwell had tried to clear up the issue of the Shireland reference (as I had suggested) so that the Judge's original assumption that it was purely a personal reference from a colleague was correct, and it did not constitute a reference from the employer. The employer declined to make further comment to the Court.

But Mrs Patel brought down the wrath of the Judge upon her and blew-up Sandwell's attempts to get Reeves banged-up, and one part of this is truly shocking - although par for the course with this corrupt outfit. Having insisted the matter be belatedly removed from Park Hall because a custodial sentence was required Mrs Patel bizarrely submitted at one point that the Judge might wish to consider a suspended sentence! I have no idea where this volte face came from but Judge Ward rounded on her with both barrels saying that her job as prosecutor was to advise him of the sentencing guidelines on the facts and NOT to tell him the penalty he should decide. 

But this was as nothing compared to his rage at the history of Reeves's employment and supposed knowledge of housing issues. Somewhat surprisingly St Paul has no previous convictions and his barrister portrayed him as "a man of good character" (ROFLMAO!) As above, Sandwell claimed that Reeves had special knowledge of the way to play the housing system. This is almost certainly true, but team Sandwell could not prove it to a legal standard. Sandwell's legal team fell back to their standard default position when they have no proof - smear the opposition. Of course, I have been on the receiving end of this tactic in the Magistrates' Court, the High Court in London, and a number of Information Tribunal cases. But, as we shall see, the conduct was particularly egregious here.

I refer to the email I sent to Mr Jones above and to one of the red sections. Again I had hit the bullseye. Team Sandwell produced a statement from a Mr Anthony O'Donahue (or similar name) who was described as a Senior Housing Officer at the bent Council. I have to assume that this had been disclosed to Reeves's legal team but, amazingly, they made no apparent objection to the statement being produced. It was handed up to the Judge who suddenly went ballistic. The statement claimed that Reeves had been suspended on the grounds of gross misconduct. As I said in this blog many moons ago - this is true. But bent Sandwell put that smear in and left it there without more - as I predicted they might in my email to Jones above. I was told at the time, rightly or wrongly, that Reeves received a £75,000 pay-off subject to a confidentiality agreement to keep his gob shut. It transpired in Court that Reeves started an Industrial Tribunal action - no doubt with the help of his union pals - and this was settled on terms. The Judge quite rightly asked what the terms were and Mrs Patel - on the instructions of Sandwell Council - made the stunning comment that there was "no-one" in Sandwell Council who could say what actually happened in the case. This is, quite simply, a lie by Jones's team to the Crown Court (quite a start for the new bod)! Patel began to unravel under fire and muttered that the real reason for non-disclosure was "confidentiality" but this cuts no ice in a criminal trial. There was no help for her from the two SMBC employees. Did Jones conceal the damning information for fallacious secrecy reasons and, if so, why lie to a Crown Court? In any event - while the Commissioners are still there they must investigate this very serious issue forthwith AND ensure appropriate action is taken against those responsible.

Mrs Patel had bullsh*tted about Reeves hobnobbing with managers and having direct contact with Britton (which he had) with a sort of inference that he had somehow become a housing specialist by osmosis. This won't do in a Crown Court! The Judge stated that she - and obviously Sandwell legal - had behaved unconscionably. They had put the smear in without saying what happened thereafter. They had imputed gross dishonesty (which was actually true) which was important in his consideration of antecedents, but had left that simply hanging in the air. [The reason - as above - is that there was a bent deal with Reeves which Jones and the legal team wished to conceal from the Judge.] Judge Ward was stunned and said angrily to Mrs Patel: "What were you doing submitting it [the statement] to me", and, "I am shocked that you have done this".

It was downhill all the way for Team Sadders after this. It was also pointed out that they had lazily produced national figures of council housing need rather than local data. Meanwhile the Defence came out with all the usual sob stories - Reeves was drinking 6 to 8 pints a day plus whisky (whilst apparently still easily able to do his onerous day job via Shireland Group whilst running a pub) and had been to an alcoholism charity for help. He had depression and had seen his GP. He had been to A&E after an alleged suicide attempt (no documentation provided on this nor requested by Team Sandwell). Laughably the "stress" he had been under due to the delay in sentencing was prayed in aid despite the fact that one hearing was abandoned entirely by reason of the unavailability of the DEFENCE COUNSEL and the other grossly delayed for the same reason so that it went part-heard. Again, Mrs Patel made no comment despite the hours she had spent hanging around on the taxpayers' meter waiting for this case to finally come on.

Skidderati have always been told that Reeves has unnaturally clear nostrils but, alas, the Court was told that he had sleep apnea and would need a machine to help him sleep in prison.

Reeves - as above described by Judge Ward as "a throroughly devious and dishonest man" was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment suspended for two years on the main block of charges and for six months suspended for two years on the remaining offence to run concurrently. 

He was ordered to repay £2,641.38 in respect of the profit he made on the subletting and £2,753.36 prosecution costs (see below).

He was ordered to attend probation, an alcohol rehabilitation programme and to do 180 hours "community service".

If Reeves did receive £75k from us taxpayers despite his conduct at Sandwell what became of the money noting that he was doing two jobs - working for Shireland Group and running a pub plus sub-letting the Council flat (and, possibly, the one at The Wheatsheaf too)?  Of course, he has been living a very "exotic" lifestyle - if that is possible in Sadders - enjoying many "pleasures". In any event he signed-up to a form of "junior" bankruptcy - an Insolvency Voluntary Agreement (IVA) - as he couldn't pay his debts, and so how he will pay back these financial orders is a moot point. As is the question whether bent Sandwell will have to find him, er, council housing now that he won't be residing in a cell for a while?

Finally, Sandwell even managed to cock-up their costs claim. At the end of the hearing Mrs Patel referred the Judge to a costs schedule submitted and, as above, he ordered £2,753.36 to be paid which, in itself, seems incredibly cheap given the hours two Sandwell staff AND a barrister were hanging around at multiple hearings (I know because I was there!) Having made his Order Team Sandwell then said the figure in the schedule was out of date and attempted to hand-up a revised schedule which they had, er, forgotten to file and serve. I didn't catch the amount but it was in excess of £3k. The Judge was so fed-up with SMBC by then he was having none of it, and refused to amend the Order. And so the incompetence of the legal team continued right to the very end of the hearing.

Incredibly, the social report supplied to the Court suggested that there was minimal risk of Reeves committing further criminal offences which seems a stretch noting his actual character and antecedents. But at least if he strays from the righteous path in the next two years he might be needing his prison "welcome pack" after all!

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)

I cannot list every previous mention of individuals referred to in the entirety of this blog. Where I refer to a specific story please follow the supplied hyperlink since this forms legal justification for later comments. Similarly references to “posts or Skidders passim” and to earlier posts mean any individuals concerned about purported defamatory or otherwise unlawful material must read later posts in the context of earlier posts. Full information can also be supplied within a reasonable time upon application via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

We may also add hyperlinks or references to content in our associated blogs, “As The Crow Flies!” (at crowmultimedia.blogspot.com) and Rotten Council Governance - Legal Review (at rottencouncils.blogspot.com). Reference to content in those blogs also forms part of the context, meaning of, and justification for, contents in this blog.

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Every now and again we make a genuine error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall use our best endeavours to remove offending material and/or publish appropriate corrections forthwith (together with an apology, if applicable).

We have had to remove the direct comment facility from this blog due to the malicious activity of a West Bromwich woman but we are pleased to receive comments via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com, on Twitter via our publishers @CrowMultimedia or via our dedicated Facebook Group: “The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth to Power!” We are happy to publish any sensible commentary and offer a right of reply where applicable. We can also publish “guest” posts on mutually agreed terms.

If you consider that anything written is defamatory or otherwise unlawful please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com or telephone 07470 624207 forthwith. If your complaint has merit we shall endeavour to make immediate amends.