Nightmare Neighbour Next Door: Disgraced Lawyer Trimmed Bush and Urinated on Doorstep

A disgraced Northumberland lawyer urinated on her neighbour's doorstep.

Frances Louise Brough, 52, of North Side, Shilbottle, Alnwick, denied two offences of harassment and two offences of criminal damage, but was convicted following a recent trial in her absence at Newcastle Magistrates' Court.

A warrant was issued for Brough's arrest and she appeared in custody at the same court on Friday, 5th September 2025.

Brough was previously qualified as both a solicitor and barrister, but was unceremoniously ejected from both professions after committing a string of offences in 2012/13. Since then she has amassed a total of 30 convictions. You can read all about Brough's cataclysmic fall from grace in this article.

Magistrates heard that Brough's latest transgression occurred when the owners of a neighbouring holiday let, who clearly hadn't done any due diligence, entrusted her with a set of keys and asked her to keep a neighbourly eye on the place.

The couple soon became suspicious that Brough was accessing the property for her own purposes, so installed CCTV cameras to monitor the situation.

Jonathan Stirland, prosecuting, said: "The victims installed CCTV and, on 18th February 2023, it captured the defendant entering the address and switching on an electric heater. 

"On 19th February, the Ring doorbell (aff.) was activated and the defendant was seen squatting in the doorway and appeared to urinate while saying "having a wee wee".

"She also smeared mud on the lens of the camera. She was arrested and bailed."

Despite being under a cloud of suspicion, the 52-year-old continued to harass her neighbours by sending them three bogus letters purportedly from a legal firm.

Her involvement in the letters was confirmed when the Ring doorbell recorded her male lodger, who was unaware of matters, delivering one of them through the letterbox.

On 2nd September 2023 Brough entered the neighbour's garden with a set of hedge trimmers and cut down a bush. She later denied any involvement, seemingly oblivious to the fact her antics had again been captured on CCTV. When shown the footage, she made no comment.

Rebecca Highton, mitigating, told the court that Brough had a range of physical and mental health issues, including arthritis.

Ms Highton said: "She didn't make it to her trial as she was extremely unwell. She could hardly get out of bed. She couldn't get on a bus and get to court. I would ask for a pre-sentence report so that a mental health assessment can be carried out."

Brough was granted conditional bail until her sentencing hearing at the same court on Friday, 17th October 2025.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does: Disqualified Driver Drives Himself to Prison

A disqualified driver, who by his own admission was "stupid", has driven himself straight to prison after being caught behind the wheel only a week into a suspended sentence.

Adam Curry, 36, of no fixed abode, admitted offences of driving whilst disqualified and driving without valid third party insurance when he appeared in custody at Llandudno Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 3rd September 2025.

Driving whilst disqualified is an offence under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It has maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Curry was caught driving a Citreon Berlingo on Marine Road, Abergele, on Tuesday, 2nd September 2025.

Just a week beforehand he had been made subject to a 12 week suspended sentence for identical offences.

Curry's (unnamed) solicitor told the court that his client acknowledged "he was stupid" and was "genuinely remorseful" for his actions.

Magistrates' were of the opinion that Curry's latest transgression, in flagrant defiance of an order of the court, was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

He was sentenced to 8 weeks' immediate custody and ordered to pay £154 surcharge.

His 12 week suspended sentence was also activated in full and is to be served consecutively.

Curry was also disqualified from driving for a period of 54 months.

Guilty: Asylum Seeker Sexually Assaulted 14-Year-Old Girl After One Week in UK

An Ethiopian asylum seeker sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl barely a week after arriving in the UK on a small boat.

Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, denied the following offences, but was convicted following a trial at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 4th September 2025:

• One offence of attempted sexual assault: This is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.
• Two offences of sexual assault: This is an offence under section 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.
• One offence of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity: This is an offence under section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 14 years' custody on conviction on indictment.
• One offence of harassment without violence: This is an offence under section 2(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It has a maximum sentence of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Kebatu arrived in the UK on Sunday, 29th June 2025, having travelled on a small boat from France. His personal circumstances are clearly of relevance, given his very recent arrival in the country and method of entry. At various stages during proceedings he has given his age as both 41- and 38-years-old. There is no way of verifying his credentials, or any previous criminal history, as he arrived without documentation.

District Judge Christopher Williams, presided over the three-day trial.

The prosecution case, on which Kebatu has been convicted, is that he attempted to sexually assaulted the teenager on High Road, Epping, during the early evening of Monday, 7th July 2025. This offence may have been charged as an attempt for evidential reasons.

Kebatu had approached the girl, who was sat eating pizza with friends. Kebatu struck up conversation with the group and the girl offered him a slice of pizza because she thought he looked hungry. The 38-year-old placed his hand on the girl's thigh, stroked her hair and attempted to kiss her. He also invited her back to his accommodation, the nearby The Bell Hotel, and said he wanted to make a baby with her and her friend. The girl rejected Kebatu's advances and made it clear that she was only 14-years-old, to which Kebatu responded that age didn't matter.

On the evening of Tuesday, 8th July 2025 Kebatu approached the same group of youths, who were this time wearing school uniform. He put his hand on the thigh of the same girl and again tried to kiss her. This time Kebatu asked the girl to kiss one of her male friends. She was reluctant to do so, but eventually relented and kissed the boy on the cheek in the hope it might placate Kebatu.

A passing woman saw Kebatu's behaviour with the group and was concerned enough to approach and intervene. Kebatu sexually assaulted her by touching her thigh and trying to kiss her. The woman reported Kebatu's behaviour to the police, who attended the scene and arrested him a short time later.

Kebatu's defence, which has been rejected by the court, was that he did not commit the assaults or make the comments attributed to him. He also told the court that the complainants had conspired to fabricate the allegations.

Kebatu has been remanded in custody until his sentencing on Tuesday, 23rd September 2025. DJ Williams has warned him that a custodial sentence is the likely outcome, adding "it's just a question of how long."

The maximum sentence available to the Magistrates' Court for this combination of offences is 12 months' custody, but the matter could be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing if DJ Williams later determines that 12 months' is insufficient.

Kebatu has been on remand since 8th July 2025, which will count towards any custodial sentence imposed. Given that offenders only serve 40 percent of their time in custody at the moment, if Kebatu was handed a 12 month sentence it is likely he would be eligible for release only a few weeks after he is sentenced. Of course he could be held for longer in relation to his immigration status.

I should also mention that anyone convicted at the Magistrates' Court has an absolute right to appeal their sentence and/or conviction. Should Kebatu wish to do that, which I suggest is highly likely in the circumstances, then an application to appeal will need to be made within 21 days of his sentencing.

This is a breaking story, which will be updated later.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

XL Bullies Before Court

It has now been eighteen months since legislation came into effect prohibiting the keeping of XL bully dogs unless correctly exempted.

You can read more about the legislation in my earlier article.

In those eighteen months I hadn't seen a single case before the court. Last week, just like London buses, four of them came along at once.

These were applications made by the police, who had somehow learnt that the XL bullies in question were not correctly exempted. In theory the court can order the destruction of an XL bully that has not been exempted; in practice it will not do so if it is satisfied that the animal does not pose a risk to the wider public - e.g. it is well cared for, has a responsible owner and is of sound temperament.

From a personal point of view, it would not sit easy with me making an order for the destruction of a sentient being for no other reason than it's perceived to be the wrong breed. Instead the court tends to make a contingent destruction order, which means the dog will only be destroyed if the person keeping it fails to meet the specified contingencies - e.g. ensure it is correctly exempted by a particular date.

The police had carefully examined each of the dogs and were satisfied that they were well looked after, by responsible owners and were of sound temperament. Reading through the reports there were plenty of comments along the lines of the dogs being in good condition, playful, affectionate and tolerant. Crucially, there was not the merest hint of aggression in any of them. The dogs were also housed in premises without children and with secure outside spaces.

The court granted the police's application for contingent destruction orders for the four dogs. As long as the owners get them correctly exempted they will be able to live the rest of their natural lives.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.