Social Media Auditor Curtis Arnold (DJE Media) Convicted of Filming in Prison

Social media auditor Curtis Arnold has added yet another criminal conviction to his rapidly expanding collection, this time for recording inside a prison.

Arnold, 36, of Shakespeare Drive, Kidderminster, admitted two offences under the Prison Act 1952 when he appeared at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 1st May 2025.

The offences are:

• taking a photograph and/or making a sound recording without authority inside a prison, contrary to section 40D(1)(a) of the Act;
• possessing without authority a device capable of transmitting or receiving images, sounds or information by electronic communications, namely a mobile phone, inside a prison, contrary to section 40D(3B)(a) of the Act.

Each of these offences has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Arnold, who has previously featured on Magistrates' Blog, has multiple previous convictions for offences of dishonesty, including burglary, fraud and perverting the course of justice.

In one particularly ignominious episode he jumped a red light and tried to pin the blame on his granny. What sort of a person tries to stiff their own granny?

The same sort of person who would try to profit from the tragic death of Lancashire woman Nicola Bulley, leading to national media dubbing him the "TikTok Ghoul". 

Arnold currently uses the name Daniel J. Edwards in an (unsuccessful) effort to distance himself from past crimes.

Magistrates heard that Arnold's latest crime took place at HMP Springhill on Saturday, 22nd July 2023, when he was carrying out a so-called social media audit of the establishment.

Displaying characteristic arrogance, Arnold persisted in filming even though he had been told to leave the prison grounds.

When it was pointed out to Arnold that he had walked past a sign saying "no recording", the aspiring lawyer retorted "yeah, but the law is there's no recording inside the prison... the grounds doesn't count".

When asked to leave, he replied: "I'm declining your request".

He continued: "Yeah, the law's very clear on filming in a prison. As it's publicly accessible and you've got a traffic light there for roadworks - council roadworks - then we can film here. That's how it is."

Arnold was referring to some roadworks taking place inside the prison grounds.

Having refused to leave, the 36-year-old former hairdresser spent another 20 minutes wasting the time of prison staff before they physically ejected him from the establishment - which they were well within their rights to do.

Arnold was fined £565.50 (likely to include the surcharge value) and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs.

Horrific: Teenagers Tortured and Mutilated Kittens

Two teenagers have admitted the horrific torture and mutilation of two kittens.

The 16-year-old girl and 17-year-old boy, who cannot currently be named for legal reasons, each admitted causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and possession of a bladed article when they appeared at Highbury Youth Court on Tuesday, 20th May 2025.

Causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2004. The maximum sentence is 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. The maximum that the Youth Court could impose is a 2 year' detention and training order.

The offences took place on Saturday, 3rd May 2025. Members of the public saw the teenagers fleeing the scene near Ickenham Road, Ruislip and subsequently found the mutilated and dismembered bodies of two kittens.

Knives, scissors and a gas blow torch were found abandoned at the scene. These had clearly been used as implements of torture.

Valerie Benjamin, prosecuting, told the court: "On the day in question, members of the public have seen the defendants in possession of an animal carrier.

"At that point in time, it was clear that there were live animals in that carrier."

Ms Benjamin has gone on to describe the distressing condition of the kittens' bodies when they were discovered.

Neither of the defendants has previous convictions.

The court heard that there was evidence that the male defendant had mutilated animals in the past. There were past searches in relation to animal killing on his mobile phone. The girl, who is said to have "some interest in biology at school", has previously mutilated a rabbit.

Both defendants are said to have mental health difficulties.

District Judge Michael Oliver ordered pre-sentence reports and remanded the pair in local authority care until their sentencing on Monday, 23rd June 2025.

As readers of my "An Introduction to the Youth Court" article will be aware, the court is very constrained in how it deals with youth offenders - particularly those, as in this case, with no previous convictions.

The law presumes, rightly or wrongly, that youth defendants are automatically less culpable for their crimes.

Legislation dictates that a referral order must be imposed on any youth with no previous convictions who pleads guilty to any imprisonable offence, unless the court is considering an absolute discharge, conditional discharge, Mental Health Act order or custody.

Clearly a discharge or referral order is totally out of the question for offences of this severity. Although not inevitable, custody is a very distinct possibility.

Given their tender years the defendants are currently protected by a veil of anonymity. The moment they turn 18 that protection will automatically lapse and the media will be free to publish their details.

I am sure the cat lovers of north west London will be waiting with bated breath.

Teesside Angler Had Air Rifle in Rod Bag

A Teesside angler has fallen foul of the law by having an air rifle at a popular fishing location.

Stuart Warren, 58, of Cambourne Close, Hemlington, Middlesbrough, admitted possession of an air weapon in a public place when he appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 14th May 2025.

It is an offence under section 19(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 for a person to have an air weapon in their possession in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is 6 months' custody.

Magistrates' heard that armed police responded to reports of a man with a firearm at Hemlington Lake on Thursday, 6th March 2025.

On arrival they found Warren had an air rifle inside his rod bag.

By way of context Hemlington Lake is within Hemlington Park, which is owned by Middlesbrough Council. Fishing on the lake is controlled by Hemlington Angling Club, of which Warren is a member and warden.

Nick Woodhouse, mitigating, explained the circumstances to the court.

He said that his client had been involved with the angling club for "quite some time" and was aware there was a "problem with rats" at the lake. Warren had the air rifle with him to dispatch any rats that he saw at the lakeside.

Mr Woodhouse said that his client, who was concerned about going to prison, had surrendered the air rifle to the police. There was no suggestion of any sinister intent on his part.

Given the circumstances, Magistrates were of the view that the matter could be dealt with by way of a 6 month conditional discharge.

Warren was also ordered to pay £26 surcharge.

I have a bit of sympathy for Warren, who appears to have been naive in taking his air rifle into the public park. It would appear that Teesside colleagues have adopted a pragmatic approach to dealing with the matter. 

Had it not been a public park, then there would have been no issues at all, as Warren would have been able to rely on his relationship with the angling club.

From where I'm sitting, there's no reason why Warren shouldn't have his air rifle back. Given the kneejerk reaction to a lot of entirely innocent firearms incidents, I am not sure Cleveland Police will share that view.

Three Iranians Accused of Spying Offences

Three Iranians living in London have appeared in court accused of spying offences.

Mostafa Sepahvand, 39, of St John's Wood, north west London; Farhad Javadi Manesh, 44, of Kensal Rise, north west London; and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 55, of Ealing, west London, appeared in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Saturday, 17th May 2025. 

The three are accused of engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service between 14 August 2024 and 16 February 2025. This is an offence under section 3 of the National Security Act 2023, which has a maximum sentence of 14 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Given the nationality of the defendants, it should come as little surprise that they are accused of spying on behalf of Iran.

Frank Ferguson, Head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: "Mr Sepahvand has also been charged with engaging in conduct, namely surveillance, reconnaissance and open-source research, between 14 August 2024 and 16 February 2025, intending to commit acts, namely serious violence against a person in the United Kingdom, contrary to section 18(1)(a) of the National Security Act 2023.

"While Mr Manesh and Mr Noori have also been charged with engaging in conduct, namely surveillance and reconnaissance, with the intention that acts, namely serious violence against a person in the United Kingdom, would be committed by others, contrary to section 18(1)(b) of the National Security Act 2023.

"The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against these defendants are now active and that they have the right to a fair trial.

"It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."

Given the severity of the allegations, the three were not required to enter a plea on this occasion.

Sepahvand, Manesh and Noori were remanded in custody until their next hearing at the Central Criminal Court on Friday, 6th June 2025.

The immigration status of the defendants remains unclear.

Update (17/5/25): The Telegraph is now reporting that the three defendants arrived in the UK in the backs of lorries and on small boats (which would be illegal entry) and had been granted leave to remain.