Dudley Man Amassed Sickening Stash of Indecent Images of Children

A Dudley man amassed a sickening stash of indecent images of children over a seven year period.

Ian Lavender, 58, of Beachwood Avenue, Wall Heath, admitted the following when he appeared at Dudley Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 30th October 2025:

• Three offences of making an indecent image or pseudo image of a child;
• One offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child;
• One offence of possession of an extreme pornographic image involving an animal.

Making an indecent image of a child, which is the most serious of the three, is an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is an either way offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment, 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

The court heard that between May 2017 and November 2024 Lavender made 2,899 category A indecent images of children, 1,828 category B images and 44,063 category C images. Making in this context relates to downloading the images from the internet, instead of producing them "at source" with a camera.

Category A images involve penetrative sexual activity; category B images involve non-penetrative sexual activity; and category C images involved sexualised poses.

In November 2024 Lavender was also found in possession of 15 prohibited images of children. This is an offence under section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and typically involves cartoon and computer-generated images. He was also found in possession of 35 extreme pornographic images involving sexual activity with animals, which is an offence under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Magistrates were of the opinion that their sentencing powers were insufficient given the severity and totality of Lavender's offending.

Lavender was granted conditional bail until his sentencing hearing at Wolverhampton Crown Court on Thursday, 27th November 2025.

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.

Bradford Uber Drivers Refused Passengers with Guide Dogs

Two Bradford Uber drivers have been stripped of their private hire licences for refusing to carry passengers with guide dogs.

Mohammed Zubair, 47, of Dickens Street, Bradford, and Muhammad Faisel, 34, of Horton Park Avenue, Bradford, appeared at Bradford Magistrates' Court on Friday, 31st October 2025.

They were each convicted of failing in their duty to allow a disabled passenger to be accompanied by a guide dog. This is an offence under section 170(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It has a maximum sentence on summary conviction of a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

Magistrates heard that Zubair had been booked to pick up a passenger in Smithy Carr Lane, Brighouse, on Saturday, 14th June 2025. On discovering that the woman was accompanied by a guide dog, Zubair refused to accept the fare and drove away leaving her stranded. 

The woman, who filmed the encounter, told Zubair his refusal was unlawful and that she would be reporting the matter to Bradford Council. Zubair, who had been a taxi driver for seven years, was later interviewed by council officers, but provided no comment.

Faisel had been booked to pick up a passenger from the same location in Brighouse on the previous day, Friday, 13th June 2025. Given that coincidence, it may well have been the same woman and guide dog.

On discovering the passenger had a guide dog Faisel also refused the fare. The woman told Faisel that it was unlawful for him to refuse to carry her guide dog. Faisel responded by telling her she would need to book an Uber Pet instead. Faisel drove away leaving the woman standing in the street.

The woman reported the matter to Bradford Council, which invited Faisel for interview. In interview he admitted that he was mistaken to refuse the woman and her guide dog, saying that he had forgotten some of his earlier training in relation to disabled passengers.

Zubair was fined £90 and ordered to pay £500 towards prosecution costs and £36 surcharge.

Faisel was fined £80 and ordered to pay £500 towards prosecution costs and £32 surcharge.

As mentioned earlier, Bradford Council has revoked the private hire licences of both men.

Speaking after these convictions, an Uber spokesman said: "It is totally unacceptable, and illegal, for drivers to refuse to take a rider due to an assistance dog and we investigate every report.

"We remind drivers of this obligation before they start using the Uber app and send regular reminders. Uber can and does permanently remove drivers' ability to use the app when a driver has violated their legal obligations."

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.

Traffic Court: Can I Just Admit the Speeding Please?

The traffic court is the ultimate microcosm of society.

Whereas most people don't go out stealing from shops, bashing little old ladies and smashing bus shelters, a lot of otherwise law abiding people have no trouble at all with speeding or jumping red lights.

I've previously written about a fairly typical day in the traffic court, which provides a bit of context for anyone unfamiliar with such things. The court deals with those non-imprisonable, summary traffic offences that have somehow evaded completion via the Single Justice Procedure.

As previously mentioned I don't do a lot of traffic work, but I'm willing to lend a hand if they're stuck for anyone more local. Last week the call came again: "Can you help out with the traffic court? We're desperate." How could I refuse such a flattering offer?!

If you ever observe the traffic court you will notice that very few of those appearing are represented. The absence of Legal Aid funding for this sort of work means that anyone requiring representation will usually need to pay for it. The court is under a duty to assist unrepresented defendants, so the Legal Advisor will talk them through the procedure and their options in slow time.

A lot of unrepresented defendants cope admirably before the court. They listen carefully, weigh up their options and make informed decisions. Some, however, appear before the court with inaccurate preconceptions about the process and legislation. It is this second group that shall be the focus of today's article.

Mr White:

Mr White, a mechanic, appeared before the court for speeding. The police had made him a conditional offer (£100 fine, 3 points), but for whatever reason he had failed to respond to it.

According to Mr White he should never have been done in the first place, because he was only doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone. He was a bit miffed that the police hadn't offered him a speed awareness course. As someone who knows about these things, Mr White tells the court that the devices the police use are only accurate to within 2 or 3 mph. That being the case, Mr White claims he might have been driving at 33 mph at the absolute maximum.

It was put to Mr White that even 33 mph would have been exceeding the 30 mph speed limit. It was also put to him that whether his speed was 35 mph or 33 mph, it would make no difference to how the matter was sentenced.

Mr White didn't want to further argue the point, so admitted the offence.

Mr Green:

Mr Green appeared before the court for speeding. He had been driving in a rural area in the early hours of the morning, when it was still dark and there were very few cars on the road. The road was winding and bordered by tall hedges. Unbeknown to Mr Green the approaching headlights pinpricking through the hedge belonged to a police vehicle, which was double-crewed by officers A and B.

The officers immediately took the view that Mr Green was exceeding the 60 mph speed limit. Their onboard equipment supported that view, recording his speed as 72 mph. The officers turned their vehicle and accelerated to catch up with Mr Green's car. Now realising it was a police vehicle Mr Green immediately pulled over.

It transpired that Mr Green regularly drove in the early hours of the morning. It also transpired that this was not the first time he had been stopped by the police when doing so. Mr Green was not happy at being stopped by the police, claiming he was the subject of some sort of witch hunt. The officers in question had never had any dealings with Mr Green, but according to him they were still part of the same gang. Reading between the lines, I get the distinct impression Mr Green was combative with the officers.

Mr Green denied speeding on the basis that if he was going too fast, the officers must have been going even faster in order to catch up with him. He also objected to the fact that officer A took the lead during the stop, but it was officer B who reported him for the offence. Mr Green denied the allegation and wanted his day in court.

Mr Black:

Mr Black appeared before the court for failing to identify the driver of a vehicle. He already had 8 points on his licence, so the stakes were high. Mr Black confirmed that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle and was the only one who drove it. However, this contradicted earlier correspondence with the court in which he said that he had failed to respond to the section 172 notice because he wasn't sure who was driving at the time it was clocked speeding.

Astonishingly, Mr Black tried to alter his position again by saying that he never saw the section 172 notice until it was too late because he was rarely at home. The Legal Advisor informed Mr Black that even if he hadn't seen the notice, it had been correctly served if it had been posted first class to his address as registered keeper.

"So what happens now?" asked Mr Black. He was told that if he admitted the offence then his licence would be endorsed with 6 penalty points and he would be disqualified for 6 months under the totting up rule.

The colour draining from Mr Black's face, he asked "what if I'd admitted speeding?" He was told that he would have received 3 penalty points on his licence. "Can I just admit the speeding please?" enquired Mr Black.

At that stage I interjected: "Given the passage of time, the speeding option is no longer available. In any event, you've just told the court that you don't know who was driving at the time so we wouldn't be prepared to accept a guilty plea to that matter."

The Legal Advisor highlighted the possibility of an exceptional hardship application, which might allow Mr Black to avoid disqualification despite having accrued 12 or more points on his licence. There followed some conversation about Mr Black's circumstances, which were unlikely to amount to exceptional hardship.

Resigned to the fact he would be making alternative transport arrangements for the next 6 months, Mr Black begrudgingly admitted failing to identify the driver of a vehicle. His licence was endorsed with 6 points and he was disqualified as a totter.

Of course he would not have been disqualified had he diligently completed the paperwork in the first place.

Further reading:

Traffic Law in England, Wales and Scotland (aff. link), by K. M. Hughes.

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.

Totally Blotto: Newcastle Drink Driver Blew Almost FIVE Times Legal Limit

A Newcastle man was so drunk it's amazing he was able to even to sit in his car, let alone drive it through rush hour traffic on a busy dual carriageway.

Thomas Monkhouse, 38, of Chester Street, Shieldfield, admitted driving a motor vehicle when the amount of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit when he appeared recently at Newcastle Magistrates' Court.

This is an offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that a concerned member of the public reported Monkhouse's manner of driving on the early evening of Friday, 29th August 2025.

Lauren Fisher, prosecuting, said: "She said the defendant was driving west along the Coast Road. She noticed the defendant appeared to mount on to the central reservation, narrowly missing contact with the barrier.

"He then crossed three lanes of traffic. He continued to swerve between lanes and drive erratically. The witness contacted the police and provided details to them. Officers attend and arrest the defendant."

Monkhouse was taken to Etal Lane police station, where he provided an evidential specimen containing 171 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath - just under five times the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes.

James Rickerby, mitigating, told the court that his client, who has no previous convictions, had severe depression.

"On the day in question, it was a particularly hard day for him. He had been drinking before driving a really short distance," said Mr Rickerby.

"He accepts that's wrong and he's got genuine remorse."

Mr Rickerby told the court that Monkhouse had sought assistance from his GP and Alcoholics Anonymous.

Addressing the defendant, Reverend George Curry JP, Presiding Justice, said: "The top bracket for our guidelines is a breath reading of 120-150. You are 171 - that's 21 above our top bracket of Sentencing Guidelines."

Magistrates ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

Monkhouse was granted unconditional bail until his sentencing hearing on Tuesday, 6th January 2026.

In the meantime, he was made subject to an interim driving disqualification.

A reading of 171 microgrammes might well be the largest to have featured here on Magistrates' Blog. It is firmly in custodial territory. The evidence of associated poor driving is an aggravating feature, which is offset slightly by the fact it was a relatively short journey.

Given Monkhouse's previous good character and apparent mental health difficulties, which are always a big consideration for the court, I suggest it is unlikely he will receive an immediate custodial sentence.

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.