Swindon Man Used "Legal" Criminal Identifier Spray on Bouncers

A Swindon man who discharged a "legal" criminal identifier spray at bouncers has again illustrated the perils of drinking on an empty head.

Karl Taylor, 32, of Ferndale Road, Swindon, admitted three offences of assault by beating when he appeared at Swindon Magistrates' Court on Monday, 7th October 2024.

Assault by beating is an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine. You can read more about this particular offence in my earlier article on the topic.

Taylor, who hails from Cumbria, was ejected from a Carlisle bar for poor behaviour. Taking umbrage at the three bouncers, he proceeded to spray them in the face with a "legal" criminal identifier spray.

The trio were left with red staining to their skin and clothing, with one of them experiencing eye irritation when the red gloop struck him in the face.

If you please indulge me, I am now going to delve into the realms of personal opinion. If that's an issue, you might like to stop reading now.

I've been waiting to talk about this criminal identifier spray, Farb Gel, for a long time and now seems the ideal opportunity. The spray is marketed as a self-defence product and no doubt a considerable number of people buying it do so for that very purpose.

However, in my opinion a significant minority of those buying it do so to "look hard" and "get one over" the authorities by carrying around what appears, at first glance, to be a weapon.

I base that opinion on the knowledge that several social media auditors, including those supposedly learned in the law, routinely carry this spray as a prop to wave around whenever anyone challenges them. If you aren't familiar with the banal craze of social media auditing, then you might like to read my earlier thoughts on it.

By marketing this product as "legal in the UK" and an "alternative to pepper spray", the manufacturers do a disservice to members of the second category, some of whom are of the mistaken belief it can be used with legal impunity. That is certainly not the case.

The bouncers ejecting Taylor from the Carlisle bar were well within their rights to do so, using lawful physical force as the need arose. That being the case, he had no legal justification at all to spray them with Farb Gel. What possible reason could he have for marking them with a criminal identifier spray, when he knew their place of work?

District Judge Joanna Dickens was of the view that his offences were serious enough to merit a community order.

He was made subject to a 15-month community order, with the requirement that he completes 6-months' alcohol treatment, 12 days' mental health treatment and up to 15 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also ordered to pay the statutory surcharge of £114.

Breaking News: Sunderland GP Admits Trying to Murder His Mother's Partner

A Sunderland GP has now admitted his audacious plan to murder his mother's partner.

Thomas Kwan, 53, of Brading Court, Ingelby Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees, changed his plea on the second day of his attempted murder trial at Newcastle Crown Court.

Kwan had previously admitted administering a noxious substance, but denied his intention was to kill 71-year-old Patrick O'Hara. 

In the prosecution opening Peter Makepeace KC outlined the extraordinary lengths Kwan had gone to in an effort to murder his mother's long term partner, Mr O'Hara.

Kwan's mother, Wai King (Jenny) Leung, 73, had changed her will so that Mr O'Hara, were he to outlive her, would be able to remain in the home she owned in St Thomas Street on the outskirts of Newcastle city centre.

This was a source of great consternation for Kwan, who saw Mr O'Hara as an obstacle on the path to his inheritance.

Months before the audacious murder plan was put into action, Kwan began researching and sourcing chemicals he could potentially use to poison Mr O'Hara. Following his arrest police recovered thallium, arsenic, mercury, sulfuric acid and the precursors to the deadly toxin ricin from this Ingelby Barwick home.

Kwan made a letter falsely purporting to be from the local NHS. It offered Mr O'Hara the chance for a free health check, which would take place in his and Ms Leung's Newcastle home. Kwan signed the letter in the name of Raj Patel, community nurse.

The appointment was fixed for the morning of 22nd January 2024. In the early hours Kwan had driven up from Teesside on false number plates and booked into a Newcastle Premier Inn under an assumed identity. He had also gone to the trouble of texting Mr O'Hara a fake NHS appointment reminder message.

On the morning in question Kwan disguised himself with make up, a false moustache and beard, glasses, face covering and beany hat. He wore surgical gloves and carried a bag full of props, including a false patient questionnaire, false NHS identity badge in the name of Raj Patel and various medical accessories. He took the ten minute walk to St Thomas Street.

Mr O'Hara answered the door and let the disguised GP in. Kwan, Mr O'Hara and Ms Leung were not on good terms and only saw each other infrequently. That, coupled with Kwan's disguise and meticulous planning, meant Mr O'Hara was completely taken in by his deceit.

Kwan and Mr O'Hara sat downstairs in the living room, with Ms Leung busy upstairs doing something else. For almost an hour Kwan, under the guise of nurse Raj Patel, discussed Mr O'Hara's health, completed the fake questionnaire and performed a series of examinations.

Kwan then told Mr O'Hara he was due a covid booster injection. Mr O'Hara was a bit suspicious as he had not long had a booster, but Kwan managed to persuade him to roll up his sleeve and receive another dose.

Of course it wasn't a covid booster at all. Kwan had actually stuck Mr O'Hara with a syringe containing the pesticide methyl iodide. Having done the deed, Kwan made his excuses to hurriedly leave Mr O'Hara and Ms Leung's home. As he was doing so Ms Leung, his mother, came down the stairs and passed him in the hallway. She commented that he was a similar height to her son, but thought nothing more about it.

Kwan made good his escape through the streets of Newcastle. Only a few minutes later Mr O'Hara, who was now suffering extreme pain in his arm, tried to call Kwan back, but he had already disappeared from sight.

A few days later Mr O'Hara went to the Royal Victoria Infirmary's Accident and Emergency Department to receive treatment for his arm, which was still very painful. He told hospital staff the story and they confirmed that they had never heard of the team nurse Raj Patel claimed to be from.

The toxin administered to Mr O'Hara was never clinically identified, but Kwan has subsequently claimed it was methyl iodide - a poison which is very hard to detect and treat. Mr O'Hara was left with a flesh-eating condition, which caused extensive tissue damage in his arm.

The pieces of the jigsaw now falling into place, Mr O'Hara and Ms Leung contacted the police to report their suspicions.

The police searched Kwan's home and found the chemicals previously mentioned, along with an assortment of documentation relating to murder, the synthesis of toxins and terrorism. They also recovered the SIM card he had used to text the appointment reminder to Mr O'Hara, as well as copies of the fake NHS letters and ID badge.

This is quite some story. A Hollywood blockbuster in the making.

Trial judge, Mrs Justice Lambert, has adjourned sentencing until Thursday, 17th October 2024.

Looking at the relevant sentencing guideline, I would suggest that the judge would consider this an offence of higher culpability and category 1 harm. That gives a sentence starting point of 30 years' custody.

Undoubtedly Kwan is a man of previous good character. However, that is more than offset by the glaring breach of trust and murderous perversion of his medical skills.

Offences Against the Person

Cases of assault appear frequently before the court.

In today's article, I give a brief summary of the four most common types of assault. Starting in order of increasing severity, these are:

• Common assault or assault by beating;
• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm;
• Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm;
• Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent.

I shall address each of these offences in turn, but before I do it might be worth reminding readers of my previous comments in relation to charge deflation. For reasons that aren't always apparent, the Crown often applies a lesser charge to an assault than the evidence suggests is justified.

Common assault or assault by beating:

These are offences under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which have a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

There are two different modes of assault here: common assault, which is sometimes referred to as technical or simple assault; and assault by beating, which is often referred to as battery.

Common assault is the immediate apprehension of unlawful physical force - e.g. the fear a person might have that they are imminently to experience unlawful physical force. They must apprehend immediate unlawful force, so an equivocal threat like "if you don't do X, I'll do Y" doesn't normally cut the mustard. It may, of course, constitute a different offence.

Assault by beating is the unlawful application of physical force - e.g. the actual physical contact between the offender and the victim. This can either be direct, as with a punch landing, or indirect, as with a stone being thrown and hitting someone. The victim does not need to suffer injury, but if they do it is of a very minor, temporary nature - reddening of the skin, a small bruise or scratch.

In terms of mens rea, these offences require the offender to act intentionally or recklessly.

Quite often common assault and assault by beating come hand in hand, but not always. If a victim was pushed suddenly and unexpectedly from behind they may not have apprehended the immediate use of unlawful physical force, in which case the offender would only be guilty of assault by beating.

The consent of the victim is always a defence against charges of common assault or assault by beating.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm:

This is an offence under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Unlike assault by beating it has an actus reus of causing actual bodily harm - e.g. physical or mental harm to the victim that is more than trifling and transient.

In terms of mens rea, assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires the offender to act intentionally or recklessly as to common assault or assault by beating.

The offender does not need to intend or foresee that any actual bodily harm might occur.

The consent of the victim is only a defence in certain limited circumstances.

Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm:

These are offences under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person, which have a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction; 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

There are two different possible modes of assault here: wounding and grievous bodily harm.

In physiological terms wounding involves an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin to a depth below the epidermis. In practical terms that means you see blood. Wounding does not encompass internal bleeding or extensive bruising, which may fall within the scope of grievous bodily harm instead.

Grievous bodily harm means really serious harm. Unfortunately the definition hasn't been nailed down any more firmly than that, so in cases of doubt it is for the jury to decide. Grievous bodily harm need not be permanent, but it is certainly debilitating.

In terms of mens rea, malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm requires the offender to act intentionally or recklessly as to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

This means that the offender must intend to cause actual bodily harm, or foresee it as a possible outcome of their assault.

The consent of the victim is only a defence in certain limited circumstances.

Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent:

These are offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person, which have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

Again there are two different possible modes of assault: wounding and grievous bodily harm.

These have the same meaning as described in the previous section.

In terms of mens rea, wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent requires the specific intent of the offender to achieve either of those outcomes.

To complicate matters further, there is an alternative version of these offences that can be perpetrated against a person who is in the process of lawfully apprehending or detaining someone else.

In that situation, in terms of mens rea the offender must intend to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension AND intend or be reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to the person who is lawfully apprehending or detaining.

The consent of the victim is only a defence in certain limited circumstances.

Summary:

As there is a bit of overlap between these different assault offences, I have summarised the key ideas in the following table.

Cheshire Man Jailed for Dazzling Police Helicopter with Laser Beam

A Cheshire man has been jailed for dazzling the pilot of a police helicopter with a laser beam.

David Warren, 41, of Eagle Mount, Latchford, admitted an offence of shining a laser beam at a moving vehicle when he appeared at Warrington Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 30th September 2024.

It is an offence under section 1 of the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018 for any person to:

• shine or direct a laser beam towards any vehicle which is moving or ready to move, and;
• the laser beam dazzles or distracts, or is likely to dazzle or distract, a person with control of the vehicle.

The offence is triable either way and has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

In the early hours on Tuesday, 27th August 2024 an NPAS helicopter was tasked to assist with searching for a missing man in the Latchford area.

A green laser beam was shone at the helicopter from the upstairs window of a property. Officers were directed to the property in question, where they found Warren.

Warren refused to open the door, so officers forced entry. Upon searching the property they recovered a green laser pointer from an upstairs bedroom.

In interview Warren admitted the offence, telling officers that he had been using the laser to point out the helicopter whilst filming it on his mobile phone.

Warren was subject to a suspended sentence order, having been convicted of threatening a person with a weapon just a week prior to the laser incident. He was handed a 23-week suspended sentence in relation to that offence.

In relation to the laser incident, Magistrates were of the view that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Warren was sentenced to 12 weeks' custody for the laser offence. The court also activated his 23 week suspended sentence in full, meaning an overall sentence of 35 weeks' custody.

He was also ordered to pay £154 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Magistrates also ordered the deprivation of his laser pointer.

Sergeant Michael Hayes of Cheshire Constabulary said: "While the person the police helicopter was searching for during this incident was ultimately located, shining the laser beam it its direction was incredibly dangerous, and could have seriously hindered their efforts to locate someone in need of help.

"The sentence handed to Warren should serve as a reminder of how serious this offence is considered.

"I hope it also reminds people of the risks associated with lasers, which some people may think of as a harmless device. This is far from the case and can have very serious consequences."