Ipswich Man Admits Sharing Vile Video of Dead Motorcyclist

An Ipswich man uploaded vile video footage of the body of a dead motorcyclist in the immediate aftermath of a road traffic collision.

Arturas Motuzis, 38, of Chilton Court, Belstead Avenue, Ipswich, admitted an offence under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 when he appeared at Suffolk Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 19th December 2024.

Motuzis was also admitted using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving.

It is an offence under section 127(1) of the 2003 Act for a person to send, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. The maximum sentence, on summary conviction, is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

Magistrates heard that the collision occurred on the A14 at Sproughton, Ipswich, on the early evening of Tuesday, 4th June 2024.

Motuzis, who was driving home from work, passed on the opposite carriageway. As he did he used his mobile phone to record footage of the scene, including the body of motorcyclist Kevin Doherty.

The footage was later uploaded to a Facebook traffic information group, which resulted in numerous requests for it to be removed. The police were also informed about the graphic nature of the video.

The following day Motuzis was identified and arrested. In interview he made full admissions and said he was remorseful for his actions.

Addressing the defendant, the Presiding Justice said: "We have just heard of the vile actions you took on 4th June. This is one of the most distasteful things we have heard for many years in this court."

Motuzis was fined a total of £900.

He was also ordered to pay £360 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

His licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points.

Cheshire Village Rocked by Conifer Scandal

The tranquility of a tiny Cheshire village has been shattered by a row over conifer hedging.

Thomas Jones thought he was doing the village a service by cutting back the unkempt hedgerow that had been left to grow uncontrollably. However, his neighbour, who owned the hedge, decided to repay his act of benevolence by reporting his actions to the police.

Jones, 46, of Station Road, Lea by Backford, Chester, begrudgingly admitted an offence of criminal damage when he appeared recently at Chester Magistrates' Court.

Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal damage below £5,000 is a summary offence, with a maximum sentence of 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4. We have previously written a guide to the offence of criminal damage, which some readers may find of interest.

Prosecutor Valeriya Tonkinson told the court that the owner of the hedge had returned home on Thursday, 10th October 2024, to find Jones and his partner cutting back the offending piece of hedgerow.

When the owner challenged Jones, she was told that she never cut the hedge and "people need to get past".

The court heard that the owner of the hedge shortly intends to sell her property.

Jones attended court with the intention of denying the offence, on the basis that his actions had been "in the public interest". However, after a quick chat with the duty solicitor, he reluctantly accepted that he had been in the wrong.

Stevie Bate, mitigating, said: "He incorrectly thought he was doing the public a favour in cutting back the trees as they were on a bend and were hard for people to get past.

"But he does accept that he was not in the right to cut the trees down and was legally wrong."

Ms Bate added that the farm labourer had refused to accept a police caution, which is why the matter had ended up in court.

Jane Davies, Presiding Justice, told Jones: "There is a process and you didn't follow it, which you now know."

Jones was handed a 6-month conditional discharge.

He was also ordered to pay £100 in compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £26 surcharge.

So what would have been the correct procedure?

Well, had the hedge been encroaching into Jones' property he would have been absolutely in his rights to trim it back to the boundary. In those circumstances the cuttings would still belong to the owner of the hedge, so they should be offered back to them before any attempts at disposal.

As it goes, the hedge was encroaching onto the public highway adjacent to the owner's property. In those circumstances the correct approach would have been to report that matter to the local authority. The local authority has various statutory powers, including those under section 154(1) of the Highways Act 1980, to require the owner to undertake remedial work.

And what do I think of this particular case?

Well, I'm sure it was very important to the owner of the hedge. Even if it was a completely unnecessary waste of everyone else's time.

Attention-Seeking Starlet Victoria Thomas Bowen Sentenced for Milkshaking Nigel Farage

Attention-seeking starlet Victoria Thomas Bowen has been sentenced for milkshaking Nigel Farage during a campaign walkabout.

Thomas Bowen, 25, of St Osyth Road, Clacton, admitted offences of assault by beating and criminal damage when she appeared for trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday, 21st October 2024.

She was sentenced by the same court on Monday, 16th December 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. 

Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal damage below £5,000 is a summary offence, with a maximum sentence of 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4.

The 25-year-old OnlyFans model slung a milkshake at Mr Farage, the recently elected Reform UK MP for Clacton, as he left the town's Moon and Starfish pub on Tuesday, 4th June 2024.

The assault resulted in £17.50 worth of damage being caused to the jacket of a member of Mr Farage's team.

When questioned by police the immature influencer said she "did not regret" her actions, which were because she "disagrees with [Mr Farage's] political views".

District Judge Tan Ikram, at the first hearing, said: "This was an unprovoked, targeted attack now on an elected Member of Parliament.

"I take a serious view of these offences. I am seeking a pre-sentence report which will consider all options for sentence."

Thomas Bowen was sentenced to 13 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with the requirement that she completes up to 15 days' rehabilitation activity and 120 hours' unpaid work.

She was also ordered to pay £167.50 in compensation (£150 to Mr Farage and £17.50 in dry cleaning), £154 surcharge and £450 towards prosecution costs.

Speaking on social media platform X, Mr Farage said: "We now live in a country where you can assault a Member of Parliament and not go to prison.

"The latest example of two-tier justice."

It is not the first time Mr Farage has been milkshaked on the campaign trail. A similar incident happened in May 2019, when the then Brexit Party leader was campaigning in Newcastle a few days before the European Parliament elections.

Local man Paul Crowther saw Mr Farage walking beside the city's Grey's Monument and took the opportunity to douse him with milkshake. Crowther was later handed a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work requirement.

In June 2024 Derbyshire man Joshua Grealley threw objects at Mr Farage when he was campaigning in Barnsley. The 28-year-old, who had no previous convictions, was handed a 6-week suspended sentence with 120 hours' unpaid work requirement.

High Court Bans Identification of Sara Sharif Family Court Judges

The High Court has banned the identification of the Family Court judges who oversaw proceedings in relation to murdered 10-year-old Sara Sharif.

Urfan Sharif, 43, and Beinash Batool, 30, were convicted of Sara's murder following a nine-week trial at the Old Bailey. The pair are due to be sentenced on Tuesday, 17th December 2024.

Sara's killing is too upsetting to write about in detail. Even more upsetting is the fact that the authorities had concerns about the parental suitability of Urfan Sharif.

Last week Mr Justice Williams made an order preventing the naming of the Family Court judges, and others, involved in the decision to grant custody of the children to Urfan Sharif.

The order prohibits publication of "the name of any third parties referred to in the historic proceedings for the avoidance of doubt including social worker, guardian other named professionals and experts instructed in the proceedings and any judge who heard the historic proceedings".

Such an order is highly unusual.

There is a strong chance the professionals working closely with the Sharif family will face an uncomfortable degree of scrutiny and attract a lot of criticism.

In some cases that might, arguably, be scrutiny and criticism well beyond their pay scale, particularly when those in higher office were aware of the risks posed by Urfan Sharif.

However, if you're a member of the judiciary then criticism comes with the territory - you accept that everyone has an opinion and quite often it will contradict your own.

A fundamental aspect of the principle of open justice is that the public has a right to know which judges preside over which cases.

Even in the Magistrates' Court if a journalist or member of the public asks for the names of the Bench, they are entitled to receive that information.

The Guardian is going to appeal Williams J's decision.