Social Media Auditor Clobbered with £32k Costs Order After Failed False Imprisonment Claim

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Kevin Brown, 35, of Blackburn, goes by the name of Auditing Lancashire on YouTube.

Feeling really sorry for himself, Brown recently uploaded full details of his court failure to his YouTube channel. The upload, which has now been deleted, included full footage of the incident as well as various stills of court documents.

Fortunately another YouTube channel, Street Video Reviewer, managed to grab a copy of Brown's video before he deleted it. Street Video Reviewer has given a commentary on Brown's case.

There is nothing I will be mentioning here that has not been publicly shared by Brown himself.

If anyone has not come across the crass phenomenon of auditing before, then aren't you the lucky one?! Please see my earlier whistle stop guide to auditing for background information.

In the simplest of terms, it involves "an auditor" filming in such a manner as to provoke a reaction, which they hope will result in a popular - therefore lucrative - upload on social media later on.

The auditor will often claim they are exercising their rights to film in a public place, but that is very much a secondary consideration to generating controversial, click generating content.

I reiterate one of my previous comments, which is of relevance in this particular case. Some auditors have realised that if they provoke a reaction from police officers, they might well be in a position to make a civil claim later on. They are actively staging and pursuing these vexatious claims as an alternative revenue stream. They are deliberately setting up police officers in the hope of making a few extra quid.

Brown, shown in the custody mugshot above (which you can read more about here), was filming at the rear of Greenbank Police Station, Blackburn, at 0330 hrs on Thursday, 29th September 2022.

Sergeant Kerr, who was in the yard of the police station, noticed Brown filming through the gate.

It being pitch black and the dead of night, Sergeant Kerr considered Brown's activity unusual enough to approach the gate and ask what he was doing.

It should also be noted that Brown was dressed in camouflage clothing and was wearing a face covering. The terrorism threat level at the time was "substantial", which indicated an attack was likely.

"Are you taking pictures of people's private vehicles?" asked Sergeant Kerr from the other side of the gate.

"Pardon" replied Brown.

"Are you taking pictures of people's private vehicles?" Sergeant Kerr repeated.

"I don't understand" replied Brown, trying to feign a foreign accent.

"I'm sure you do" replied Sergeant Kerr.

"I don't speaking English" replied Brown, in his native Lancastrian twang.

"You're speaking it" noted Sergeant Kerr.

"Why are you filming me? It's not a good idea to film people's private vehicles" Sergeant Kerr continued.

Brown stood silently with his camera trained on Sergeant Kerr, who then took the 30 second stroll around to the public side of the gate.

On arriving at Brown, Sergeant Kerr asked: "What's your name?"

"Why?" replied Brown.

"Because you're acting suspiciously" replied Sergeant Kerr.

I'm not going to transcribe the whole video, because I think I've illustrated the point already - Brown's behaviour was certainly very unusual and Sergeant Kerr was right to be suspicious about it. Not many legitimate photographers and videographers head out in the dead of night. Those that do, generally don't pretend to be foreign when they clearly aren't.

It's at that stage that Sergeant Kerr took hold of Brown, who no doubt saw the pound signs flickering before his eyes.

After a few minutes of Brown accusing Sergeant Kerr of abusing his powers, a second police officer approached. Brown then acknowledged for the first time that he was filming the police station. The second officer, Chief Inspector Black, told Sergeant Kerr to let Brown go, which he did.

Brown sued Lancashire Constabulary for false imprisonment and trespass to his person. 

HHJ Jacqueline Beech, presiding over the trial at Preston County Court, described Brown's behaviour outside the police station as "utterly unacceptable" and said that in her view it was designed to provoke Sergeant Kerr. The Judge noted that Sergeant Kerr's use of force was necessary and reasonable.

Brown has been ordered to pay costs of £30,575 to Lancashire Constabulary. HNK Solicitors, the firm of choice for litigious auditors, are also asking for costs of £1,175 for taking the matter to trial.

It is unlikely Brown will have sufficient assets to pay those costs, but at least they will be hanging over his head for a while.

It would be nice if this was the beginning of the police defending these most meritless of actions commenced by auditors. For far too long the default setting of the police has been to roll over and settle.

Grumpy Dorset Driver Obstructed and Abused Speed Camera Operator

A grumpy Dorset driver obstructed and abused a speed camera operator.

Richard Arnold, 61, of Bournemouth, admitted offences of obstructing a designated person and disorderly behaviour when he recently appeared at Southampton Magistrates' Court.

As Arnold has now discovered, it is an offence under section 46 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to wilfully obstruct a designated person, like a speed camera operator, in the exercise of their duties. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is one months' custody and/or a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

Magistrates heard that camera operator Richard Mackenzie was carrying out speed enforcement duties on the A348 at Ferndown, Dorset, on Tuesday, 29th October 2024.

Robert Salamé, prosecuting, said: "At 12.34pm the defendant stopped his Peugeot tipper-type vehicle in the layby to take a phone call, obstructing the view of the camera.

"Mr Mackenzie informed the driver he was compromising the ability of the camera and asked him to move. He ignored this request because he was on the phone."

At the second time of asking, Arnold became abusive and told Mr Mackenzie to "fuck off".

Arnold's brother, who was a passenger in the Peugeot, also became abusive towards the officer, who by this time had radioed for police assistance and was making his van to the sanctuary of his van.

Mr Mackenzie tried to placate Arnold by saying "I'm just doing my job", to which the irate motorist replied "And I'm doing mine, so go fuck yourself".

Body worn video caught the defendant calling Mr Mackenzie a "fucking jobsworth" and telling him "I want to report you for being a fucking prick".

Arnold's closing volley was to tell Mr Mackenzie that he hoped he returned home to find his family dead.

Representing himself Arnold told the court: "The phone went in my truck and my hands free wasn't working so I thought I would do the right thing and pull into the layby."

He explained that his baby grandson had been admitted to hospital the previous day, so it was important he took the call.

Arnold continued: "I said things I shouldn't have said and I apologise to the court for that. It was a foolish mistake and will never happen again."

Iain Stevenson JP, Presiding Justice, said: "As we saw in the video, this was a pretty horrendous incident. It was very frightening and completely unwarranted upon the police support officer.

"There are absolutely no mitigating circumstances in that video. Your behaviour was frankly diabolical and appalling, towards somebody doing their duty."

Magistrates were of the view that Arnold's offences were serious enough to justify a community order.

He was sentenced to 12-month community order with 120 hours' unpaid work requirement.

He was also ordered to pay £150 in compensation, £114 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

What horrendous behaviour and so unnecessary. Had Arnold simply continued his phone call and wandered off down the verge then this would never have got to court.

Wanton Vandalism: Drunken RAF Engineers Shame Service by Destroying Paddington Bear Statue

A pair of RAF engineers have brought shame on the service by drunkenly destroying a statue of Paddington Bear in Newbury town centre.

Daniel Heath, 22, of Oakhall Park, Thornton, West Yorkshire, and William Lawrence, 22, of John Street, Enderby, Leicestershire, admitted an offence of criminal damage when they appeared at Reading Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 25th March 2025.

Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal damage over £5,000 has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment. We have previously written a guide to the offence of criminal damage, which some readers may find of interest.

District Judge Sam Goozee heard that the pair, who are based at RAF Odiham, had been drinking in Newbury until the early hours of Sunday, 2nd March 2025.

They were caught on CCTV breaking apart the recently-installed Paddington Bear statue on Northbrook Street and making off with part of it.

The drunken airmen then got a taxi back to RAF Odiham, where the damaged statue was later recovered from the boot of Lawrence's car.

The £15,000 fibre glass statue was unveiled in October 2024, to mark the release of animated adventure comedy Paddington in Peru. It is expected that the creator will be able to repair the damage for £5,450.

Michael Bond, the author of the original Paddington books, was born in Newbury.

Addressing the pair, DJ Goozee said: "It was an act of wanton vandalism.

"Paddington Bear is a beloved cultural icon with children and adults alike. He represents kindness, tolerance and promotes integration and acceptance in our society.

"His famous label attached to his duffel coat says, 'Please look after this bear' but on the night of 2nd March, your actions were the antithesis of everything Paddington stands for.

"Your actions lacked respect and integrity, two values you should uphold as members of the armed forces."

Heath and Lawrence were each made subject to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work requirement.

They were each ordered to pay £2,725 in compensation, £114 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Of more concern to them will be the fact that they'll be getting the hairdryer treatment from the Station Warrant Officer - and that's just for starters.

Inspector Alan Hawkett, of the Newbury Neighbourhood Policing Team, said: "I am pleased Daniel Heath and William Lawrence have admitted to damaging and stealing the Paddington Bear statue and they have been sentenced accordingly.

"The Paddington Bear statue is a beloved part of Newbury so we did everything we could to locate it and bring the offenders to justice.

"After a short stay at Newbury police station, we handed the statue back to its owners so it can be restored.

"Criminal damage and theft are serious offences regardless of the target, and we will always look to investigate and have offenders punished proportionately, including being put before the courts."

Another example of the perils of drinking on an empty head.

Scarborough Magistrates' Court Bans Mobile TV Viewing - On Legal Falsehood

Scarborough Magistrates' Court has become the first in England and Wales to ban users from watching TV on their devices while they are waiting.

According to the Express, a (very wordy) notice has been attached to the waiting room wall saying: "It's a criminal offence to watch or listen to the following within the court building. Any TV channel, including BBC iPlayer, Sky, Virgin, or any other pay TV service. This includes live streaming Amazon Prime video, Netflix or YouTube. This also includes watching, recording and downloading on any device."

TV Licensing is said to have sent the court one of its scary missives, warning that unless people refrain from watching "live" TV in the building there will be legal consequences. You can read more about TV licence requirements in my earlier guide.

It appears that court managers have interpreted the letter a bit too strictly, as in most circumstances those sitting in the waiting room will already be covered to watch "live" TV on their mobile devices, by virtue of their home TV licence.

The rules allow anyone whose residential property is covered by a valid TV licence to watch "live" TV programmes on a mobile device absolutely anywhere else. That includes when they are sitting in a residential or business premises that is not covered by its own TV licence, like Scarborough Magistrates' Court.

To be fair to TV Licensing, it has actually clarified that point by telling the Express: "People covered by a TV licence at their home address can watch BBC iPlayer or stream live content on a battery-powered device anywhere. And you don't need a licence to watch other on-demand programming on Netflix or other platforms."

So it would appear that the Scarborough ban is a bit of knee-jerk reaction on the part of court bosses. I would fully expect the removal of the notice sometime soon.