Jury Reforms Remain on the Table

News yesterday that the new Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt. Hon. Alex Norris MP, plans to press ahead with reforms to trial by jury.

Proposed changes in legislation would also extend the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court to 18 months for a single either way offence, with the door left ajar to increase that even further to 24 months via secondary legislation.

The reforms, first proposed by former Justice Secretary the Rt. Hon. David Lammy MP, received what can only be described as a rather tepid reception from members of the legal profession. The installation of a new Prime Minister provided the ideal opportunity to quietly euthanise the controversial reforms, but apparently the Burnham Ministry wishes to press ahead with them regardless.

The Government is apparently very, very keen to push as many cases as possible through the Magistrates' Court. The Magistrates' Court has two significant advantages over the Crown Court - cases can be processed much faster and at a fraction of the cost. However, there are serious concerns about curtailing the right of defendants to elect a trial by jury. Faster and cheaper is not necessarily the best option in the interests of justice.

I have previously set out my stall on this matter, as you can read in an earlier article. In short, I would be seeking efficiencies in the system as it currently exists.

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.

Perverted Powys Pensioner Downloaded Indecent Images

A perverted Powys pensioner was snared by police after his bank account was linked to the trade in indecent images.

John Agnew, 72, of Pentybont near Llandrindod Wells, admitted the following offences when he appeared at Llandrindod Wells Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 29th September 2026:

• Possession of a category A indecent photograph of a child;
• Two offences of possession of a category B indecent photograph of a child;
• Possession of an extreme pornographic image involving an animal.

Category A images feature penetrative sexual activity; category B images feature non-penetrative sexual activity.

Possession of an indecent photograph of a child 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.

Magistrates heard that police raided Agnew's home on 13th February 2025, as a result of intelligence received in relation to his banking activities.

Several devices were seized, subsequent analysis of which revealed his sickening stash of images.

The 72-year-old has no previous convictions.

Gavin Rofer, mitigating, said: "The primary consideration now is whether he is sentenced here or in the crown court. He has entered guilty pleas to all matters at the first opportunity.

"It is rare to see just one image of Category A and two of Category B; usually they run into the thousands.

"The court has more than enough power to deal with this matter. Of course, you will require a report."

Magistrates ordered an all options pre-sentence report.

Agnew was granted conditional bail until his next hearing at Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 21st October 2026, when he will either be sentenced or have his case sent to the Crown Court.

By virtue of his conviction, he was also made subject to the notification requirements of the sex offenders register.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

More on School Non-Attendance

As previously discussed here on Magistrates' Blog, section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 makes it an offence for a child of compulsory school age to fail to regularly attend the school at which they are registered.

Offences stemming from unauthorised holidays taken during term time represent a large majority of cases before the court.

It is now very unusual for the head teacher of a school to authorise a child's holiday during term time. In the event that permission is refused, it is nearly always the case that the parent will remove their child from school and go on holiday regardless.

In those circumstances the head teacher has to decide whether or not to let the matter slide or refer it to the relevant local authority's education welfare service. If satisfied that an offence has been committed, the education welfare service will then issue a fixed penalty notice to the parent or parents concerned (in the case of joint parental responsibility, each parent can be held liable).

A fixed penalty is a conditional offer of an out of court disposal. For a first offence, the fixed penalty is currently £80 if paid within 21 days. This increases to £160 if paid within 28 days. A second or subsequent offence within the space of 3 years attracts a larger fixed penalty.

A parent will only be prosecuted if they reject or ignore the offer of a fixed penalty. Prosecution tends to happen via the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), which I have discussed at length elsewhere. It therefore follows that a parent will normally only appear before the court if they have rejected or ignored the offer of a fixed penalty and:

• Either, entered a guilty plea via the SJP and requested a hearing;
• Or, entered a not guilty plea via the SJP.

Invariably a lot of these parents have a gripe with the school concerned and think it has acted unreasonably by having the matter prosecuted. A lot of them misunderstand the legislation, particularly with regard to what constitutes regular attendance.

The Supreme Court, in Isle of Wight Council v Platt [2017] UKSC 28, has provided a definitive interpretation of the meaning of regular attendance for the purposes of section 444. The court determined that regular attendance meant "in accordance with the rules prescribed by the school".

In other words, regular attendance requires a child to attend school on every day it is open to pupils, unless they have a legitimate reason for not doing so. An unauthorised holiday is not a legitimate reason for non-attendance.

This means that a child with 99% attendance could be deemed not to have attended school regularly, if they were absent for any period of time without legitimate reason. A parent can be prosecuted on that basis.

As this is a Supreme Court judgment it is not open to the Magistrates' Court to interpret in any different way.

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.

Car Crash Fisherman Tried to Pin Blame on Dead Woman

A Pembrokeshire fisherman tried to pin the blame on a dead woman after his car was involved in a collision.

Jake Bowman-Davies, 28, of Trafalgar Road, Haverfordwest admitted offences of failing to provide a specimen for analysis and obstructing a police constable when he recently appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court.

It is an offence under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person, without reasonable excuse, to fail provide a specimen for analysis when required to do so. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is an unlimited fine and/or 6 months' custody.

Magistrates heard that police attended the single vehicle collision at around midnight on Saturday, 8th August 2026.

Bowman-Davies was at the scene and when the officer asked who had been driving the vehicle, he replied that it had been someone called Elaine.

Unbeknown to the 28-year-old the officer was already aware that Elaine had died sometime earlier.

Having grounds to suspect that Bowman-Davies had in fact been driving, the officer required him to provide a roadside specimen of breath. Bowman-Davies refused to do so without reasonable excuse. He later refused a second request at the hospital.

Tom Lloyd, mitigating, reminded the court that his client was entitled to full credit for his early guilty plea. Furthermore, he had cooperated fully with the Probation Service during the preparation of a pre-sentencer report.

Bowman-Davies had a previous conviction for drug driving from 2021.

Magistrates were of the view that Bowman-Davies' offences were serious enough to merit a community order.

He was made subject to 12-month community order with 90 days' alcohol abstinance monitoring requirement and up to 15 days' rehabilitation requirement.

The 28-year-old was also ordered to pay £114 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

This being his second relevant offence within a ten year period, he was also disqualified from driving for a period of 3 years.

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.