Government Announces Increased Sentencing Powers for Magistrates' Court

The Government has decided to increase the Magistrates' Court sentencing powers (yet again).

As I'm feeling particularly lazy this afternoon I'll direct readers to my earlier thoughts on this.

The nub of the matter (my previous words): "By giving the Magistrates' Courts greater sentencing powers, it means more either way offences can by tried and sentenced at the Magistrates' Court. This should result in defendants being remanded in custody for a short period of time, thus relieving the strain on prison places."

The Rt. Hon. Shabana Mahmood MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, said: "This Government inherited a Criminal Justice System in crisis, with dangerously overcrowded prisons and victims waiting far too long to see justice.

"This marks a further step towards addressing the deep challenges in our Criminal Justice System, both reducing the record remand population in our jails and delivering swifter justice for victims."

The Statutory Instrument to increase sentencing powers is due to be laid on 28th October and changes will come into force on 18th November 2024.

The usual suspects are already wagging their fingers in disapproval at the plan.

In an ideal world the nation would have the inclination and resources to recruit enough District Judges and Recorders to handle the most routine of criminal cases.

Back in the real world, it doesn't - so it's pointless carping on about the mere existence of the lay Magistracy.

North Yorkshire Voyeur "Felt Horny" Filming Woman on Toilet

A North Yorkshire man told police he "felt horny" when covertly filming a woman using the toilet.

Andrew Simpson, 52, of Kingfisher Drive, Pickering, admitted an offence voyeurism when he recently appeared at York Magistrates' Court.

He was sentenced at the same court on Wednesday, 16th October 2024.

Voyeurism is an offence under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Simpson, who had no previous convictions, used a covert spy pen to record the intimate footage of his unsuspecting victim using the toilet.

Few details are provided of the actual offence, which may be due to the proximity of the victim - who has a statutory entitlement to anonymity - to the defendant.

The woman later told police that she felt "disgusted and dirty" by Simpson's sordid conduct.

Kevin Blount, mitigating, told the court that as soon as Simpson realised his filming had been discovered, he immediately confessed to the police and his employer.

He had been drinking heavily at the time of the offence, but had since managed to moderate his alcohol intake.

The court heard that Simpson, who has a "responsible, well paid job" has been employed by the same company for more than a decade. He remains in employment, despite the company's awareness of his crime.

Mr Blount added that Simpson had been diagnosed with autism, which affected his understanding of social cues.

Magistrates were of the opinion that Simpson's offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, given his prospects of rehabilitation, they elected to suspend the custodial term.

Simpson was sentenced to 17 weeks' custody suspended for 18-months, with the requirement that he completes up to 15 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was ordered to pay £154 surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. The court likely ordered the payment of compensation to the woman, although reports are silent on that point.

Simpson was also made subject to sexual harm prevention order for the next 7 years.

Nottinghamshire Driver Swallowed Unlit Joint

A Nottinghamshire driver swallowed an unlit joint when police pulled him over for running red lights.

Richard Burrows, 37, of Common Lane, Hucknall, appeared at Mansfield Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 15th October 2024. 

He admitted driving when the concentration of a specified controlled drug, namely the cannabis metabolite THC, exceeded the specified limit, namely 2 microgrammes per litre of blood.

This is an offence under section 5(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. The offence also attracts an obligatory disqualification.

Magistrates' heard that Burrows overtook a police vehicle and jumped a red light at the junction of Annesley Road and Derby Road in Kirkby. Quite appropriately the incident took place on April Fools' Day.

The manner of his driving attracted the attention of the officers, who required his vehicle to stop. Approaching the vehicle the officers noticed him putting something, now admitted to be a cannabis joint, into his mouth and swallowing it.

Burrows told the officers he was in a hurrying to get his girlfriend home as she needed to use the toilet. He said he had slowed at the junction and checked it was safe to proceed before disregarding the red lights.

Burrows provided a specimen containing 14 microgrammes of THC in 1 litre of blood - seven times the specified limit mentioned earlier.

Lucy Whittaker, mitigating, said: "He had not smoked any cannabis that day - the reason for his high reading is he had an old joint in his car from the evening before.

"At the time he occasionally smoked at night to relax before bed. He panicked, scrunched (the joint) up into his hand, and put it into his mouth and swallowed it.

"We will now never know what his actual reading was because he swallowed a whole joint. He didn't feel great after doing that."

Magistrates fined Burrows £180 and ordered him to pay £48 surcharge and £95 towards prosecution costs.

He was also disqualified from driving for 3 years.

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.