Update: Sunderland GP Sentenced for Attempted Murder of Mother's Partner

A Sunderland GP has been sentenced to 31 years in prison for the attempted murder of his mother's former partner, who he saw as an obstacle on the path to inheritance.

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.

During the prosecution opening Peter Makepeace KC described Kwan's audacious plot to murder his mother's former partner, 71-year-old Patrick O'Hara, by injecting him with the pesticide methyl iodide.

In a plot befitting a Hollywood blockbuster, the depraved medic donned a disguise and assumed a false identity to attend the home Mr O'Hara shared with his mother, 73-year-old Jenny Leung.

Under the guise of community nurse Raj Patel, a heavily disguised Kwan was able to secure entry to the central Newcastle property and undertake a medical examination of Mr O'Hara.

After almost an hour the fake nurse concluded his consultation by administering what he said was a covid booster jab. Mr O'Hara immediately winced in pain as the noxious chemical methyl iodide entered his bloodstream.

In faked broken English "Raj Patel" made his excuses and made good his escape, reassuring his patient that localised pain was perfectly normal.

Mr O'Hara was left with the debilitating, flesh-eating condition necrotising fasciitis as a result of Kwan's noxious ministrations. He spent almost two months in hospital recovering from the ordeal. His relationship with Ms Leung has also ended in the intervening months.

You can read more about this astounding plot in my earlier article.

Speaking in a victim personal statement, Mr O'Hara said: "Overall, this incident should have been the end of me. The nature of what had occurred to my body has left me speechless.

"Had it not been for medical intervention I am positive that not only would I have lost my left arm, but my life as well.

"I feel incredibly guilty and fearful that some day Thomas will be released from prison and I am petrified that he will cause harm to my loved ones as a result of me assisting the police in his prosecution."

Mr O'Hara concluded: "I hope that Thomas is held accountable for the despicable crime he has committed against me."

Mrs Justice Lambert, sentencing on 6th November 2024, described Kwan as being a dangerous offender who was obsessed with money.

She told him: "By your masquerade you struck at the very heart of public confidence in the healthcare system."

Kwan was jailed for 31 years and 5 months, of which he must serve two-thirds in custody before being considered for parole.

More than 10,000 Drivers on the Road Despite 12 Penalty Points

More than 10,000 drivers are still on the road despite having 12 or more active penalty points on their licence.

DVLA records show that 10,056 drivers, who would ordinarily be disqualified under the totting up rule, have been allowed to continue driving despite their poor record.

Of those fifty-three drivers have 30 or more active penalty points and, astonishingly, three have 100 or more active penalty points.

Nick Lyes, Policy & Safety Director of road safety charity IAM RoadSmart, told the Guardian: "These shocking statistics call into question whether the definition of exceptional hardship needs reviewing.

"Any driver that is on the cusp of a ban would normally take heed of the risk of losing their licence, but it seems that a minority continue to break the law without any consideration.

"At the very least, those that accrue 12 or more points on their licence should be required to take an additional training course, even if they are allowed to keep their licence because a court has deemed that losing it would cause exceptional hardship."

Section 35(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires that the court disqualifies a person from driving when they accumulate 12 or more active penalty points unless, having regard to all the circumstances, it is satisfied there are exceptional mitigating reasons not to do so.

I have previously discussed the totting up rule and exceptional hardship. In order to qualify as exceptional hardship the circumstances of the offender must be truly exceptional.

The consequences of disqualification in their particular circumstances must be far in excess of the normal frustration and inconvenience of not being able to drive. This often means the disqualification has a severely detrimental impact on an innocent third party - perhaps the co-worker who relies on them for daily transport, or the chronically ill relative who relies on them for getting to hospital appointments.

In a large proportion of exceptional hardship cases the applicant represents them self. It would be entirely fair to say that an increasing number are becoming wise to the circumstances that might qualify. Some bring evidence in support of their application, but a significant proportion do not.

The success of the application often boils down to the words of the applicant in the witness box. They give their evidence on oath, so the consequences of dishonesty are potentially very severe. The court has no option but to take them at their word - word that will probably never be checked or verified.

Personally I am not a fan of the legislation, but I understand why it exists and cannot suggest a more workable alternative. Parliament has thrown drivers this statutory lifeline and it is not for the court to retract it.

Even so, I am struggling to imagine a situation where a driver with 100 or more active penalty points is permitted to remain on the roads.

Freeganism, Skip Diving and the Law

I absolutely detest waste.

To me it is absolutely obscene that the UK throws away around 10 million tonnes of perfectly good food every year. Around 15 percent of that originates from retail and hospitality premises. 

Every night across the land supermarkets, restaurants and hotels are loading their bins with perfectly good food that will not keep for another day, or that has been prepared in excess of their requirements.

So where does the law stand on people liberating waste from skips and bins?

If they have permission of the person owning or controlling the skip or bin, then there is absolutely no problem at all. If they don't then they could, at least in theory, fall foul of the law.

Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 defines the offence of theft as thus: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly."

I have previously written a quick guide to the offence of theft, which readers may find of interest.

There are five elements to the offence - three involving the actus reus (the guilty act) and two involving the mens rea (the guilty state of mind). All five elements must coincide in order for the offence to be made out.

In terms of mens rea theft can only be committed by a person acting dishonestly, which is why a person who has sought permission via the correct avenues, and accepted it in good faith, cannot be guilty of theft.

In terms of actus reus, a person can only be guilty of theft if they appropriate property belonging to another. Appropriation is very broadly defined to encompass any act where a person behaves as if they are the owner of property. Removing items from a skip or bin is most definitely appropriation. The property must also belong to another, which is not quite so clear cut.

It is a fact of the law that property that has been abandoned, therefore which has no owner, cannot be stolen. Abandonment means the owner has relinquished all rights and interest in the property. It also means, crucially, that they have not passed those rights or interest to anyone else.

You might think that disposal of property in a skip or bin signifies the owner's abandonment of it, but the law does not adopt that viewpoint.

In the case of Williams v Phillips (1957) 41 Cr App R 5 the Divisional Court was required to consider whether rubbish left outside on the street for collection could be considered abandoned property.

The court took the view that as long as the rubbish was on the street it belonged to the householder who put it there. It further determined that ownership of the rubbish transferred to the local authority when it was placed in the bin lorry.

The matter was revisited in the case of Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 15. In that case the Divisional Court was called on to consider whether clothing left in bin bags outside a charity shop had been abandoned.

Not surprisingly, the court took the view that the donor had intended ownership of the clothing to pass to the charities concerned. In common with the earlier case, it was of the view that ownership remained with the donor until the charity had taken possession of the clothing.

The upshot of the legislation and case law is that anyone who removes items from either a skip or bin without first seeking permission is likely to be guilty of theft.

The court is not flooded with people accused of stealing from skips and bins, but it does occasionally happen.

I recall a case more than a decade ago where two freegans were accused of theft having been caught bin diving at the rear of a supermarket.

Given the media interest the matter was dealt with by a District Judge, who suitably berated the prosecutor for the mere fact it was before the court.

Having begrudgingly concluded that the offence was made out the Judge, who is sadly now departed, handed the couple an absolute discharge to mark the conviction, again reiterating the absurdity of the situation.

Prosecution in these circumstances is rarely in the public interest, which is why you hear of very few similar cases.

Canadian Bull Semen Expert Avoids Totting Disqualification

A Canadian bull semen expert has avoided a driving disqualification, after the court accepted it would cause exceptional hardship.

Exeter Magistrates heard that David Hawkins, 65, of Littletown Road, Honiton, Devon, was clocked at 80 mph on the A30 dual carriageway near Tedburn St Mary in December 2023. The road was subject to a 70 mph speed limit.

Hawkins already had nine penalty points on his licence, arising from three earlier speeding offences. The three further penalty points arising from this latest offence would ordinarily result in a disqualification under the totting up rule.

However, Magistrates heard that the (unique) nature of his job was such that he would be unable to carry the tools of the trade on public transport. It would also be a struggle to visit clients at their rural locations. This would result in a downturn in work, which would place the jobs of his employees at risk.

Magistrates were of the view that Hawkins' disqualification would result in exceptional hardship.

That being the case they endorsed his licence with 3 penalty points taking the total to 15 points, but allowed him to remain on the road.

He was also fined for the offence.