Hereford Voyeur Recorded Women Using Toilet

A Hereford man secretly recorded women using the toilet and getting dressed.

Adrian Hooper, 36, of Ryelands Street, Hereford, admitted six offences of voyeurism when he appeared at Hereford Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 24th February 2026.

Voyeurism is an offence under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment. It should be noted that at the time Hooper's particular offences were committed, the maximum sentence on summary conviction was 26 weeks' custody.

Hooper recorded eight different women at several unnamed locations between 2008 and 2021. No further details are provided, so it is not clear how he was able to install the recording devices.

Magistrates were of the opinion that Hooper's offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, for reasons that have again gone unreported, they decided it was appropriate to suspend the custodial term.

Hooper was sentenced to 26 weeks' in custody suspended for 24 months, with the requirements that he completes 250 hours' unpaid work and up to 25 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also ordered to pay £3,000 in compensation, £154 surcharge and £154 towards prosecution costs.

Hooper was also made subject to the notification requirements of the sex offenders register for a period of 7 years.

Government Introduces Landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill

The Government has introduced its landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill.

The Bill, which had its first reading on Tuesday (25/2/2026), takes its inspiration from Sir Brian Leveson's "once in a generation" review of the criminal courts system in England and Wales.

You can view the Bill as introduced here. Alternatively the Ministry of Justice has produced a factsheet summarising its key clauses.

Below I briefly summarise those directly affecting the work of the Magistrates' Court.

1. Removal of right to elect Crown Court trial:

The opening clause of the Bill seeks to remove the right of a defendant accused of an either way offence to elect a Crown Court trial (trial on indictment).

As things currently stand the Magistrates' Court determines whether or not an either way offence is suitable for either trial there (summary trial) or trial on indictment.

If the Magistrates' Court declines jurisdiction, then the matter will proceed to the Crown Court for trial on indictment. Alternatively, if the Magistrates' Court accepts jurisdiction then the defendant has the final choice between summary trial or trial on indictment.

The Bill seeks to remove this final choice. If the Magistrates' Court determines that an offence is suitable for summary trial, then that is how the matter will proceed. The defendant will no longer have the option of electing trial on indictment.

2. Increasing the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court:

As things currently stand the Magistrates' Court can impose a maximum sentence of 12 months in custody for an either way offence.

The Bill will amend the Sentencing Act 2020 so that in future the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations increasing the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court up to a maximum of either 18 or 24 months in custody.

3. Removing the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court:

Under current rules anyone convicted of an offence at the Magistrates' Court has an automatic right of appeal against conviction and/or sentence to the Crown Court. The current appeal process, as described in an earlier article, involves a complete rehearing of the case as presented at the Magistrates' Court.

The Bill will amend the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 so that an appeal can only be brought with leave of the Crown Court. Instead of a complete rehearing, an appeal will be a hearing on the issues for which leave to appeal has been granted. A judge of the Crown Court will preside over the appeal hearing and there will no longer be any involvement of Magistrates.

Police Seize Cash from Cross-Border Vegetable Run

Cumbria Police recovered £29,000 in cash from a vehicle travelling south on the M6.

Officers' attention was drawn to the Seat Alhambra as it sped through the county on Wednesday, 18th February 2026.

As a result of information obtained they caused the vehicle to stop and conducted a search of it.

Inside they discovered £29,000 in cash contained within two plastic bags.

The 37-year-old driver told officers he had travelled to Glasgow the previous day and was on his way home to London.

The nervous-looking driver claimed to have been given the cash at a vegetable shop in Glasgow, but was unable to provide its name or address. He also had no documents confirming the origin of the cash.

Cumbria Police made an application to Carlisle Magistrates' Court for the detention of the cash.

Addressing the court, the investigator said: "I have reasonable grounds to suspect the cash is recoverable property or intended to be used in unlawful conduct."

Magistrates granted the application.

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.

Northamptonshire Huntsman Admits Hounds Hunted Hare

A Northamptonshire huntsman has admitted that the hounds under his control were used to hunt and kill a hare.

Philip Saunders, 45, of Irchester, admitted an offence of non-exempt hunting of a wild mammal with dogs during his trial at Northampton Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 17th February 2026.

This is an offence under section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004. It has a maximum sentence of an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Saunders was on trial with co-accused Rachael Lenton, 42, of Raunds and Pipewell Foot Beagles Limited. Both Lenton and the company were cleared of the offence.

After a bit of last minute horse-trading between the parties, District Judge Amar Mehta was informed that Saunders would like to change his plea to one of guilty.

Neil Sands, prosecuting, said: "It is accepted by Saunders that he was involved in the hunting of a protected animal.

"It is clear that the hounds were in that field and that he said 'get on it, get after it' – they are unambiguous statements. He was ordering the hounds to attack the hare.

"He now accepts that that dogs were under his supervision."

In what can only be described as a non-standard application, Mr Sands requested the destruction of Saunders' hunting horn.

He said: "The Crown seeks forfeiture of the hunting horn. That might seem a petty action but that instrument was used in the demise of the protected animal - a hare.

"The hunting community should understand there are consequences to their actions."

Saunders was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £3,600 costs and £500 surcharge.

Turning to ancillaries orders, DJ Mehta added: "I order the destruction of the hunting horn involved in this offence.

"Mr Saunders you must surrender it to the police by 5pm on 19th February."

As mentioned in my earlier article, the court has wide ranging powers to order the deprivation of any item used to facilitate the commission of an offence, which would include the hunting horn in this case.

The court can make a deprivation order of its own initiative. It is a power often used to deprive thieves of their tools, but is pretty unusual in circumstances like this.

A few pro-hunting commentators have criticised this order as being a bit on the petty side.

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.