Litigious Solicitor Convicted of Stalking Court Observer

A litigious solicitor has been convicted of stalking a court observer.

Andrew Jonathan Milne, 63, denied an offence of stalking but was convicted on Tuesday, 10th February 2026, following a seven day trial at Stratford Magistrates' Court.

Stalking is an offence under section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It has a maximum sentence of 51 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

Over the course of the trial District Judge Lisa Towell heard that the 63-year-old lawyer had developed what can only be described as an unhealthy obsession with blogger and court observer Daniel Cloake.

Mr Cloake, the brains behind investigative court reporting blog Mouse in the Court, was bombarded with "oppressive and unreasonable" correspondence by Milne, some of which included sexual innuendo and threats of litigation.

In addition to sending 120 emails, Milne also visited Mr Cloake's home, sent him a birthday gift and left two voicemail messages.

Mr Cloake responded "thanks" to only one email and ignored the others. He likened Milne's relentless correspondence to a "tidal wave" from which he could not escape, adding that it left him feeling "unnerved, worried and scared".

And given Milne's pedigree, Mr Cloake had good reason to be concerned about his Mantis-like behaviour. Over the years Milne has developed quite a reputation for his thoroughly unscrupulous and unethical dealings with those less legally savvy.

In an earlier blog article Mr Cloake revealed that the Solicitors Regulation Agency had been sniffing around into Milne's affairs, but had been effectively silenced by a deluge of his complaints and threats of litigation.

In a further attempt to deflect the course of justice, during the trial Milne claimed that it was actually Mr Cloake who instigated contact between the pair.

However, that suggestion was firmly rejected by DJ Towell, who said she was "sure [Mr Cloake] did not stalk you, that he did not follow you, that he did not attend your address, that he did not leave you notes".

Announcing her decision, DJ Towell said: "I am sure Mr Cloake was caused alarm and distress by your course of conduct."

Milne, who showed no reaction at the verdict, will be sentenced at Thames Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 10th March 2026.

He will no doubt exhaust every possible avenue of appeal, but as soon as he does the SRA needs to grow a bit of backbone and remove him from the roll.

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.

Wethersfield Immigrant Launched "Very Violent" Assault on Security Staff

An immigrant housed at Wethersfield Asylum Centre launched a "very violent" assault on security staff.

Adnani Mohammad, 25, a Syrian national, was convicted of two offences of assault by beating following a trial in his absence at Colchester Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 4th February 2026.

Assault by beating, an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that the unprovoked assault took place at the controversial Asylum Centre back in April 2024.

A witness described their recollection of events: "(Mohammad) stated he was feeling unwell, which was a normal trait. He looked intoxicated. I told him to call NHS 111.

"He went and got some food and came back and swiped at an officer, knocking the body-worn camera to the floor.

"He then headbutted an officer three times and kicked another in the knee. It looked very violent.

"The officers didn't do anything to provoke him, and there's no chance it was self-defence."

One of the injured officers told the court: "Mohammed burst through the door at the security office and was acting aggressively.

"He was hitting me very hard; if it wasn't for my colleagues getting it under control, I would have suffered a broken nose, or it would have ended badly.

"When he came into the office, I knew something was really wrong. I think this was due to him being a bit drunk."

As it was the witness sustained a split lip.

The court heard that Mohammad, who arrived illegally in the UK in January 2024, had previously smashed up the security office, causing "a significant amount" of damage.

Having heard the live evidence, Magistrates were quite satisfied that Mohammed was guilty of both offences.

A warrant was issued for his arrest.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

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

Social Media Deviant Exposed by Newspaper a Second Time

The Manchester Evening News has published a second exposé on social media deviant DJE Media, otherwise known as Curtis Arnold and Daniel James Edwards.

I am again grateful to readers for bringing this to my attention.

You can read the latest piece by journalist Stephen Topping here (archived copy).

Regular readers will no doubt be aware that the MEN first broke news of Arnold's sexual harm prevention order on 17th December 2025. Under the front page headline "The sex offender pointing a camera in your face" the paper finally confirmed, loudly and clearly, his previous convictions for voyeurism and making an indecent image of a child. Please refer to my earlier article for the full background on those convictions. 

Rumours of Arnold's sordid past had been circulating online ever since the former hairdresser lied his way past police officers in order to film the recovery of Nicola Bulley's body from the River Wyre. At the same time as Nicola's family were overcome by grief, Arnold uploaded his macabre footage to YouTube and later boasted about making £900 from it.

It now transpires that shortly after those tragic events of 19th February 2023, with the media noose now tightening around Arnold's neck, the 36-year-old attended the offices of two national newspapers to shamelessly deny past criminality and tell them what a "good egg" he really was.

Make no mistake that lying comes as second nature to Curtis Arnold. It comes as naturally to him as swimming does to a fish. He is not bothered about who he lies to, just as long as it somehow works in his favour.

He's as comfortable lying to his YouTube flock and he is to police officers investigating his crimes. His previous convictions for fraud, perverting the course of justice and burglary paint a picture of a man who could not lie straight in bed at night.

Anyhow, back to the new MEN story. According to journalist Topping, Arnold is now subject to a suspended sentence order having been convicted of trespassing at the Prime Minister's country retreat, Chequers.

In a now deleted YouTube confession video, Arnold said that he'd visited the Buckinghamshire estate with the intention of making a video. I watched the short-lived video at the time it was published, but as it is now deleted I am going to have to paraphrase Arnold's comments in it.

According to him, he knew that Chequers was "something to do with the Government", but didn't realise its significance at the time (undoubtedly another of his lies, in case you hadn't spotted). By his own admission he saw signs warning that trespass there was a criminal offence, but decided he was going to have a wander down the driveway anyway. He said he could see a barrier a short way down the hedge-lined driveway, so his intention was to go to barrier and ask if he could film anywhere on the estate.

He didn't get as far as the barrier before several armed police officers "jumped out from nowhere". The officer who took the lead was quite amiable, telling Arnold that he shouldn't be there and asking him to turn around and head back to the public road.

On this occasion, very unusually, the penny dropped with Arnold that he should actually comply with the officer's request instead of trying to outsmart him. He turned around and started walking back up the driveway. Only a few steps into his journey a second officer, who was not quite as amiable as the first, decided to arrest him.

The Chequers incident happened on 28th February 2025. According to the MEN, he was convicted of an offence under section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime Act 2005 and was sentenced to 4 months' custody suspended for 2 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.

Appeals by Way of Case Stated

As things currently stand every person convicted by the Magistrates' Court has an automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court.

This has been the subject of a previous article. Appeals to the Crown Court are by far the most common type of appeal. They are generally pretty quick, easy and cost-effective for everyone concerned.

The Crown Court has the power to revoke, vary or affirm any order or sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court. It can impose a new sentence provided that it remains within the powers available to the Magistrates' Court at the original time of conviction.

Introduction:

Appeal to the Crown Court is only available to the defence, so what happens if the prosecution is aggrieved at a decision taken by the Magistrates' Court?

A second route of appeal is by way of case stated, which involves sending details of the case to the High Court for further consideration. This invariably takes longer and is more costly than an appeal to the Crown Court, but it is the only option available if the prosecution wishes to pursue the matter.

Grounds:

Appeal by way of case stated is only suitable if either party wishes to appeal against a perceived error of law or act that is "ultra vires" on the part of the Magistrates' Court. It is not, save for the most perverse of cases, an avenue for appeal simply because a party disagrees with a decision of fact taken by the Magistrates' Court.

An appeal by way of case stated might be appropriate if the Magistrates' Court:

• Somehow misapplies the law applicable to the offence;
• Wrong orders the exclusion or admissibility of evidence;
• Incorrectly determines a submission of no case to answer.

An appeal by way of case stated can only be made after the conclusion of proceedings in the Magistrates' Court. 

Procedure:

The appellant has to make an application within 21 days of the final decision of the Magistrates' Court. This is done by writing to the Clerk of the Magistrates' Court concerned, setting out the matters of grievance and question of law to be stated.

The Clerk, in conjunction with the Bench concerned, will then draft a statement of case. This is a document setting out the circumstances of the case, the decisions of the court and the views of each party on the matter of grievance. The draft statement will then be shared with the parties for them to check and suggest any amendments before it is finalised.

The Clerk will then send the finalised statement of case to the appellant, for it to submit to the High Court for consideration.

Hearing:

The appeal is heard by the Divisional Court of the High Court King's Bench Division. The court usually consists of three High Court Judges.

The court will consider the statement of case and hear legal representations from the parties. No new evidence will be admitted.

Decision:

If the court allows the appeal then it has the power to revoke, vary or affirm any decision made by the Magistrates' Court. It also has the power to remit matters back to the Magistrates' Court for a new hearing before a different Bench; or with a direction that the Magistrates' Court either convicts or acquits the defendant.

Further appeal:

If either party disagrees with the decision of the High Court, it can seek leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court (the so-called "leap frog" procedure, which omits the Court of Appeal). Such a further appeal will only be allowed on a point of law and in the general public interest.

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.