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 later than that. 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 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.

Sexual Deviant Jailed for Lurid Acts on Railway

A man has been jailed after committing a string of lurid acts whilst travelling on the railway in the north west of England.

Babatunde Odutola, 36, a Nigerian national of no fixed abode, admitted an offence of outraging public decency when he appeared at Manchester Magistrates' Court on Monday, 14th September 2026.

Outraging public decency is an offence at common law. It is triable either way and has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction; an unlimited (theoretically) period in custody and/or an fine at level 5 (unlimited) on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that the offence took place as Odutola was travelling on a train destined for Manchester on Friday, 11th September 2026.

He began by staring at the woman, looking over her body from head to toe. He then asked her to "come over", before removing his penis from his trousers and beginning to masturbate in front of her.

A fellow passenger intervened and led the woman to the safety of another carriage.

CCTV footage showed Odutola, who was sitting in a wheelchair at the time, continued to masturbate as several other people passed nearby through the carriage.

Police were alerted and arrested the 36-year-old deviant on his arrival at Manchester Piccadilly.

The offence put Odutola in breach of a suspended sentence order, which was imposed on his conviction for three offences of exposure in very similar circumstances.

Magistrates were of the view that Odutola's offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Furthermore, given that he was already subject to a suspended sentence order, it would be an immediate custodial sentence.

He was sentenced to 44 weeks' custody, which no doubt includes at least part of his activated suspended sentence.

There is no report of costs or surcharge. It is likely Odutola, or rather the British taxpayer via his benefits, was ordered to pay the woman compensation.

Detective Constable Leonidas Christoforou of the British Transport Police said: "Odutola is clearly an incredibly dangerous individual and his disturbing behaviour must have been terrifying for the victim, who he singled out when she was travelling on her own.

"He's shown little remorse for his actions and denied the allegations against him during his police interview. But a stack of incriminating evidence, including damning CCTV and several witness accounts, left him with little choice but to plead guilty when he appeared in court.

"This was not a one-off from Odutola, who was already a registered sex offender, and this type of alarming, predatory behaviour simply will not be tolerated on our railways.

"Holding vile offenders like him to account is a number one priority for us as a force and we’re tireless in our efforts to bring them to justice.

"If you experience or witness these crimes on the railway, please report it to us by texting 61016. We will always take action."

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

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

Compensation Orders

The court has the power to award compensation to any person who has suffered injury, loss or damage as a result of being the victim of crime.

In today's article I give a quick overview of the use of compensation orders in the Magistrates' Court. The imposition of compensation orders is governed by part 7, chapter 2 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The Sentencing Council has published a table of suggested compensation starting points for lower level physical and mental injuries. However, as the court is legally obliged to consider an offender's means, the level of compensation awarded by the court is invariably much less than that shown in the table.

From a personal point of view, I have to say that I find the rules largely unsatisfactory.

As far as I am concerned, if an offender causes £1000 worth of injury, loss or damage, then they should pay £1000 in compensation. However, the reality is not like that - because unlike in civil proceedings, the criminal court is legally obliged to consider the offender's means.

This means that an offender might cause significant loss to their victim, but because they haven't got two ha'pennies to rub together (at least, so they claim) they might never need to fully compensate them.

A compensation order can either be imposed as a standalone sentence, in which case there is no associated surcharge, or as an ancilliary order to any other sentence imposed by the court.

Particular consideration needs to be given to the imposition of a standalone compensation order. Imposing such an order effectively means the offender is escaping any punishment apart from having to pay what they rightfully owe.

If the offender is of limited means, then compensation takes priority over the imposition of any fine, surcharge or prosecution costs.

The court should consider compensation in every case where there is loss, injury or damage. However, it is not always appropriate to award compensation - e.g. if the offence is very old; has already been covered by an insurance payment; the victim indicates they want a clean break from the offender.

If the court decides against awarding compensation, then it must give its reasons for doing so.

The majority of offenders are unable to immediately settle their financial obligations to the court. That being the case, the court will usually offer payment terms so that the balance can be paid over the course of a year. In exceptional circumstances, the court might allow repayment over a longer period of time, usually up to an absolute maximum of 3 years.

For example, you might have a vandal who has caused £1000 worth of damage to shop windows, but their only (official) source of income is benefits. They cannot afford to pay £1000 immediately, so the court would usually agree to payment by instalment.

You might remember from my earlier Fine Levels and Bands article that a person in receipt of benefits is assumed to have a relevant weekly income of £120. On that level of income it is assumed they can afford to pay £20 a month to the court. This means they could pay a maximum of £720 in compensation (£20 per month, for 36 months), if the court was prepared to allow repayment over the maximum of 3 years.

In this case the court would make a compensation order of £720, which the owner of the shop windows would receive in dribs and drabs over the next 3 years. Of course the tradesperson who replaced the broken windows would want full payment within 28 days of invoice. As for the £280 shortfall, well that's just tough luck.

In reality, most offenders before the court already owe a considerable sum for other offences. Despite committing their crimes, they may never pay off what they owe already. Anyone in the queue for compensation will just need to wait patiently to receive a payment that may never arrive.

As I said earlier, I find the rules largely unsatisfactory. More needs to be done to get compensatees their cash and much quicker. The trouble is that if you squeeze the offender too tightly for payment, they might be driven to further crime in order to fund it.

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.