Appeal Dismissed: Stalking Solicitor Fails in Bid to Overturn Conviction

A solicitor has failed in a bid to have his stalking conviction overturned on appeal.

Andrew Jonathan Milne, 64, principal of City law firm Andrew Milne & Company, was convicted earlier this year of stalking blogger and court observer Daniel Cloake.

Having been sentenced, Milne immediately announced his intention to appeal the decision of District Judge (Magistrates' Court) Lisa Towell.

The matter was eventually listed for a week-long appeal hearing at Snaresbrook Crown Court in October 2026. As explained in my earlier article, these hearings involve a complete rehearing of the Magistrates' Court trial.

The mantis-like lawyer, who clearly has an unhealthy obsession with Mr Cloake, stuck to the defence offered in the Magistrates' Court - namely that roles were reversed and it was actually Mr Cloake who was infatuated with him.

The appeal bench, led by HHJ Timothy Greene, was unpersuaded by Milne's version of events. This afternoon it announced its decision to dismiss Milne's appeal.

Despite the hearing having taken place in open court, I am going to refrain from reporting the more salacious aspects of Milne's defence. Suffice to say his tawdry account, which wouldn't be out of place in a top-shelf magazine, stood in stark contrast to that of Mr Cloake.

Rejecting Milne's evidence in the strongest possible terms, HHJ Greene said: "In every respect where their accounts differed we preferred the evidence of Mr Cloake to the evidence of Mr Milne."

In a damning appraisal of the lawyer's performance in the witness box, the judge added: "We are in no doubt that Mr Milne repeatedly lied in his evidence to us."

The upshot is that Milne remains convicted of stalking.

In practical terms he has no further avenues of appeal.

Appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court, whilst theoretically possible, is limited to cases where the Crown Court (acting as an appeal court) has made an error of law or acted outside its jurisdiction.

Milne simply not liking the decision, which I'm sure will be the case, is not sufficient grounds for further appeal.

That said, I am sure he will be looking for any reason, however trivial or tenuous, to call into question the decision of the appeal bench.

Now time for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to do its thing and show a bit of backbone.

Update (9/11/26): There is now additional reporting of this in the Law Society Gazette.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

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

Magistrate Disqualified Driver Lied to Police

A Magistrate who was disqualified from driving lied to police who stopped his car.

Amit Bahanda, 45, of High View, Ponteland, Northumberland, admitted offences of driving whilst disqualified and driving without valid third party insurance when he recently appeared at Newcastle Magistrates' Court.

Driving whilst disqualified is an offence under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It has maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

Bahanda's BMW was observed travelling along Callerton Lane, Ponteland, on 29th August 2026.

Prosecutor Jade Houston explained: "The officers were aware that the vehicle was associated with someone who was a disqualified driver. He provided a different name to officers to start with.

"The officers did a check and found a picture on his driving licence on their system. He was disqualified from May until 28th November this month. He was disqualified under the totting procedure."

Janice Hall, mitigating, told the court that her client, who founded the local Project Santa charity, had been disqualified without his knowledge. His car had been clocked speeding on an earlier occasion, but the paperwork had gone astray in the postal system and he had never received it.

She continued: "It appears he was charged with failing to provide the identification of a driver and found guilty in his absence and a totting disqualification was imposed."

Describing Bahanda's charity work, Mrs Hall said that Project Santa provided presents for schools and individuals.

"Clearly, that is something significant in December and him having his driving licence will help ensure those deliveries take place," she said.

Bahanda was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £600 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

He was disqualified from driving for a further period of 6 months.

Addressing the defendant, District Judge Paul Currer said: "It seems to me you have not accepted your responsibility as much as you might by saying you didn't know you were disqualified.

"I reject that as you gave a false name when you were stopped and gave your cousin's name."

Given the circumstances of these offences, I would suggest that Bahanda's position as a Magistrate is now untenable. He currently sits in the Family Court.

I would certainly expect the Advisory Committee and JCIO to take a keen interest in his case.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

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

Carlisle Man Avoids Custody After Ninety-Fifth Breach of Order

A Carlisle man has avoided custody after being convicted of his ninety-fifth breach of either a criminal behaviour or anti-social behaviour order.

Andrew John Jason Bell, 49, of no fixed abode, admitted breaching his criminal behaviour order during a recent hearing at Carlisle Magistrates' Court. 

Breaching a criminal behaviour order is an offence under section 339 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The maximum sentence is 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. We have previously written a guide on CBOs, which readers may find of interest.

Despite being banned from the popular city centre thoroughfare, Bell was observed on Bothergate, Carlisle, during the early hours of Sunday, 1st November 2026.

Peter Kelly, prosecuting, conceded that the 49-year-old was not misbehaving at the time.

John Smith, mitigating, told the court that his client had recently been released from custody and was having an ongoing struggle to find accommodation.

Mr Smith told the court that homelessness charity Betel had indicated it was "open-minded" to the idea of housing Bell at a property in Northumberland.

Considering the circumstances, District Judge Philip Holden was of the view that Bell's breach had been a deliberate one that crossed the custody threshold.

However, given the possibility of accommodation being found for Bell, DJ Holden elected to suspend the custodial term.

Addressing Bell, DJ Holden said: "I am going to give you that chance. Whether you take the chance is a matter for you. You know that of you breach that order by committing further offences, and whatever you get for any other offence."

"It's up to you. You are still subject to the CBO."

This is a desperately sorry tale. Bell has been through the system umpteen times, yet nothing has yet curbed his offending.

Hopefully some stable accommodation might finally do the trick, but the ball really is in his court.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

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

Keeping a Motor Vehicle Without Insurance

In today's article I am going to explore one of those niggly little offences that a lot of people don't even realise is an offence - keeping a motor vehicle without insurance.

I was recently chatting to a lawyer friend about this and even he was totally oblivious to the rules.

It is an offence under section 144A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the registered keeper of a vehicle to keep that vehicle unless it is covered by a valid policy of insurance and:

• Either, the policy of insurance identifies that particular vehicle by its registration mark;
• Or, the registered keeper of the vehicle is also the owner, who is named on the policy or certificate of insurance as a person covered to drive any vehicle or any vehicle of that particular description.

The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000). The offence, which is dealt with via the Single Justice Procedure, is non-endorseable.

In practical terms this means is that if a car is not insured then it should not be parked on a road or other public place. It can only be parked in a private place and must be covered by a valid SORN.

The DVLA receives a notification when the insurance on a vehicle lapses. It then uses automatic number plate recognition technology to identify uninsured vehicles that are parked on the road or other public place or that are kept elsewhere but without a valid SORN.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

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