Newcastle Liberal Democrat Councillor Sexually Assaulted Woman

A Liberal Democrat councillor sexually assaulted a woman he lured into his bedroom with a teddy bear.

Thom Campion, 28, of Warkworth Woods, Great Park, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, denied an offence of sexual assault, but was convicted following a recent trial at Newcastle Magistrates' Court.

Sexual assault is an offence under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

District Judge Paul Currer heard that the assault took place at Campion's suburban home in March 2023.

At the time he was a Liberal Democrat councillor on Newcastle City Council. Campion had first made contact with the complainant via the OnlyFans website.

The woman's account, which has been accepted by the court, is that Campion took her upstairs on the pretext of showing her a "cute teddy".

Once there the 28-year-old politician pinned her to the bed and touched her breasts without consent. He also dragged her to the floor by her hair and forced his fingers into her mouth, all the while muttering derogatory sexual comments towards her.

Campion's account, which has been rejected by the court, is that the woman consented to the activity. He claimed to have invited her upstairs to view an explicit item of clothing he had recently purchased.

The complainant had not originally intended to report Campion's crime, but did so when she saw him running a Liberal Democrat campaign stall at a local market.

In his findings, DJ Currer said: "She repeatedly told the defendant 'no' when with him in the bedroom. Having listened with care to all the evidence, I'm sure the defendant engaged in these sexual acts without her consent."

Campion, who has no previous convictions, was granted unconditional bail until his sentencing hearing.

He was previously selected as the Liberal Democrats' parliamentary candidate for Cramlington and Killingworth in the 2024 General Election. He is no longer associated with the party.

Northumbria University Tutor Sexually Assaulted Student

A Northumbria University tutor lost his job and gained a criminal record after repeatedly trying to kiss a student.

Arrian Cornwell, 34, of Victoria Avenue, Whitley Bay, admitted an offence of sexual assault when he appeared recently at Newcastle Magistrates' Court.

Sexual assault is an offence under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

District Judge Kate Meek was told that the academic assaulted the student at Alfie's Bar, just a stone's throw away from the university's Faculty of Business and Law where he worked, during an evening in October 2024.

The persistent 34-year-old was repeatedly rebuffed by the complainant, but grabbed his face and managed to plant a kiss on his lips at the third time of trying.

Cornwell's conduct was reported to the university, which launched an internal investigation and referred the matter to the police. He was subsequently dismissed from his employment.

DJ Meek ordered a pre-sentence report.

Cornwell was granted bail until his sentencing on Tuesday, 23rd June 2026.

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.

Wannabe Scarborough Doorman Forged Reference

A wannabe Scarborough doorman forged an employment reference in an attempt to con his way to an SIA licence.

Michael Fenwick admitted using a false instrument when he appeared at Scarborough Magistrates' Court on Friday, 1st May 2026.

Using a false instrument is an offence under section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. It has a maximum sentence of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Fenwick supplied the regulator with a reference purportedly from his former employer. However, checks confirmed that no such reference had been provided and Fenwick subsequently admitted forging the document.

Fenwick was fined £230 and ordered to pay £90 surcharge and £600 towards prosecution costs.

Nicola Bolton, SIA Criminal Enforcement Manager, said: "Mr Fenwick's attempt to deceive the SIA in our licensing process had the potential to put the public at risk.

"Thankfully that point was never reached as the deception was swiftly identified by the SIA's Licensing Team.

"Our licensing process is robust, and anyone who attempts to cheat the system will be dealt with appropriately."

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.

Mixed Messages: Not So Special Reasons

As regular readers will know anyone convicted of an endorsable traffic offence has the opportunity to argue special reasons.

A special reason is a mitigating or extentuating circumstance connected to the commission of the offence which, although not a defence in law, is something the court ought properly to take into account when sentencing.

Special reasons relate to the offence, not the offender. Exceptional hardship, which is a separate process, might apply to the offender in some circumstances.

A case was before the court recently where a driver was making a special reasons argument in relation to an offence of driving without insurance. As is often the case with traffic matters, the male driver was unrepresented. For reasons that will become apparent, it is relevant to mention that he was of Asian ethnicity.

Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence. This means, in the simplest of terms, that the mere act of driving without insurance constitutes the offence, irrespective of the reasons (or lack thereof) why.

The vehicle had caught the attention of the police due to the speed it was being driven. The officer conducted a few checks confirming that only a female was insured to drive it. Having seen a male behind the wheel, the officer's suspicions were clearly aroused and he required the vehicle to stop.

The driver confirmed to the officer that it was his mother's vehicle, but insisted he was covered under the terms of the policy for his own vehicle. The officer made a few more checks, which confirmed that the man was not covered to drive his mother's vehicle. He was duly reported for the offence of driving without insurance.

The matter was initially dealt with via the Single Justice Procedure, with the driver admitting the offence and requesting a hearing. At the hearing (see A Day in the Traffic Court) he has indicated his wish to make a special reasons argument. That special reasons argument was now listed before the court.

The basis of the defendant's argument was that he had been misled by his insurance company into believing that the policy covering him to drive his own vehicle also covered him to drive his mother's. This is a fairly common argument heard by the court. If the court is satisfied that the driver has been misled, then it will almost certainly find special reasons.

However, case law has established that being misled means being actively misled - e.g. someone at the insurance company telling the driver directly, either in words or in writing, "yes, you're covered", when actually they are not.

Being actively misled by an insurance company does not happen very often. It is nearly always a case of driver oversight instead of insurance company error. This case was no exception.

Asked why he believed his own policy covered him to drive his mother's vehicle, the reply came that sometime in the distant past he believed he had read it somewhere.

When asked if such a term was written into his current insurance agreement, the reply came that it was not.

When asked if he had carefully read his current insurance agreement before entering into it, the reply came that he had not.

When asked why not, the reply came that the policy had autorenewed so he just assumed it was on the same terms as previously.

Sensing that he might be on a hiding to nothing, the defendant added "I was never speeding. I think I was targeted by the officer on racial grounds."

Suffice to say the court did not find special reasons.

The driver's licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points and he received a Band C fine.

It is a driver's responsibility to ensure that they are correctly insured to drive a vehicle. This means it is their responsibility to read the policy and ask pertinent questions if the vehicle belongs to someone else.

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.