Human Magpie Imprisoned for Taking Eggs

A Norfolk man has been jailed for a second time after taking more than 5,000 rare birds eggs from the wild.

It is an offence under section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for any person to intentionally take or destroy the eggs of any wild bird.

Daniel Lingham, 65, was reported to police by a member of the public who saw him "head-to-toe in camouflage gear" picking eggs up off the ground at Cawston Heath in Norfolk.

Police officers stopped and searched Lingham on 21st May, finding two tubs of eggs and egg gathering paraphernalia in his possession.

A subsequent search of Lingham's property uncovered a haul of 5,266 eggs of species including nightingales, kingfishers and nightjars.

Lingham pleaded guilty to five offences under the 1981 Act during an earlier hearing at Norwich Magistrates' Court.

Last Tuesday he was back in court for sentencing.

Magistrates deemed that Lingham's crimes were so serious that an immediate custodial sentence was justified. He was imprisoned for 18 weeks and handed a 10-year criminal behaviour order banning him from visiting the sites he had taken eggs from. Magistrates also ordered the forfeiture of Lingham's egg collection, which will be passed to the Natural History Museum in London.

RSPB senior investigations officer Mark Thomas said outside court that Lingham was a "one-man crime wave in terms of rare birds in Norfolk".

Lingham had previously been jailed in 2005 for similar offences, in which he took 3,603 eggs from the wild.

He said the latest seizure of eggs was the RSPB's largest since Lingham's previous conviction.

Rupert Masefield, of the RSPB, added he hopes the sentence "sends a strong message".

"It's just not acceptable for people to target wild birds and especially some of the rarest and most threatened birds in this way," he added.

These birds look so much more beautiful in the wild, than their eggs ever could gathering dust in an old bookcase. We hope Lingham's sentence sends out a strong message to other would be human magpies - enjoy our beautiful native wildlife with your eyes, not your hands.

An Expensive Lesson on School Attendance

A Swansea woman has been left with a bill of almost £1,000 after her child attended school only half of the time.

Under section 444(1A) of the Education Act 1996 a parent is guilty of an offence if they knowingly fail to ensure that their child attends the school they are registered at on a regular basis. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (currently £2,500), a period of 3 months imprisonment or both.

Magistrates heard that the child in question had attended only 116 out of 213 teaching sessions between January and July 2018. The mother cannot be identified, as doing so would reveal the identity of the child.

Defending the woman, solicitor Jeffrey Skidmore told the court: "We are dealing with a woman with considerable issues in respect not least of medical conditions and also anxiety issues.

"She has very limited income. If the court is considering a fine it will compound the misery.

"The attendance is one of 54.4% and there are far lower ones that will be brought before the court – 54% is quite high, although I can’t condone those figures."

Craig Davies, prosecuting on behalf of Swansea City Council, said: "I know the local authority will prosecute anything under 90%. On that scale (the level of attendance) is relatively low."

"She has shown no remorse and blamed the school, despite support being offered."

Magistrates were distinctly unimpressed at the child's low level of attendance, placing the offence in the highest category.

Sentencing, bench chair Alison Davies said: "We have taken considerable time looking at the attendance of your child to make a decision.

"We disagree that 54.4% is in any way acceptable. The impact on your child’s education cannot be ignored."

The bench imposed a 12-month community order, with 20 days Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and £120 fine. The woman was also ordered to pay £85 victim surcharge and £730 towards prosecution costs, bringing the total amount payable to £935.

Ms Davies warned the woman that she faced the realistic prospect of prison if she defaulted on her fines or failed to engage with the Probation Service.

An expensive lesson learned.

Onasanya Jury Fails to Reach Verdict

The jury in the trial of Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP accused of perverting the course of justice, has failed to reach a verdict after 12 hours of deliberations.

It is the Crown's case that Onasanya, 35, dishonestly named Russian man Aleks Antipow as the driver of her vehicle at the time it was clocked exceeding the speed limit. Onasanya claims that her brother, Festus, who has already pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice, completed Antipow's details on the Section 172 Notice that was returned in relation to the speeding offence.

Last Friday afternoon the judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, the Recorder of London, indicated to the jury that he would be willing to accept a 10-to-1 majority verdict.

Early this afternoon the jury passed the judge a note indicating that it would be unable to reach a verdict even if given more time.

Discharging the jury, HHJ Hilliard said: "Thank you very much for the evident care and attention you have given this case. The case will have to be retried in due course in front of a different jury."

That retrial will begin on Tuesday, 11th December 2018.

We have received a few emails about this case, but reiterate our stance that we will not be offering any opinion until its conclusion.

Tougher Sentences for Assaults on Emergency Workers

The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 came into force on 13th November 2018.

The Act is a response to the increase, in recent years, in the number of assaults on emergency workers.

There were 26,000 assaults on police officers in the past year. 15.2% of NHS staff responding to the NHS staff survey say they have experienced physical violence from patients, relatives or the public in the past year. Assaults on prison officers rose by 70% in the three years to 2017. There were 933 incidents involving an attack on firefighters in 2017/18, the highest recorded figure since data was first collected in 2010/11.

Section 1 of the Act creates a new offence of common assault or battery on a member of the emergency services. The offence is triable either way and has a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment, or a fine, or both whether dealt with in the Magistrates' or Crown Court. The Magistrates' Court will be limited to imposing a maximum period of imprisonment of 6 months until such time as section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force.

Section 2 of the Act creates a statutory aggravating factor. This means that when a specified offence - broadly an assault-related offence or a sexual assault offence - is committed against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of their functions and as defined in the Act, the court should consider the fact that it was so committed as an aggravating factor.

The victim's status as an emergency worker will be a statutory aggravating factor in the case of the following offences:

(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Offences against the Person Act 1861-

• (i) section 16 (threats to kill);
• (ii) section 18 (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm);
• (iii) section 20 (malicious wounding);
• (iv) section 23 (administering poison etc);
• (v) section 28 (causing bodily injury by gunpowder etc);
• (vi) section 29 (using explosive substances etc with intent to cause grievous bodily harm);
• (vii) section 47 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm);

(b) an offence under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual assault);

(c) manslaughter;

(d) kidnapping;

(e) an ancillary offence in relation to any of the preceding offences.

Section 3 provides the definition of "emergency worker" for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the Act. The categories broadly include police, prison officers, fire and rescue personnel and certain NHS workers who have interaction with the public as part of their work.

These occupations and positions have been included on the basis that these are people who may be required, at some point, to deal with emergencies and who are exposed to the risk of assault in the course of their day to day work.

An emergency worker can be acting in a paid or unpaid capacity. The legislation also covers off-duty emergency workers who are carrying out functions which, if done in work time, would have been part of their job.

The Act only applies in England and Wales.

Onasanya Trial Update (3)

Yesterday morning the jury in the Fiona Onasanya trial retired to consider its verdict.

Defying the expectations of most commentators, deliberations have gone on for almost two full days.

Late this afternoon the judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, the Recorder of London, told the jury that he would now accept a majority verdict. As one of the twelve original jurors has already been discharged on the basis of ill health, that means that ten of those remaining will need to reach a consensus.

This evening, with a state of deadlock remaining, the jurors were sent home for the weekend. They will resume their deliberations at 10 am on Monday.

We should be reassured that the jury is considering the evidence before them so carefully.

We are confident that the jury will deliver a verdict.

More commentary and opinion once we reach that stage.

Onasanya Trial Update (2)

We're now two days into the defence of Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP accused of perverting the course of justice by falsely claiming that someone else was driving her vehicle at the time it was clocked speeding at 41 mph in a 30 mph zone.

There is a bit more background information in our earlier posts (see here and here) on this most interesting of cases. As with our previous Trial Update post, we shall keep the details very matter of fact, as reported by the national media. It is not appropriate to offer any opinion with the trial still in progress, but we shall do once the verdict is in.

The defence has offered the following evidence:

• Onasanya, having just been elected a week or so earlier, was under considerable strain as she settled in to her new role. She compared election to Parliament to being a swimmer dropped in the middle of the ocean - even if they swim very well, the task is still overwhelming. She told the court that she had been inundated with thousands of emails and really didn't know where to begin.
• The MP claims that when she received the Notice of Intended Prosecution, nine days after the speeding incident, she passed it to her brother Festus to deal with. Despite being the registered keeper of the vehicle, she really didn't think she was the person behind the wheel at the time it was caught speeding. She was of the mistaken belief that she was still at Westminster that day.
• Onasanya says that she left the paperwork at her mother's house for Festus to take care of. She told the court that she in no way intended Festus to act dishonestly.
• According to Onasanya, Festus completed incorrect details on the form and signed it in her name.
• Onasanya has said, even with the benefit of hindsight and having checked her diary/calendar, she cannot recall visiting the property of Dr Christian DeFeo on the evening that her silver Nissan Micra triggered the speed camera nearby. She claims that she had an engagement in Peterborough that day.
• She has told the court that she had a disagreement with Dr DeFeo's wife about a charity event that was being organised.
• Asked if taking 3 penalty points would have had any adverse impact of her position as an MP, Onasanya said "absolutely not".

Under cross-examination by the Crown:

• Onasanya has confirmed that she cannot be sure who was driving the Micra at the time it triggered the speed camera. She often left the car parked outside her mother's house and her brother, mother, distant relatives and friends all had access to the keys and permission to drive when she was at Westminster. She conceded that she could have also been behind the wheel, but didn't think that was the case.
• Asked why she gave a "no comment" interview to police, she said: "I was bamboozled with lots of questions. They said I had six months before any further action and they would be in touch."
• Onasanya admitted that she had not asked either her brother or mother if they had been driving the vehicle when it was clocked speeding.

The trial continues. A verdict is expected by the end of this week.

Update (3.30 pm): The trial is progressing at a very brisk pace today. Both prosecution and defence have completed their closing speeches and the judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, is currently summing up. It is entirely likely that the jury will retire to consider its verdict within the next hour or so. It is entirely possible that verdict will be returned either this evening or tomorrow morning.

Update (4.30 pm): The judge, HHJ Nicholas Hilliard QC, has concluded his summing up and adjourned until 10 am tomorrow, when the jury will begin its deliberations. Most commentators are still expecting a fairly quick verdict.

HMCTS Court Estate Plans for Newcastle

HMCTS has just signed a 25 year lease which will see civil, family and tribunal hearings brought together under one roof at Civic Centre in the heart of the Newcastle.

The development will provide a modern, fit for purpose building for local people, legal professionals, judiciary, and courts and tribunals staff. The new courthouse is expected to open by 2020.

Linda Ventress, HMCTS regional estates strategy lead, said: "This new court will help provide a modern, fit for purpose building for the people of Newcastle. We are delighted to see the next stage of the project begin and look forward to bringing civil, family and tribunal work into one location, making it easier and more efficient for people to access justice."

Current operations at Newcastle's Manorview House (Social Security and Child Support Tribunal) and North Shields' King's Court (County and Family Court Hearing Centre) will be relocated to the new city centre venue, which will boast 25 purpose built court and hearing rooms.

Elsewhere in Newcastle the Combined Court Centre, down on the Quayside, will be transformed into a new Criminal Justice Centre. The upper floor of the building will be converted into four new Magistrates' Court courtrooms, two of which will have access to the cells. The ten existing Crown Court courtrooms are being retained on the lower floors, as are four civil/family courtrooms.

Newcastle Magistrates' Court, located on the city's Market Street, will be disposed of once the new Criminal Justice Centre starts operating. The Market Street building, which dates back to the 1930s, is in a state of disrepair and has no cell accommodation following the closure of the adjacent police station a few years ago.

Solicitors Demand Urgent Action on Shropshire Remand Arrangements

Earlier this year new arrangements came into force which mean all Shropshire remand cases are dealt with at Kidderminster Magistrates' Court.

The move has attracted widespread criticism, with local solicitors and councillors expressing concern at the increased times and distances involved in accessing so-called local justice.

The new arrangements have been in operation for several months and it would appear that there was some merit to those initial concerns. A few days ago John McMillan, co-chairman of The Shropshire Defence Advocates Group, submitted the following open letter to HMCTS's Midlands Judicial Business Group:

____

Dear Sirs,

Having consulted with the members of the Shropshire Defence Advocates Group representing Shropshire law firms involved in criminal legal aid cases, we ask the Judicial Business Group to hold a formal review of the present centralised remand court at Kidderminster which clearly is not working. Our chief areas of concern are detailed below.

Prisoners being detained in custody for longer under this new system:

We have raised this concern by email, verbally with court staff, the Ministry of Justice, magistrates and in the press and it has fallen on deaf ears. None of our members attended the last court users meeting because our concerns were dismissed at the previous meeting.

At that meeting there were no figures available but we were assured that things were little different now than they were under the old system when Shropshire prisoners walked through the secure tunnel from Telford Police Station to Telford Magistrates Court. We knew this was wrong but wanted clarity to put matters beyond doubt. No data could be made available and so made a Freedom of Information application.

We were of course aware that even under the old system, if a defendant was charged, or arrested on a warrant in the late afternoon or evening he would have to wait for the court the following morning. However it was those who were arrested or charged who could have been taken over to court when it was sitting next door, except for this policy decision that concerned us. And make no mistake about it, Shropshire Magistrates Court sits every day, fully staffed, with the largest and safest cell block always manned and ready to receive prisoners.

We therefore requested figures for those charged or arrested between 7.30am and 2.30pm, Monday to Saturday under the FOI procedure. The results show a travesty of justice for non-convicted detainees.

We have asked for sight of the risk assessment that was carried out during the original consultation process regarding the cells at Kidderminster and have not been supplied with one. We draw the conclusion that none was done.

There have now been two violent incidents in the cell area since April which has inadequate safeguarding compared to that which exists at Telford. In the Telford court cells are two secure interview rooms where the solicitor, probation officer or whoever, can be placed in a separate small room adjacent to the holding cell where the defendant is placed and can communicate privately with the defendant through a safety glass screen. In Kidderminster no such facility exists. The visitor is locked in the same room as the defendant and if there is violence it is then up to the cell staff to unlock the room and intervene.

At present one of the Kidderminster interview rooms is out of order having been wrecked on September 19 by a violent outburst where a prisoner ripped the electric clock from the wall, violently kicked the security glass window, breaking it and in a sustained attack, kicked the security locked door open and luckily exited into the cell reception area leaving his lawyer extremely shaken, but not physically hurt. That was reported to the court authorities and nothing has been done about it.

On Friday October 26 there was another attack involving a female youth offending officer who was again locked in with a defendant who this time spat in her face, with all the potential consequences that can have.

Late night sittings:

There have been many occasions since April when the remand court has not finished at a reasonable time. There are many reasons for it. Sometimes the remand court has not just been a remand court but has had other mixed court business in it. At other times the clerk is unable to keep up with the resulting work on the computer and cases are kept back to allow that to be done, on other occasions the court papers have just not been available or prisoners have not been delivered on time.

We know that the court has sat as late as 10pm and on October 4 there was only one remand court sitting and by 4.15pm it had only dealt with four of the fourteen prisoners.

A Shropshire lawyer finally got out at about 8.30pm to begin his one hour drive home. Not only is this not efficient, it is not fair on the cell staff, the court security staff or the lawyers and court staff who leave for work in the morning and have not got a clue when they will be coming home.

Lack of public transport:

Shropshire is the largest inland county in England and lawyers, defendants and family members are expected to be able to travel to and from Kidderminster. There is no direct transport link from Shrewsbury or Telford which are the two biggest towns and from the rural areas such as Ludlow or Oswestry it can prove impossible to get back on the same day.

The arrangement of having all custody cases at Kidderminster is dangerous and it is clear HMCTS has not carried out a risk assessment. In particular it seems that no regard has been given to how defendants will be able to get home safely once they are released on bail.

This became clear on Thursday October 4 when a defendant represented by Brendan Reedy of PCB solicitors was released by the bench on bail. The case was not heard until 7.45pm. The defendant lives between Minsterley and Bishops Castle in Shropshire. Although the gaolers provided the defendant with a travel warrant, this only enabled him to catch a train from Kidderminster to Shrewsbury via Birmingham. He arrived in Shrewsbury at 12.50am (ten to one in the morning) and then his problems really began as he could not catch the bus to Minsterley because the last bus left at 6.05am. He was forced to walk 12 miles on the A488 an unlit main road with no pavement for most of the 12 miles he had to walk. The walk took him four hours. HMCTS have given no consideration to the risks of those defendants who do not live in towns with a railway station nor have they given any consideration of what clothing people are arrested in.

It frequently is not suitable for walking long distances in wet and cold conditions. In the event of a road traffic collision leading to death or injury HMCTS would have to bear responsibility as it would in the event of the risk of death or injury through hypothermia.

Defendants with mental health problems:

From the information obtained from the police under the FOI disclosure 68 defendants disclosed they had mental health issues.

Kidderminster court is not covered by a community mental health team. Previously at Telford there were regularly members of the Shropshire Criminal Justice Mental Health Team available for defendants in Telford court. We know that between October 2017 and February of this year they attended Telford Court to assist with 53 defendants. That is a valuable resource that is no longer being used and those who suffer as a result are amongst the most vulnerable in society.

The misleading impression that Telford trial times are now improved because of the remand system:

At each meeting our members have had with the court authorities we are told that the lead time for trials in Telford Magistrates Court has improved as a result of the lack of remand prisoners.

We accept there is some truth in that, but the major factor has been that a Trial Blitz was instigated at Telford with extra courts sitting with District Judges to get rid of the backlog. That and the fact that fewer cases are coming through is the main factor for the improved trials performance at Telford.

The dogmatic approach taken by the court staff:

When this new regime was imposed it was quickly realised by the police that they were going to be providing bed and breakfast cell accommodation for persons arrested on warrants.

That prompted Worcester police to pin the now infamous notice given publicity on May 13 advising that " if people wanted on warrant handed themselves in after 6am they would have to wait in police detention until the following morning 24 hours".

A short time later we received an email from the Deputy Justices' Clerk saying that if a defendant wished to surrender to a warrant, he could do that at court and provided the court was able to fit it in at some point on that day, it could be dealt with. This has now happened many times and those wanted on warrant have been dealt with at Telford without having to be taken into custody. There has never been a problem.

We ask if this concession can be made, why can those who are arrested and taken to Telford police station not be produced in Telford court? Its a simple matter of a phone call and could save time, money and grief. The only thing standing in the way is the dogmatic approach.

The waste of time and money on Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRRs):

Since the new remand pattern commenced in April, whenever Kidderminster magistrates wish to consider sentencing a Shropshire prisoner to a community Order with a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement they have had to send that defendant back to be sentenced in Shropshire because we are told, the DRR assessors work in a different way in Worcestershire from those in Shropshire!

The upshot of this is that for the last seven months EVERY defendant who has a drugs problem that the court wishes to tackle has to be sent back to Shropshire Magistrates Court. So just to reinforce the ludicrousness of this situation – a drug dependant defendant in Shropshire may have to wait for 24 hours to be taken to Kidderminster, only to be sent back the next day to Shropshire!

The way forward:

Our members would like to see Shropshire prisoners being dealt with in the Shropshire court. The problems with this amalgamation generally come from Shropshire and we can see that a Hereford and Worcester amalgamation at Kidderminster or Worcester would work. Simply take us out of the mix.

In terms of the next steps we would like to inform you that we are totally in approval of the proposed virtual court trial that we understand may include Shropshire and we will do everything we can to cooperate and make that a success.

John McMillan, Solicitor, Co-chair, The Shropshire Defence Advocates Group

Onasanya Trial Update (1)

The trial of Fiona Onasanya - Labour MP accused of perverting the course of justice - is currently underway at the Central Criminal Court in London.

This is an interesting case, the brief circumstances of which are as follows:

• A Nissan Micra registered to Onasanya was caught by a speed camera travelling at 41 mph in a 30 mph zone at Thorney, Cambridgeshire. The camera was activated just after 10 pm on the evening of 24th July 2017.
• Onasanya identified the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence as Aleks Antipow.
• The prosecution case is that Onasanya herself was driving at the time of the offence and has wrongly named Antipow as driver in order to escape punishment.

The prosecution has spent this first week outlining its case, brief snippets of which are:

• Mr Antipow was at his parents' home in Russia at the time Onasanya says he was driving her vehicle in Thorney.
• Cell site data places both of Onasanya's mobile phones in the Thorney area at the time her vehicle activated the speed camera.
• Onasanya's former aide, Dr Christian DeFeo, has given evidence to the effect that the newly elected MP attended his property, in the Thorney area, at about the same time as the camera was activated by her vehicle. He confirms that she was driving the vehicle and was alone when it arrived at his property.

The trial has been adjourned until 10 am on Monday morning, at which time the defence will start presenting its case. A verdict is expected by the end of next week.

It is definitely worth keeping an eye on this one.