Carlisle Man Jailed for Breaching Suspended Sentence Order

A Carlisle man has been sentenced to 140 days imprisonment after flagrantly breaching a suspended sentence order the day after it was imposed.

Prolific criminal Andrew Bell, 42, of Shaddongate, appeared at Carlisle Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 21st February 2018, where he admitted breaching his criminal behaviour order by entering Carlisle city centre on 20th February.

On the previous day, 19th February, Bell was made subject to a suspended sentence order after breaching the terms of his criminal behaviour order by entering West Tower Street on 18th February.

Bell was sentenced to 60 days imprisonment for the breach of 20th February, to be served consecutively with 80 days imprisonment for the activation of the suspended sentence order. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £115.

Criminals beware: If you breach a suspended sentence order nowadays, you're likely to find yourself in custody.

Katie Price Guilty of Being Drunk In Charge

Former glamour model turned television personality Katie Price has been convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

Having previously pleaded not guilty to the offence, her trial was heard yesterday at Bexley Magistrates' Court, with District Judge Nigel Dean presiding.

The offence was committed in Woolwich in the early hours of 10th October 2018.

PCs Benjamin Jones and Balvinder Mann of the British Transport Police noticed Price's distinctive pink Range Rover veering off the road and hitting the grass verge.

About 15 minutes later the officers came across the accident damaged vehicle parked in a side street off Shooters Hill Road.

PC Jones told the court that he approached the vehicle to find Price in the back with her friend, Kris Boyson, in the passenger seat.

"Her eyes were blurred and her speech was a bit slurred. Although she was sitting, it was in a slumped position," he said.

Both Price and Boyson claimed a third person ran off with the keys after an argument, but this proved not to be the case when Price subsequently handed the keys to another police officer.

Price was arrested and subsequently provided an evidential specimen of breath containing 69 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millitres of breath, the legal limit being 35 microgrammes.

Price, of Horsham, West Sussex blamed Boyson for not revealing the identity of the person who was supposedly driving the £130,000 car at the time of the incident.

She told the court that she had allowed the stranger, who was friends with Boyson, to drive the car back towards Boyson's home in Bluewater.

But the judge found she had been in possession of the key fob at the time of the arrest, during which police saw the engine, lights and heating come on.

Judge Dean said: "I did not find her (Price) to be a plausible or credible witness."

A separate charge of driving whilst unfit through drink was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

On the drunk in charge, Price was disqualified from driving for 3 months, fined £1,500, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £150 and prosecution costs of £775.

Speaking outside court after the hearing, a seemingly unashamed Price said: "It adds on to my disqualification I'm already on, which means I get my driving licence back on the 24th of May, which means I can go car shopping - let's ban the pink car."

Community Order for Thieving Carer

A carer who stole from the purse of an 82 year-old dementia sufferer has narrowly avoided a custodial sentence.

Rebecca Harrison, 44, of Blunt Street, Stanley Common, Ilkston, was found guilty of theft after her recent trial at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court.

She was caught after the victim's daughter noticed money going missing and installed CCTV cameras in an effort to catch the culprit.

Marianne Connally, prosecuting, said: "The complainant in this case is an elderly lady and relies on carers entering her home four-times-a-day, seven-days-a-week for her personal hygiene and for meals.

"The complaint was initially made by the complainant's daughter, as money was going missing from her mother's purse that couldn't be explained.

"There is a huge element of breach of trust.

"Given the witness defence costs there is an application for £620."

District Judge Andrew Meachin heard that Harrison had been involved in a serious car accident after the commission of the offence and had resigned from her role as a carer.

Peter Jones, mitigating for Harrison, said: "The defendant has had higher education. She started her employment at the firm in June 2017 and had reached supervisor level.

"It is a great shock to her employers.

"The defendant was unfortunately subject to quite a severe car accident.

"The defendant has impairments. Her mother has been helping her, but she has issues herself.

"She resigned from her position, but her employment has been terminated. She is on universal credit."

In sentencing, Judge Meachin said: "This is a serious offence, so serious that custody has to be considered.

"You were convicted after trial so you have no credit whatsoever.

"You are going to get a community order, I can't get around that."

The judge imposed a 12 month community order with a 20 day rehabilitation activity requirement.

He also ordered Harrison to pay £20 compensation to the victim, prosecution costs of £620 and the victim surcharge of £85.

The Derby Telegraph also reports that Judge Meachin imposed a fine of £569, which would be very unusual given the nature of the offence, the fact a community order had been imposed and Harrison's limited financial means. Perhaps the newspaper is slightly wrong on the details of that.

Theft is a very serious matter at the best of times, but targeting the vulnerable victim in her own home and abusing her trust makes Harrison's crime particularly loathsome.

Reading between the lines it would appear that the CPS brought a single charge in relation to the theft caught on the CCTV. It's a reasonable bet that Harrison had been dipping her hand into the victim's purse prior to that, but the CPS obviously didn't think it had sufficient evidence to lay additional charges.

Had Harrison been found guilty of multiple offences she'd probably be limping around a prison landing by now.

Police Appeal After Prisoner Escapes from Custody

A dangerous sex offender escaped from custody on his way back to prison from court.

Kamil Malag, 36, attended Nottingham Magistrates' Court yesterday to appeal a 15-week prison sentence for sexual assault.

After his unsuccessful appeal hearing, he was being driven back to HMP Hewell near Redditch at around 7.15 pm last night when he managed to give officers the slip.

Malag absconded from the back of the prison van as it travelled along Lichfield Road, Coleshill on the eastern outskirts of Birmingham.

He is described as white, around 6' tall, of medium build, with receding dark brown hair that is balding on top and brown eyes. He has a gold tooth and two tattoos on his neck, one of which says 'Tanesha'.

Malag is believed to be wearing blue jeans, a yellow t-shirt and grey trainers.

He has links to Smethwick, Warley and Handsworth.

Warwickshire Police is appealing for information about his whereabouts.

Detective Sergeant Adam Clifford said: "We are appealing for the public's help to find Kamil Malag, and would urge anyone who has seen him or has any information as to his whereabouts to please get in touch."

Anyone with any information is asked to call Warwickshire Police on 101 quoting reference 351 of 21 February. Information can also be provided to independent charity Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

A Day in the Life of a Magistrate

A fairly typical day in court, described by a Magistrate:

0900 hrs:

I arrive at the court building I am sitting at that day, probably having travelled many miles to get there. My closest court is half an hour from home, but it only has limited work so I often travel much further afield. I really don't mind travelling to get a few of the more interesting and unusual cases to deal with.

The concept of local justice is a bit of a misnomer nowadays, with Justices having (theoretical) jurisdiction to sit at any Magistrates' Court in England or Wales. That being case the traditional Local Justice Area boundaries are a bit blurred and we are often asked to help out at courts in different areas 50+ miles away. Even so, most still choose to sit fairly close to where they live or work.

On arriving at the court building I will enter via a private doorway, sign in at the sheet in the hallway/foyer and make my way to the retiring room. I am undoubtedly one of the first Justices to arrive, but I'd far rather get there in plenty of time than panic about being late if I am unexpectedly delayed en route.

0900 - 0945 hrs:

I am probably already carrying a cup of coffee (possibly a cheeky bacon sandwich too) when I arrive, but if not my first task will be to get one from the kitchen adjoining the retiring room. There are always plenty of biscuits for anyone with a sweet tooth.

There is usually time for a chat with colleagues as they arrive, some of whom I might not have seen for several months. Conversation is a varied affair, ranging from holidays to medical procedures and everything in between!

Some courts have very grand, spacious retiring rooms where all of the Justices in the court building congregate together; others have small retiring rooms for each bench to congregate separately. There is always a table to sit around, various pieces of literature to read and noticeboards displaying important information.

The office staff will have left lists of the day's work in the retiring room, so I pick out the relevant list that applies to my court and read through the morning's business. Reading the list, I pay particular attention to the names and addresses of the defendants and the offences with which they are charged. If there is an obvious conflict of interest - say one of the defendants was well known to me, or an offence happened at my place of work - then I would make the chairman and legal advisor aware and step down from dealing with that case.

Having read the list I will go to the cabinet in the corner of the retiring room and sign out an iPad. Experience tells me that it's a good idea to view a selection of iPads in the cabinet before choosing one, as some of them are getting a bit weather-beaten and struggle to hold charge.

I'd open up the Sentencing Guidelines app and search for and bookmark the guidelines relating to cases before my court. If sitting in a GAP court (guilty anticipated plea) then I will refresh my memory of the relevant guidelines, as we will probably have a lot of work and have to deal with each case fairly briskly. If sitting in an NGAP court (not guilty anticipated plea) or trials court then the pace is slower and there is more time to read the relevant guidelines as and when required. If it is a remand court then we might not know what we are dealing with until a few minutes before we start, but you can usually bank on things like drunk and disorderly, shop theft, breaches of bail, bindings over etc.

The legal advisor shares details of each case electronically using the Court Store app on the iPad. I'd sign into the Court Store and read through anything that had been shared for the first few cases. In the case of a trial (e.g. where we are hearing the case of a defendant who has pleaded not guilty) we are not told anything prejudicial to the fairness of the trial. We would only get an outline charge and copy of the PET (preparation for an effective trial) form. The PET form, which is agreed by the prosecution and defence advocates, gives administrative details for the trial and briefly outlines the basis of the not guilty plea.

0945 hrs:

Around about this time the legal advisor will appear, introduce them self if necessary and tell us the names of the prosecution and defence advocates. In all likelihood we will know the legal advisor very well, having worked with them on many previous occasions. The legal advisor will bring any unusual cases to our attention and address any questions we might have before going into court. The legal advisor is professionally qualified to advise the bench on points of law. It is not the legal advisor's job to make the bench's decisions for it.

0950 - 1000 hrs:

There might be warrant applications made behind closed doors before we open the court to the public.

1000 hrs (but often delayed):

We leave the retiring room, walk to our courtroom and announce our arrival (by either knocking on the door or pressing a button). We will already have decided which winger is on either side of the chairman. The usher inside the courtroom will ask everyone present to stand and we will enter and take our seats, having wished everyone present a good morning beforehand.

The first case is called and away we go.

Depending on the business of the court, we might deal with 20 (or more) cases during the morning. Some of these might be fairly brief (e.g. adjourning for trial if the defendant pleads not guilty), others may take some time (e.g. deciding whether a drink drive offence has crossed the custody threshold). The more straightforward and routine decisions will be taken by getting our heads together as we remain on the bench. We are keen to make as much progress as possible, so will only retire to discuss matters if we really have to.

1230 hrs:

Usually we break for lunch at about this time, but it may be earlier or later depending on the workload that particular day.

1230 - 1315 hrs:

By this time my iPad will be limping along, so I might sneak it back into the cabinet to squeeze some extra charge into it.

In our area most Justices are rota'd for a full day sitting, but there are sometimes changeovers at lunchtime.

Many of us will have brought something to eat in the retiring room, but some will take the short walk into town to buy sandwiches or simply breathe fresh air and stretch their legs!

1315 - 1345 hrs:

This is when I would start preparing for the afternoon session. I would normally follow the same procedure as between 0900 - 0945 hrs, but having done a lot of preparation earlier on things can get done much quicker now.

1345 hrs:

Just like earlier on, the legal advisor will appear and introduce them self. In our area, it will probably be the same legal advisor as in the morning.

1350 - 1400 hrs:

More warrant applications if necessary.

1400 hrs (but often delayed):

We return to the courtroom to deal with the afternoon's cases.

1630 hrs:

Usually we're finished the afternoon's cases by about this time, but it may be earlier or later depending on the workload that particular day.

1630 - 1640 hrs:

Back to the retiring room now and the legal advisor will often ask if we want to have a post court review. The review is an opportunity to discuss any legal or procedural points that have arisen from the day's cases.

1640:

Just before leaving court I will clear all of my bookmarks on the Sentencing Guidelines app, log out of the Court Store, return my iPad to the cabinet and make sure it is being charged ready for the next person to use.

I engage in any final bits of conversation before wishing my colleagues a good evening and heading home.

Concerns About Inappropriate Court Security Searches

Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) is currently reviewing the way security checks are performed after several women raised concerns about the process.

According to a recent report in the Leicester Mercury, several woman have been left feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable after being searched by male security staff.

Olwen Davies, a solicitor-advocate, wants HMCTS to introduce a number of measures to help women feel more comfortable at security checks.

The Leicester-based lawyer said: "As women, we face the daily ordeal of being searched by men, some of whom appear to have a chip on their shoulder over women having professional roles in society.

"Women face the daily indignity of having sanitary protection removed from their bags for all to see.

"HMCTS have been asked to conduct such searches in private to preserve the dignity of those simply going to work.

"They have refused on the grounds that it is too resource-intensive."

Ms Davies has conducted research on the intrusiveness of the searches by speaking to fellow court users.

"Our research showed it isn't just women lawyers who are ordered to open purses, lift up shirts to reveal navels or have the security wand linger across their chests and between their legs on the way into the building," she said.

"A female JP at Leicester Magistrates' Court was left uncomfortable when subject to a search when wearing a cotton summer dress and no tights."

The problem of intrusive searches seems to be more widespread than just Leicester, with a security officer at Bromley Magistrates' Court having been suspended after asking barrister Becky Owen to "spread your legs please" during a search last November. The same officer refused Ms Owen entry when she wouldn't empty the contents of her bag into a tray for all to see.

Ms Davies has written to HMCTS asking for the following safeguards:

• Security staff must be obliged to wear their name badges;
• HMCTS should provide the SIA accreditation number of any security staff member within 48 hours of a request by a court user;
• No security searches should be conducted by a staff member of the opposite sex, unless the court user gives their express consent;
• Court users should have a right to be searched in private;
• Entry should be permitted on production of a valid ID card issued by the Bar Council, Law Society or other professional body;
• Signs explaining court users' rights and obligations regarding searches and entry should be positioned prominently.

Responding to concerns, an HMCTS spokeswoman said: "While the majority of our security staff are hard-working and professional, we will always investigate allegations of unacceptable behaviour and take robust action where they are found to be true."

Practise obviously differs across England and Wales, but in my experience most Magistrates and District Judges have either a fob or pass code to allow them access via a private entrance at the side or rear of the court building.

Unless they are an unfamiliar face, it is unlikely they would undergo any security check apart from being asked to show their ID card. Depending on how well recognised they are, they might not even be approached by security staff. HMCTS and National Probation Service staff similarly have access via a private entrance.

All other court users gain access via the public entrance, which involves undergoing a basic security screen. A security officer either asks the court user to walk through a metal detecting gate or passes a metal detecting wand over the front and rear of their body. If anything is detected the court user would be asked to show and/or explain the item in question.

If the court user has a bag the officer will ask them to open it up and show what is inside, perhaps moving the items around a little to reveal the full interior of the bag. I have never seen a security officer ask anyone to empty out the contents of their bag on to a table or tray, but clearly it does happen in some places.

I should also say that I have never come across a security officer that I have considered impolite or unprofessional in any way.

Short Custodial Sentences: A Necessary Evil?

The Lord Chancellor, Rt. Hon. David Gauke MP, has reiterated earlier murmurations from the Ministry of Justice that custodial sentences shorter than 6 months should be abolished.

If the plan went ahead more than 30,000 criminals a year would avoid a custodial sentence of less than 6 months. As the maximum sentence the Magistrates' Court can impose for a single offence is 6 months' imprisonment, such a move could have a significant impact on the disposal of cases at that court.

According to Mr Gauke, more than 250,000 custodial sentences of 6 months or less and more than 300,000 for 12 months or less were handed out in the past five years. Almost two-thirds of those offenders go on to reoffend within a year of their release.

The Prisons Minster, Rory Stewart MP, has previously said that custodial sentences of less than 6 months were "long enough to damage you and not long enough to heal you".

Putting an offender into prison for just long enough to deprive them of their home, employment, reputation and family, is not conducive to successful rehabilitation, so the Minister says. I agree entirely.

Admirable a job as the prison authorities do, often in the most difficult of circumstances, prison is not the ideal place for rehabilitation. On the contrary, most offenders are exposed to new levels of criminality during their stint behind bars. Prison is the ideal place for offenders to hone their criminal skills and character traits. Many of those offenders released from prison will have made undesirable new contacts and learnt undesirable new behaviours.

Despite the Government's concerns, it has to be said that custody is already a last resort in terms of Magistrates' Court sentencing. It is an option reserved for offences deemed so serious that no other sentence is appropriate.

Less than 5 percent of cases disposed of by the Magistrates' Court result in an immediate custodial sentence and every case that does is a very sobering experience for the bench in question.

Depriving a fellow citizen of their liberty is not a decision anyone takes lightly, but it has to remain an option for serial offenders and those displaying wilful and persistent non-compliance with community orders.

What kind of authority would the Magistrates' Court have if offenders knew that custody was never a realistic sentencing option? Very little I suspect.

Pensioner Jailed for Contempt of Court

An Abergavenny man has been jailed for being in contempt of court.

Stanley Mann, 66, of the town's Victoria Court, was sat in the public gallery at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court when he aggressively shouted at a police witness during the trial of his former partner.

Mann continued to disrupt proceedings despite having been asked to sit quietly on several occasions. He was eventually removed from the court room and placed in the cells until the end of the day.

On his return to the court room, this time standing in the dock, Mann accepted that his behaviour amounted to contempt of court and apologised to the bench.

Mike Kelleher, defending, said: "He was here supporting an ex-partner of his. They were together for 17 years and she suffers with her health. This particular case has worn them both out.

"They have been frustrated and had difficulty obtaining representation at court.

"They have both been bound up in this case, so much so that he let it get the better of him, and he had a bit of an outburst when he should not have done so."

In accordance with section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the Magistrates' Court has the power to imprison any person that willfully insults any Justice, officer of the court, solicitor, counsel or witness. The maximum penalty is one month imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding £2,500 or both.

In this case Magistrates sentenced Mann to 21 days imprisonment.

The chairman of the bench, who was present during Mann's outburst, said: "You ignored four warnings in court, you talked over the chairman and seriously disrupted proceedings.

"The officer had to leave the witness stand and court had to stop. There was a degree of aggression shown in this court.

"Your attitude to the court and this behaviour cannot be condoned."

National Roll Out of GPS Electronic Tagging

Justice Secretary David Gauke today announced the national roll out of new GPS tags which will provide 24/7 location monitoring of offenders. This will help strengthen supervision, enforce exclusion zones and give victims greater peace of mind.

If a tagged domestic abuser or stalker enters a banned area or a gang member is found somewhere they should not be, this new capability will issue an automatic alert and their whereabouts will be known. Victims can now feel safer in the knowledge that any breach of an exclusion zone will result in an immediate alert. The tags also provide a tougher option for community sentences which can be used alongside requirements like alcohol or drug treatment programmes.

Mr Gauke said: "GPS tagging will help to better protect victims and give them the reassurance that perpetrators will not be able to breach an exclusion zone without triggering an immediate alert.

"I am confident that this important new technology will become a vital tool to increase public protection and strengthen options for tougher community sentences."

The GPS tags have so far been rolled out to 3 regions, the North West, Midlands and North East, with other regions due to go live in the coming months. The tags will be available across England and Wales by the summer.

The new technology is also set to be piloted in London (by the London Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime) to monitor offenders released from prison who have been convicted of knife crime offences. Offenders will have their movements checked against locations of reported crimes, in an effort to tackle violence in the capital.

Gloucestershire Police's Deputy Chief Constable Jon Stratford, the National Police Chiefs Council Electronic Monitoring lead, said: "The potential benefits of using this new technology to better protect victims are recognised by the police service and we’re working closely with the Ministry of Justice to identify a suitable joint implementation programme."

A wide range of offenders will be eligible for the new tags, including those subject to court-imposed bail, community orders and suspended sentence orders, as well as those on Home Detention Curfew and indeterminate sentenced prisoners released by the Parole Board.

Location monitoring can be used to:

• enforce an exclusion zone - an offender or individual on bail can’t enter a specific location or area;
• keep a given distance from a point or address, including victim’s address or that of a known criminal associate;
• monitor an offender’s attendance at a certain activity - for example work or a rehabilitation programme;
• monitor an offender’s movements to support discussions with probation about an offender’s lifestyle and behaviours.

The tags will transmit an offender's location 24/7 to a specialist monitoring unit in Manchester and if an offender enters an excluded zone and breaches their conditions, they face being recalled to prison or returned to court.

Man Admits Exposing Himself in Shopping Centre Toilets

A man faces prison after exposing himself in the public toilets at the Intu Metrocentre in Gateshead.

Thomas Wilson, 24, of Stanley in County Durham, appeared at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court and admitted a single charge of exposure. The charge relates to an incident that took place in the Intu Metrocentre's Blue Mall on 24th September 2018.

Exposure is an either way offence contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It carries a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment with conviction on indictment, or 26 weeks imprisonment on summary conviction.

A 16 year-old boy innocently using the adjacent toilet cubicle overheard and saw shadow movements on the floor that he interpreted as Wilson masturbating.

Any lingering doubts about the lewdness of Wilson's conduct were removed when he dropped onto his knees and pushed his erect penis underneath the divide. Wilson, a Sky employee, has previously accepted a caution on a similar matter.

The court heard that the 16 year-old had the presence of mind to take a photograph of Wilson's behaviour, before fleeing the toilets and screaming for his mother and the police.

Wilson's solicitor, Paul Hanratty, said: "The defendant didn't know the identity of the individual.

"He simply thought there was someone next door who was inviting that sort of behaviour.

"But he accepts he did expose himself behind a locked cubicle door."

Wilson was arrested by police when he returned to the Intu Metrocentre a week after the offence.

He sobbed as Magistrates ordered an all options report, warning that a custodial sentence was a real possibility.

Wilson will be sentenced at the same court on 20th February 2019.

Update (21/2/2019): Wilson has been sentenced.

Bacon Sandwich Rage Results in Broken Mobile Phone

A man has been convicted of criminal damage after smashing his mother's mobile phone.

Robert Young, 23, of Low Fold in Byker, Newcastle, admitted the offence when he appeared at South East Northumberland Magistrates' Court earlier this week.

The court heard that Young, who has autism, fell out with his mother when she refused to give him money for cannabis and prepared his bacon sandwich the wrong way.

Prosecutor James Long said: "The defendant was at home and became upset after about his mother not getting his bacon sandwich done the way he likes it.

"He began calling her names, punched a cupboard door and was in a foul mood for some hours.

"The defendant then asked his mother for £10 so he could buy some cannabis and she refused, so he smashed her phone."

Mr Long read Young's mother's victim personal impact statement, in which she said that she did not want a restraining order but her son would have to find somewhere else to live because she's "had enough of his behaviour".

Alanna Wesencraft, representing Young, told the court that he sometimes struggles to control his emotions and had not been before the court for a number of years.

Young was handed a six-month conditional discharged and ordered to pay £190 compensation for the broken mobile, £40 in court costs and a £20 victim surcharge.

Chair of the bench Gordon Wanless said: "You can't react the way you did to your frustration over the way your mother prepared your bacon sandwich."

Fine Levels and Bands

In our earlier article about types of sentence we described how fines were by far the most common penalty imposed by the Magistrates' Court.

In this article we will explain a little about how the court decides the size of fine to impose. This depends on two factors: the fine level and the fine band. The fine level refers to the maximum penalty allowed by legislation; the fine band is a correction that takes into account the offender's ability to pay.

Fine Level

Pretty much every offence the Magistrates' Court will come across has a maximum penalty written in legislation. The maximum penalty for drink driving, for example, is an unlimited fine and/or 6 months’ imprisonment. It wouldn't matter how many times over the drink drive limit the offender was, they cannot be dealt with more severely than that.

The fine level is a convenient way of indicating the maximum fine that can be imposed for any given offence. There are five levels, with maximum fines as follows:

• Level 1 - £200
• Level 2 - £500
• Level 3 - £1,000
• Level 4 - £2,500
• Level 5 - Unlimited

The financial values of each level are adjusted from time to time, to take into account inflation etc.

Historic legislation uses phrases like "the maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 5 shillings", which is clearly unenforceable and lacks relevance in the modern era. Current legislation overcomes this problem by using terms like "the maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale".

Relevant Weekly Income (RWI)

When an offender is in employment (or self-employed) and earns more than £120 per week after tax and National Insurance deductions, then their actual income is considered to be their RWI.

When an offender's only source of income is benefits, or if they earn less than £120 per week after tax and National Insurance deductions, then their RWI is assumed to be £120.

If the court has no relevant information as to the offender's RWI, then it will assume an RWI of £440.

Fine Band

Offenders are usually sentenced in accordance with guidelines produced by The Sentencing Council. Whenever a fine is imposed, the offender's ability to pay must also be taken into account. This is done by using a series of fine bands, each one corresponding to various multiples of the offender's RWI.

The fine bands are as follows:

• Band A = starting point of 50 % RWI; range of 25 - 75 % RWI
• Band B = starting point of 100 % RWI; range of 75 - 125 % RWI
• Band C = starting point of 150 % RWI; range of 125 - 175 % RWI
• Band D = starting point of 250 % RWI; range of 200 - 300 % RWI
• Band E = starting point of 400 % RWI; range of 300 - 500 % RWI
• Band F = starting point of 600 % RWI; range of 500 - 700 % RWI

The use of fine bands means, at least in theory, that everyone fined for a particular offence should experience the same amount of punishment (the same "hit" to their wallet), irrespective of their actual income. It's not a perfect system, but it works pretty well.

Fines in Practice

1. An offender has been convicted of speeding at 38 mph in a 30 mph limit. They have an RWI of £300. The sentencing guidelines indicate that a Band A fine is an appropriate financial penalty. The starting point for the fine would be 50 % RWI (£150 in this case), but a fine in the range of 25 - 75 % RWI (£75 - £225 in this case) could be imposed.

2. An offender has been convicted of careless driving. They are in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance, so their RWI is assumed to be £120. The bench has determined that it is a Category 1 offence. The sentencing guidelines indicate that a Band C fine would be an appropriate financial penalty. The starting point for the fine would be 150 % RWI (£180 in this case), but a fine in the range of 125 - 175 % RWI (£150 - £210 in this case) could be imposed.

3. An offender has been convicted of being drunk and disorderly. They are a television personality with an RWI of £3,000. Having consulted the sentencing guidelines the bench thinks a Band C fine would be an appropriate financial penalty, but that would exceed the value of the maximum penalty permitted by legislation (a level 3 fine). The bench decides to impose the maximum fine permitted by legislation, which is £1,000 in this case.

Yorkshire Paedophile Hunter on False Imprisonment Charge

A self-styled paedophile hunter has been charged with false imprisonment.

Philip Hoban, leader of the Predator Exposure group, has been charged with two counts of false imprisonment, one count of assault by beating and a public order offence.

The charges relate to his group's activities in Leeds on 13th January 2019 and Wakefield on 11th August 2018.

The 43 year-old, from Beeston, will appear at Leeds Magistrates' Court on 11th March 2019.

Several others have been charged in connection with the alleged offences and are due to appear at the same court in March.

Prior to his court appearance, Hoban issued a statement via YouTube.

After opening with comments critical of West Yorkshire Police, he said: "When it goes in front of a jury, I'll say one thing - I'm here to protect our kids.

"Everyone is here to protect our kids, and this is what it's all about.

"If you think I've committed a crime, send me to prison, judge."

The following people have been charged in connection with the same alleged offences:

• Kelly Meadows, 39, of Lawnswood is charged with two counts of false imprisonment. She is due to appear at Leeds Magistrates Court on 8th March 2019;
• Jordan Macdonald, 18, of Farnley is charged with two counts of false imprisonment and one count of assault by beating. He is due to appear at Leeds Magistrates Court on 11th March 2019;
• Jordan Plain, 25, of Farnley, has been charged with false imprisonment and assault by beating. He is due to appear at Leeds Magistrates Court on 8th March 2019.

A further 52 year-old man was arrested on suspicion of false imprisonment and assault by beating, but has not been charged.

Predator Exposure uses undercover decoys to gather evidence against those suspected of online child grooming. Having gathered what the group considers to be sufficient evidence, the decoy arranges a meeting with the suspected groomer and members of the group lie in wait to tackle them. The confrontation is filmed and live streamed on the web.

One characteristic of Predator Exposure stings is that Hoban toys with the suspect by falsely claiming that they'll be released if they plead for forgiveness and promise not to contact children in future.

West Yorkshire Police has previously written to Predator Exposure to deter it from mounting vigilante type stings.

A police spokesperson said: "While the force does of course share the concerns of these groups regarding the internet activity of potential child abusers and the danger they present, it must be stressed that the activities they seek to engage in are the responsibility of law enforcement agencies.

"West Yorkshire Police fully investigates all allegations of child sexual exploitation and has dedicated, specialist safeguarding officers in all our policing districts."

It would be entirely reasonable to say that Predator Exposure's encounters are far more aggressive than those of similar groups. Hoban is a powerfully-built cage fighter, who most people would find intimidating to say the least. The suspects he snares are typically subjected to a protracted verbal onslaught and physical restraint prior to the arrival of the police.

Predator Exposure tackles its targets hard, both physically and verbally. Theirs is without doubt a noble cause, but there are genuine concerns that the way these operations are conducted could prejudice subsequent legal proceedings.

It would be far less prejudicial for these hunters to gather the evidence, pass it to the police and allow them to investigate, arrest and charge accordingly. Of course doing it that way doesn't lead to such online notoriety.

Update (10/11/19): Predator Exposure has now had its day in court. You can read the outcome of the trial here.

Blue Badge Fraudster Convicted

A Dartford woman has been convicted of fraudulently using her grandmother's blue disabled badge.

Laura Halford, 31, of Watling Street, pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud during her recent appearance at Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court.

Kent County Council's Counter Fraud Team launched an investigation after receiving several reports of Halford's car displaying a Royal Borough of Greenwich blue badge in car parks around Sevenoaks.

She was given a penalty charge notice by parking officers after CCTV footage showed her parked in Buckhurst car park on 2nd January, 2018.

Halford appealed the notice but was caught parking in a disabled bay in Suffolk Way car park the following day. She received a second penalty charge.

The blue badge holder was not present on either occasion.

Paul Rock, Kent County Council's Counter Fraud Manager, said: "The vast majority of blue badges in Kent are used correctly and where there is an allegation of misuse we will investigate.

"As a council, our focus is on correcting behaviour through education and working with district and borough councils to ensure compliance.

"Cautions are a balanced way of dealing with offenders without going through the time and expense of a prosecution.

"However, in this case, Mrs Halford did not attend any interviews under caution and the level of evidence gave us no choice but to proceed with a prosecution.

"We take blue badge fraud extremely seriously and we expect more prosecutions in the near future."

Magistrates imposed a three year conditional discharge and ordered Halford to pay £750 in prosecution costs.

Glastonbury Man Mooned at PCSO

A Glastonbury man has been convicted of a public order offence after baring his bottom in the direction of a PCSO and young girl.

Jonathan Paul Roper, 34, of Dunstan Road, pleaded guilty to using threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour likely to cause somebody harassment, alarm or distress when he appeared at Yeovil Magistrates' Court.

This is an offence contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (read our earlier article for an example of how this same piece of legislation was recently misused by Derbyshire Police). This is a summary offence, which can only be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court, and the maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1,000).

Magistrates heard how the PCSO approached Roper on 23rd October 2018, after spotting him consuming alcohol in a no-alcohol zone. When challenged he partially pulled down his trousers, before slapping his bare buttocks and asking the female officer to "kiss my fucking arse".

There was a man with a young girl nearby who witnessed the incident and the defendant was arrested and charged with the offence.

The PCSO was on duty in Glastonbury town centre at the time of the offence, which was around 3 o'clock in the afternoon. She became aware of Roper drinking from a bottle as he followed behind.

Emma Lenanton, for the Crown, said: "She could see he was drinking from a bottle of cider while he was in a public no-drinking zone so she challenged him and asked him to stop.

"He then told her to kiss his fucking arse and bent over, slapping his bum and showing part of his bare backside and there was a man with a young girl in the area who also saw the offence."

In a victim impact statement the PCSO said she had found Roper's behaviour difficult and embarrassing to deal with. She also said he had displayed a blatant disregard for the law and disrespect towards the local community.

Jeffrey Bannister, defending, said that the PCSO's embarrassment had been down to the fact that she could not detain the defendant and no colleague was available to help her at the time.

"Roper was walking through a designated non-drinking area when he took a drink from the bottle and when the officer spoke to him he ignored her," he said.

Magistrates fined Roper £150 and ordered him to pay £85 costs and a £30 victim surcharge.

Man Successfully Appeals Prison Sentence After CPS Error

A man jailed for six months for possession of a bladed article in a public place has had his sentence reduced on appeal.

Nicholas James Hornby, 33, of St David's Road in Old Colwyn, had been jailed by Llandudno Magistrates' Court after admitting the offence back in October 2017.

Barrister Elen Owen, representing Hornby, said that it was accepted that an error had been made and that the Magistrates had been informed that he had a similar previous conviction which meant he faced a six month minimum sentence.

She said it was believed that the prosecutor had made an error and read the wrong set of previous convictions.

Michael Whitty, for the Crown, said there had been a disturbance in Old Colwyn. Hornby was located in Ellis Avenue in Llysfaen and he was carrying a glass bottle, which contained a liquid he claimed to be battery acid.

Hornby was aggressive and told officers not to continue to approach him or he would thrown the contents of the bottle. He did not throw the contents of the bottle and was arrested when back up arrived. When Hornby was searched the police found a tin open in his possession, which had a blade as part of its design.

Ms Owen said that it was a small item, part of a knife and fork set, which Hornby had used in work but accepted that he had no lawful use for it that night. The knife had not been produced by her client and therefore a community band penalty would have been suitable for the offence.

HHJ Rhys Rowlands, sitting with Justices at Mold Crown Court, granted the appeal and reduced Hornby's sentence from six months to four months.

Judge Rowlands expressed concern that the appeal had taken so long and that Magistrates had been misled about the nature of Hornby's previous convictions.

An Introduction to Search Warrants

From time to time Justices of Peace and District Judges are called upon to consider search warrant applications made by various law enforcement agencies.

In this article we give a brief general outline of the search warrant application process. This is a very broad subject, so we cannot possibly cover every aspect. That said, we hope to cover the most pertinent points. We should also mention that everything written here is freely available in the public domain, so we're not giving away any trade secrets.

To avoid repetition of "Justice of the Peace" and "District Judge", we shall simply use the term "Justice". We should also mention that Circuit Judges and High Court Judges can assume the role of Justices in the granting of these warrants, although the overwhelming majority are dealt with by lay Justices.

Every application requires very careful consideration by the Justice concerned. If the information provided is deficient in any way, or there is any doubt about the legitimacy of the application, then the warrant must be refused. In the words of Lord Justice Latham: "The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be treated as a formality. It authorises the invasion of a person's home."

There are several pieces of legislation that allow the grant of search warrants in various circumstances. Warrants granted under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and those granted under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are probably the most common. We shall discuss the specifics of these warrants in future articles.

The person applying for the warrant is known as the applicant. In most circumstances this will be a police officer. The applicant should be asked for their warrant card or photographic identification to prove who they are.

The application usually takes place at court during working hours, where a legal advisor is close at hand to check the paperwork. Out of hours applications, where a Justice is asked to consider the application at their home or place of work, are exceptionally rare. In the event of an out of hours application, the duty legal advisor will always contact the Justice beforehand to let them know that the applicant will be heading in their direction.

Every application is accompanied by a written information, which explains in detail the reason the warrant is being sought. The information may run the several pages. The information must be confirmed on oath or by affirmation. The Justice normally reads through the information carefully and then asks the applicant to explain, in their own words, the reasons for the application.

The application must include the following:

• The name, rank and job description of the applicant;
• The statutory provision (e.g. section and Act) under which the warrant would be issued;
• Details of the premises to be entered and searched - e.g. the address or location. Premises includes vehicles, vessels, aircraft, temporary or movable structures;
• As far as possible, the articles or persons sought;
• The grounds on which the application is made.

The applicant must be full and frank in their disclosure, so that a decision can be made on the fullest possible information. In particular, the applicant is obliged to provide any information that might undermine the basis of their application. The applicant needs to satisfy the Justice that the material sought is not exempt from search for any reason. The Justice may well have questions for the applicant, the gist of which should be recorded along with the answers provided.

If the Justice is content to grant the warrant they will sign, date and time the application and sign and date each of the warrants. If the warrant is refused the reasons must be carefully documented on the application.

The warrant must include the following:

• The name of the applicant;
• The date on which it is issued (but not the time);
• The statutory provision (e.g. section and Act) under which it was issued;
• The address and postcode (if available) or location to be entered and searched;
• As far as possible, the articles or persons sought.

As the application may have been typed at a thousand miles an hour, it is a good idea for the Justice to check that the details shown on the application match those on the warrant.

A copy of the application and warrant are retained by the court. The other copies of the warrant are handed to the applicant for them to go away and attempt to execute. The warrant must be executed within strict statutory time limits.