Criminal Court Listings

Over recent weeks it has become apparent that many visitors to the Magistrates' Blog are searching for Magistrates' and Crown Court listings.

Daily Crown Court listings are available online via the Ministry of Justice's XHIBIT system. XHIBIT listings are not normally publicly available until around 10 am on the day of listing.

The CourtServe website also provides daily Crown Court listings and quite often has listings for the following day too.

Unfortunately Magistrates' Court listings are not made publicly available beforehand. The press and media do get advance listing information, which allows them to be at the right place at the right time for reporting purposes. These advance lists summarise the offences each defendant is charged with.

Any member of the public can walk into a Magistrates' or Crown Court and view the daily lists on display in the building. These will give the name of the defendant, time of hearing, courtroom and the name of the prosecuting authority. Charges are not shown on these display lists.

Occasionally details are redacted from the publicly displayed lists for legal reasons - e.g. the names of defendants under the age of 18.

Woman Given Community Order for Being Drunk in Charge of Child

A Southampton woman has been given a community order for being drunk in charge of a child.

Carmel Betteridge, 29, originally denied the offence but was found guilty following trial at Southampton Magistrates' Court on 20th February 2019. District Judge Peter Greenfield adjourned the matter for reports, prior to sentencing Betteridge yesterday.

It is an offence under section 2 of the Licensing Act 1902 for any person found drunk on a highway or other public place to have a child under the age of 7 years in their charge. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine at level 2 (currently £500) or one month's imprisonment.

This is not a very common charge, thus making it worthy of mention in this article.

Prosecutor Liam Hunter described the circumstances of the offence, which took place on the city's Vincents Walk at around 8.30 pm on 28th August 2018.

Two police officers, PCs Ben Hitchins and Martin Parker, approached Betteridge and the child after concerns were raised by a member of the public. The officers described how her breath smelt of alcohol, slurred her words and was uncooperative.

PC Hitchins said: "She was aggressive she kept repeating herself.

"She was saying things like 'I can't give you my name' and 'I'm not going to give you my name'."

The court was shown camera footage from a device worn by PC Parker during his attendance at the incident.

Betteridge admitted having a drink, but denied being drunk. She refuted claims that she was stumbling, putting her movements down to clumsiness. She also claimed the stress of dealing with police had interfered with her speech.

Judge Greenfield accepted the account provided by the officers and found Betteridge guilty of the offence.

He told her: "I've seen the body-worn camera footage, which seems to show you were intoxicated. I've also listened to the officers, who say you were drunk that night."

After reading the probation report, the Judge commented: "You have got a lot on your plate."

Betteridge had no previous convictions, but even so the Judge considered the offence serious enough to impose a 12 month community order with a 3 month 8 pm - 8 am curfew requirement. She was also ordered to pay an £85 victim surcharge.

As she prepared to leave the court Judge Greenfield told her: "I wish you well."

Serial Shop Thief Wishes Cancer on Magistrates

An Ilkeston man has been jailed for committing a string of shop thefts.

Adam Dean, 26, of the town's Hallam Fields, admitted three charges of shop theft during his recent appearance at Nottingham Magistrates' Court. He also admitted being in breach of a conditional discharge imposed for shop theft on a previous occasion.

The court heard that Dean committed his first offence on 24th February 2019, when he entered the One Stop convenience store and walked out with £45.90 worth of grooming products without offering payment.

On 5th March he entered the town's Wilko store and walked out with a pair of curtains.

The following day he entered the local Morrisons supermarket and walked out with £75 worth of merchandise.

Prosecutor Peter Bettany said: "All of the offences were caught on CCTV but none of the goods were recovered so I would ask for compensation.

"In his police interview the defendant said in terms of the first offence he was hungry so he grabbed anything he could.

"He said he stole the curtains to order and grabbed them from the store to give to a person who he would not name and who paid him later.

"And he said when he went to Morrisons for the third offence it was not his intention to steal but while he was in the shop he started to withdraw from heroin and grabbed whatever he could to sell so he could buy some."

John Hay, defending, said: "He told me in the cells, before the hearing 'I have got no hope' and that is quite a despairing and depressing message to get from him today.

"He is not living a pleasant lifestyle at the moment, it is filled with drugs and is chaotic.

"The probation service have said it is too chaotic for them to offer him a drug rehabilitation requirement which would help him.

"He seems to feel there is no point in life."

Mr Hay went on to explain that Dean's mother had died in her 40s due to cancer, which had effectively left him homeless, living a hand-to-mouth lifestyle and rekindled his addiction to heroin.

Louise Doble, chair of the bench, told Dean that he would be sent to prison for 20 weeks and he was ordered to pay a £115 victim surcharge.

He shouted from the dock: "Is that it? Give me more if you want?"

Mrs Doble replied: "We understand you are struggling."

Dean, who by now had sat down in the dock and refused to stand back up, said back: "No you don’t. You have no idea. I hope you all die of cancer."

Drink Driver Snared by Dash Cam

A dishonest drink driver was caught fleeing the scene of an accident by her own dash cam.

Caroline Jeffery, 45, initially told police that a mystery man had offered to drive home from Wetherspoons before crashing into street furniture and disappeared into the moonlight.

Unfortunately for her, dash cam footage captured the moment she fled from the driver's seat after drunkenly piling her white Volkswagen Golf into a set of traffic lights.

CCTV footage from a nearby shop also placed the warehouse worker behind the wheel at the moment of the smash.

Jeffery, of Rochester Way, Crowborough, provided a positive roadside breath test and was arrested shortly after the collision. A subsequent evidential breath test revealed that Jeffery had 66 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of her breath, the legal limit being 35 microgrammes.

Jeffery pleaded guilty to drink driving during a hearing at Worthing Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 14th March 2019.

She was disqualified from driving for 18 months, fined £530, ordered to pay £200 costs and a £53 victim surcharge.

A spokesman for Sussex Police said: "Caroline Jeffery claimed an unknown man who she met at the local Wetherspoons offered to drive her home from the pub and then ran from the scene following the collision.

"However, footage from her dash cam clearly shows her exiting the driver's side of her vehicle. Further evidence of this is shown by CCTV from a local shop, which also captured the crash.

"The dash cam and CCTV were produced as evidence at Worthing Magistrates' Court and Jeffery admitted the offence."

Scholes Junior Convicted of Assault

The son of Manchester United legend Paul Scholes has been convicted of assaulting a former school friend.

Arron Scholes, 19, stood trial at Tameside Magistrates' Court earlier today.

District Judge Sam Goozee heard that Scholes, a Royton Town footballer, lashed out at Robert Kemper after a disagreement at The Granby Arms, Oldham.

CCTV footage from the pub shows Scholes pushing Mr Kemper onto an outside table and punching him, before being ushered away from his bloodied opponent.

Scholes, of Grasscroft, Oldham, is then said to have reached for his mobile phone, jumped up and down and laughed hysterically at the injuries he had inflicted on Mr Kemper.

Prosecutor Lucy Bridge said: "The landlady went outside and she saw the victim on his back being attacked by Arron Scholes. She was able to say that Robert Kemper did not retaliate at any time and she described the situation as an unprovoked attack."

Landlady, Deborah Hardy, who said she knows both men as customers, told the court from the witness box that she "ran out" of the pub after seeing Scholes hit Mr Kemper for the first time in the doorway.

She said: "I saw a man who put his arm around Arron (inside the pub) and whispered something in his ear.

"That's when he went out and began to attack Robert.

"He just ran out and he punched him. I went out and I saw Arron had him over a bench and was just punching and punching him.

"He punched him four or five times.

"He (Mr Kemper) wasn't doing anything I could see, he was just trying to defend himself from the blows."

She says after two of Scholes' friends pulled him away he began "jumping up and down" and "laughing hysterically."

She also said: "He (Scholes) got his phone out, took a picture of his (Mr Kemper's) face, walked over and hit him again."

Challenged on this by the defence she said: "I know what I saw and it was disgusting."

Scholes had admitted striking Mr Kemper from the outset, but claimed to have done so because he feared being assaulted himself.

Judge Goozee rejected Scholes' claim of self defence.

The Judge commented: "This was an incident that blew up very quickly.

"I find and accept you were both in drink that night.

"I find an insulting comment was made as they entered the Granby Arms, although it is not clear exactly who that comment was aimed at.

"There's no evidence of any threatening behaviour by Robert Kemper.

"You Arron Scholes struck out with force. You struck him once in the vestibule, pushed him outside onto a table and punched him again.

"Your actions went beyond reasonable force to defend yourself and although it is completely out of character, I find the assault did take place and that the charge is proved."

The matter was adjourned for sentence later this month, with the Judge indicating that he was minded to impose a community order.

Football Thug Jailed After Assaulting Player

A man has been jailed for assaulting an Aston Villa player during the team's derby against Birmingham City at the weekend.

Only 10 minutes into Sunday's (11th March 2019) match Paul Mitchell, 27, of Rubery, Worcestershire forced his way onto the pitch and punched Villa midfielder Jack Grealish in the back of the head.

Mitchell was swiftly detained by stewards and arrested for assault and encroachment of the pitch.

Mitchell appeared before Birmingham Magistrates' Court yesterday, where he pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to 14 weeks in prison. He was also given a 10 year football banning order and ordered to pay Mr Grealish £100 in compensation.

Superintendent Nick Rowe of West Midlands Police described the act as utterly disgraceful.

He said: "I am pleased that he has been dealt with swiftly and I hope this sentence is seen as a deterrent to anyone thinking of causing trouble at future football games. This behaviour will not be tolerated and those that do commit acts like this will be dealt with."

Chairman of the bench Alison Fisher said: "We have listened carefully what was said in court today.

"This was an unprovoked assault on a footballer doing his job in front of 23,000 spectators and thousands watching on TV, including families.

"We note that you have taken responsibility for your actions. However, this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable.

"The sentence must act as a punishment and a deterrent to others in order to send a message to the public and fans and players like Mr Grealish who should be protected at all times."

In the era of the postal requisition, where some cases take literally months to get to court, some people have commented on the swiftness of sentencing in this particular case.

The Secret Barrister on Twitter has given this helpful explanation of proceedings: "Paul Mitchell was charged with battery, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

"He was also charged with an offence of encroaching onto a football pitch (presumably section 4 of the Football Offences Act 1991).

"He pleaded guilty to both offences at his first appearance today before Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, the offences having been committed yesterday. A good live account of today’s court proceedings can be found here: [Birmingham Mail link]

"Many people have remarked on how quickly this case was processed - barely 24 hours between offence and sentence. But it's not unusual where a defendant is arrested, charged with a summary offence (one that can only be tried at the Magistrates' Court) and refused police bail.

"The police have the power to charge an offence of battery without needing the Crown Prosecution Service to authorise the charge, so the process is quicker. A defendant charged and kept in police custody will be produced at the Magistrates' Court the next day."

To add to his woes Birmingham City Football Club has banned Mitchell from home matches for life. A second Birmingham supporter, who posted abusive social media comments about Mr Grealish in the wake of the attack, has also received a lifetime ban.

Teenaged Experimentalist Accused of Bomb Making

A teenager stands accused with making explosives in a sleepy Northumberland village.

The idyllic rural village of Glanton, about 7 miles to the west of Alnwick, was cordoned off late last Tuesday (5th March 2019) when the fire brigade found suspicious materials as they responded to a small fire in the boy's home.

The police were called, who in turn called for an Army bomb disposal unit to attend the incident.

Explosive materials and precursors were found at the boy's home and he was duly arrested by the police. At least one media outlet has described the explosive substance found as "rocket candy", which is a mixture containing sugar and other chemicals.

The primary legislation used in such cases is the Explosive Substances Act 1883.

It is an offence under section 2 of the Act to use an explosive substance to create an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious damage to property. Section 3 of the Act makes it an offence to attempt to create harmful explosions, make or possess explosive substances with the intent of endangering life or causing serious damage to property.

The maximum penalty for these indictable offences is life imprisonment.

On Friday the 17 year-old boy, who cannot now be named for legal reasons, was formally charged with arson recklessly endangering life, an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and making or possessing explosive substances, an offence under section 3 of the 1883 Act.

The youth, who is described as "exceptionally intelligent", appeared before South East Northumberland Youth Court, sitting at the Combined Court Centre in Newcastle, on Saturday morning.

He was remanded in youth detention until his next appearance at North Tyneside Youth Court on Wednesday, 13th March 2019.

A Glanton resident told the Newcastle Chronicle: "This sort of thing just doesn't happen round here.

"The last time we saw any police round here was when Raoul Moat was found in Rothbury.

"Nothing goes on here - there's not even bother in the pub."

Teeth Smashed in Ashby Street Fight

A Derbyshire man has been ordered to pay £3,000 in compensation to a man whose teeth he smashed during a night out.

Paul Hollis, 31, of Lincoln Way, Midway admitted one count of causing grievous bodily harm without intent during a hearing at Leicester Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 7th March 2019.

This is an offence contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It can be dealt with by either the Magistrates' or Crown Court and attracts a maximum penalty of 6 month's imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine on summary conviction, or 5 years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

The court heard that Hollis got into a disagreement with the victim in an Ashby-de-la-Zouch takeaway on the evening of 25th August 2018.

A while later the victim and a friend were stood on Market Street waiting for the victim's girlfriend to pick him up. Hollis and two friends approached and the argument reignited between the five of them.

Prosecutor Kwok Wan said: "Mr Hollis runs to (the victim) and punches the back of his head. This causes him to fall forward, his head striking the street surface, and he is unresponsive."

The police attended and Hollis was arrested.

In the police vehicle on his way to the police station he told officers he had retaliated after seeing his friend being attacked.

Mr Wan said Hollis told the police: "I'm not going to deny it but he hit my friend so I was just sticking up for him."

The prosecutor described the extent of the victim's injuries, which included cracked teeth and facial lacerations. He also told the court that the victim had been vulnerable, due to the way he had been attacked from behind.

But that was refuted by Michelle Harding, representing Hollis.

She told the court that if she had spoken to Hollis at an earlier stage she may have advised him to plead not guilty to the charge because he had just been defending his friend who was being attacked by Hollis's victim.

She said: "Vulnerability is not a part of this incident. It's clear (the victim) is well in with this fight that is going on and is at the forefront.

"He played the major role in this incident and I ask you to bear that in mind when considering compensation."

Magistrates clearly disagreed with Miss Harding's interpretation of events.

Hollis was sentenced to a 12 month community order with a 300 hour unpaid work requirement. He was also ordered to pay the victim £3,000 in compensation.

Chairman of the bench Martin Pantling said: "You're not going to prison today but this was late at night in a town centre and lots of other people were in the vicinity.

"It was a group activity – there was a bit of a melee and the injuries caused were substantial."

But he added: "There was provocation."

Carer Caught Stealing from Elderly Client

A carer stole at least £600 from her elderly client's wallet as he dozed in his armchair.

Kelly Harris, 39, of Buxton Road, Diss admitted four counts of theft when she recently appeared at Norwich Magistrates' Court.

The court heard that Harris was caring for 94 year-old Raymond Barker when £200 disappeared from his wallet last October. Further money was taken from Mr Barker's wallet in December and his son Martin, who had given him the money, reported the matter to the police.

The police installed a covert camera in Mr Barker's assisted living flat and recorded the serial numbers of banknotes in his wallet.

Prosecutor Victoria Bastock told the court: "The camera footage was reviewed and Harris was identified as having taken money out of the wallet on several occasions in January."

Harris told police she was "quite stretched leading up to the Christmas period" and she had used the money to shop in Morrison's.

In a victim impact statement, Martin Harris explained that his father had only recently moved into Weavers Court after fracturing his hip.

"He settled well but this all changed when Kelly Harris stole from him while he slept in his chair - not just once, but several times," Mr Harris said.

"This happened in his home, his sanctuary, his safe place, by someone who should have been caring for him."

Ralph Gillam, for Harris, said she cared for her mother, who has bi-polar, and home-schools her 10 year-old son, who has Asperger's Syndrome.

He said she believed financial pressures and a "traumatic" house move "may well have impaired her judgement".

Magistrates ordered an all options report, prior to Harris' sentencing on 9th April 2019.

She should be under no illusion that this is a very serious and repeated breach of trust, which may well result in a custodial sentence.

Update (9/4/2019): Harris has been sentenced.

Man Convicted of Having Air Weapons in Public Place

A man caught with two air rifles in the back of his car has been ordered to complete unpaid work.

Chris Davies, 47, admitted two charges of possession of a firearm during a recent appearance at South Cumbria Magistrates' Court.

For whatever reason, police officers found the weapons in his vehicle parked in Bowness.

Under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, it is an offence to possess an air weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. This is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of 6 month's imprisonment.

If challenged, the legal onus is on the person in possession of the air weapon to prove that they have lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Davies represented himself in court and told the Magistrates: "I had borrowed the guns; we were chasing rats around.

"We have since got pest control involved.

"There was no malicious intent with the weapons. It was just to shoot the rats."

Davies told Magistrates that he thought possession of the weapons was legal because they were hidden in his locked car, but with the benefit of hindsight he accepts that he has committed an offence.

"I honestly didn't think there was anything wrong with them being there, nobody could see them, but I understand now that the law still interprets that as being an offence," he conceded.

Magistrates heard Davies had last been before the courts in 2014 and was released from custody in 2015.

He told the court: "I've not been in any trouble since then; last time I was in custody I was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and since then I've been getting treatment and tackling my problems.

"Whereas before I might have reacted to a situation without thinking now I have ways to challenge and plan my behaviour."

Davies explained that his work commitments would make curfew impractical, but he was happy to complete unpaid work if it was made to fit around his day job. The Probation Service agreed that unpaid work would be a suitable punishment.

Davies was ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work, pay £85 costs and £85 victim surcharge.

Magistrates also ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the two air rifles.

As he left the court Davies said: "Thanks for treating me so fairly."

Reading this article I can't help but feel that Davies has been a little bit unfortunate to fall foul of the legislation.

Had he told the police officers "I've just borrowed these air rifles and I'm now on my way home to shoot rats with them" then they may well have considered that a perfectly reasonable excuse for their possession and he may not have been prosecuted.

Air weapons are, of course, very dangerous if used in an irresponsible manner. In a rural place like Bowness they are regularly used as a tool of the trade by a lot of responsible, law-abiding people.

Tool of the trade or not, it's important that people realise that they must have a good excuse for having their air rifle with them in a public place at any particular time - for example, a pest controller would only have a reasonable excuse for having an air rifle in public if they were actually engaged in a pest control job at that time (or travelling directly to or from such a job).

SPJ on Honouring Sitting Commitments

The Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales, The Rt. Hon. Lady Justice Julia Macur DBE, has written an open letter to the chairman of the Magistrates' Association on the subject of Magistrates honouring their sitting commitments.

The SPJ writes as follows:

As you know, I generally and genuinely laud the professional manner in which magistrates conduct the important public service they undertake as judicial office holders far and wide. I hold the magistracy in very high esteem and am proud of their dedication and the vast array of talents they bring to the administration of justice in England and Wales.

However, I have recently become aware of a small number of magistrates notifying their sitting colleagues and legal adviser, when they arrive at court, of their inability to sit for the whole session for personal reasons. While this is obviously a very small minority, nevertheless the impact can be significant, since it has apparently resulted in sittings having to be abandoned, or cases adjourned part-heard, with consequent disruption for defendants, witnesses and court listing, and with the attendant risk of attracting adverse press attention.

While unforeseen events do occur which may require urgent attention, I would hope that all magistrates will appreciate that social engagements should not be given priority over previously arranged sitting commitments.

Quite right too. Any Magistrate who has committed to sit a full day in court, should expect to sit a full day in court. If changing circumstances mean they can no longer commit to the full sitting, then they should cancel at the earliest possible opportunity so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Magistrates might be volunteers, but they are volunteering to uphold the highest professional standards of the role.

Air Rage Lawyer Convicted of Assault

A lawyer assaulted a cabin crew member during an Air India flight from Mumbai to London.

Simone Burns, otherwise known as Simone O'Broin, from Hove, East Sussex, was refused alcohol when cabin crew decided that she was already the worse for wear with drink during her flight home on 11th November 2018.

The 50 year-old human rights lawyer demanded to see the captain, launched a tirade of racist abuse at the startled crew members and lit up a cigarette.

A snippet of Burns' appalling behaviour has been uploaded to YouTube.

Burns pleaded guilty to one charge of assault by beating and another of being drunk on board an aircraft during a hearing at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court earlier today.

Assault by beating is a summary offence, which has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks imprisonment and/or a fine at level 5; Being drunk on board an aircraft is an either way offence, which has a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction, or an unlimited fine and/or 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Prosecutor Lauren Smith said the nine-hour flight took off at 4.10am as Burns sat in business class with 17 other passengers.

Burns had been given three bottles of wine with her breakfast, but soon demanded more.

Miss Smith said: "She got up from her seat and began swearing and shouting. She was shouting that she was a 'f****** international lawyer' and telling them to 'f*** off'.

"She also shouted: 'You f****** arses, you f****** Indian money-grabbing c****'."

Burns was given verbal and written warnings about her conduct during the flight, but continued to be abusive regardless.

A cabin supervisor, Dastur Pervin, tried to intervene but she was also told to "f*** off", shown the middle finger and assaulted, Miss Smith said.

She added: "Miss Burns was right in her face and she felt scared and when she refused to give Miss Burns more alcohol Miss Burns spat in her face."

Police arrested the irate lawyer the moment the aircraft landed at Heathrow.

Chairman of the bench Robert Della-Sala told Burns: "You clearly put the safety of the aircraft in jeopardy by smoking. You were disruptive to other passengers who must have found the whole experience quite shocking.

"The disruption was clearly over a long period of time, the level of racist abuse was prolonged and unwarranted - there's no excuse for that.

"The spitting in the face must have been one of the most awful things that can happen to anybody, given the transmission of diseases."

The bench decided that their sentencing powers were insufficient for the offences committed by Burns, so committed the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.

Sentencing will take place at Isleworth Crown Court on 4th April 2019.

Concerns Over Future of Wrexham Magistrates' Court

A tree preservation order could signal the death knell for Wrexham Magistrates' Court.

Since the adjacent police station closed, the Magistrates' Court no longer has access to custody facilities. Custody cases are now being dealt 12 miles away at Mold Justice Centre, which has sufficient cell accommodation for the job.

For several years, as a quick Google search will testify, there have been plans to build new cells at Wrexham Magistrates' Court.

Her Majesty's Court and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has submitted a planning application to that effect, but progress has stalled as a result of established trees occupying the proposed development site. Wrexham County Borough Council wishes to protect those trees by making a tree preservation order.

Wrexham MP Ian Lucas said: "There is an urgent need for a custody suite to be built at Wrexham Magistrates' Court and I am hugely disappointed by the time it is taking to sort this out.

"The various issues involved – including tree protection orders – should have been resolved long ago by Wrexham Council and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, when I warned about the implications of relocating the police station.

"The court is an important civic and commercial facility in the town. We do not want to lose it.

"Wrexham Council and HM Courts and Tribunals Service must make it an urgent priority to work through any difficulties and deliver this long-overdue project so we can return to having a fully-functioning court service in Wrexham."

HMCTS has raised objections to the tree preservation order via its property agent GVA, but Wrexham Council seems reluctant to budge on the issue.

Lawrence Isted, Wrexham Council's Head of Environment and Planning, said: "The concerns expressed by GVA with regards to the trees as a material constraint to development should be addressed by the council during the determination of any such planning application rather than through the confirmation process of a tree preservation order, which simply seeks to discuss and make permanent a tree preservation order and nothing more.

"The amenity value provided by the individual tree as well as the trees as a collective unit is significant in the fact that the prominence and visibility of the trees provides a sense of place and identity to Wrexham town centre.

"Additional benefits in protecting these trees goes beyond that of amenity with the trees themselves reaching an age range whereby they now provide the maximum environmental and ecological returns to the community; benefits and services which may be considered priceless in terms of climate mitigation alone.

"It is the officer's considered opinion that the tree preservation order for 'Law Courts and Police Headquarters, Bodhyfryd, Wrexham' should be confirmed without modification."

The tree preservation order was debated by the council's planning committee on 4th March 2019. The committee voted to approve the tree preservation order, despite warnings that Wrexham could lose its Magistrates' Court as a result.

Councillor Mike Morris, chair of the committee, said: "We're not stopping a custody suite - what we are doing is safeguarding the trees."

Given the relatively short distance from Wrexham to Mold, HMCTS may well decide that it is easier to permanently list custody cases at Mold Justice Centre.

There will be no need for a daily remand court at Wrexham Magistrates' Court which, like so many others, will probably be left as an outpost to deal with non-custodial traffic offences and trials.

Sunderland Man Convicted of Obstructing Speed Camera Van

A Sunderland man who parked up against a police camera van has earned a criminal record for his troubles.

Jason Sayers, 47, parked his Ford Transit in front of a Northumbria Police speed camera van parked on the city's Keir Hardy Way on 28th January 2019.

He was charged with wilfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. The maximum penalty on summary conviction for this offence is one month's imprisonment, or a level 3 fine (currently £1,000), or both.

Sayers, of the city's Hendon Close, was requisitioned to court but failed to attend and Magistrates granted a warrant without bail for his arrest. He was later arrested and brought before South Tyneside Magistrates' Court, where he admitted the offence.

Magistrates fined Sayers £86 and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £30.

PC Pete Burke, Team Leader of Northumbria Police’s Camera Enforcement Unit, said: "These vans aren't here as a money making scheme as some people believe.

"All the money from speeding fines goes to central government and they decide who and where it is distributed to.

"What people need to realise is that the vans are specifically allocated to enforce a particular stretch of road which is proven to have a problem with motorists who do not stick to the limits.

"I find it astonishing that people would park in front of one of these vans when they are there to help prevent someone from being killed or injured by a speeding driver."

PC Burke concluded: "I welcome this result and hope it sends a strong message to anyone else thinking of acting in this manner. It is not big or clever and doesn't merit the consequences."

In the Northumbria Police area these vans are often operated by sworn constables. Had the van been crewed instead by someone other than a police constable, a prosecution under section 46(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002 would have been more appropriate.

There are a few videos on YouTube of people looking "big and clever" by doing the same, but what they don't show are the possible legal consequences of such direct action.

Fiona Onasanya Refused Permission to Appeal Conviction

Disgraced politician Fiona Onasanya has been refused permission to appeal her conviction for perverting the course of justice.

Onasanya, 35, represented herself at this morning's Court of Appeal hearing before Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice William Davis and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb.

The main thrust of Onasanya's appeal, which is actually no basis for appeal at all, was her argument that "I didn't do it".

The MP for Peterborough also argued that negative press coverage had inferred her guilt at the retrial.

An appeal can only be allowed when there is some legitimate suggestion that the trial verdict is unsafe due to procedural errors or those in law. Disagreeing with the jury's decision isn't sufficient grounds for an appeal on its own.

The Appeal Judges didn't take very long to conclude that Onasanya's appeal was "misconceived" and "not based on valid grounds".

Sir Brian said: "This applicant was tried fairly by the jury who rejected her evidence.

"There was no error in law in the guidance of the judge whose directions in law were clear and accurate. Neither was there any other irregularities at the trial.

"It is a tragedy that she has damaged, probably irreparably, a promising political career, but there is absolutely no basis for challenging the safety of her conviction."

Addressing the matter of press coverage, Sir Brian added: "The courts are very used to dealing with adverse publicity. The jury were warned at the beginning of the trial that they had to focus only on the evidence."

Onasanya, who was released from prison last week, appeared in court this morning without any notes. In one comedy moment the lawyer-turned-politician had to ask prosecutor David Jeremy QC if he could help answering a question by the court.

Leaving the Royal Courts of Justice, Onasanya made no comment on the court's decision.

A recall petition can now go ahead. A by-election, which will undoubtedly mean the unseating of Onasanya, will be triggered if at least 10 percent of constituents vote for one.

Man Faces £600 Bill for Dropping Cigarette Butt

An Oxford man made the very costly mistake of discarding his cigarette butt right under the nose of a council enforcement officer.

Jamie White, 31, of Elsfield, dropped the cigarette butt on the ground in The Square, Abingdon on 27th November 2018. There are several litter bins in the area, but for whatever reason he decided to drop it into the gutter beside his car.

Littering is an offence contrary to section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is a summary offence, which has a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine (currently £2,500). However, the offence is normally only prosecuted in those cases where the offender fails to pay a fixed penalty notice.

White was issued an £80 fixed penalty notice, which would have been reduced to £50 if paid within 10 days.

Generally speaking, unless a person genuinely believes they have good reason to contest such a penalty, it is better to pay up at the earliest opportunity.

White failed to pay the fixed penalty, which led to Vale of White Horse District Council issuing several reminder letters. White also failed to respond to those reminder letters, which resulted in the council bringing a prosecution against him.

White was summoned to appear at Oxford Magistrates' Court on 25th February 2019, but failed to attend. A trial went ahead in his absence and unsurprisingly the charge against him was proved.

Magistrates imposed a fine of £160, prosecution costs of £417 and a victim surcharge of £30.

Councillor Elaine Ware, cabinet member for housing and environment at Vale of White Horse District Council, said: "Littering is unpleasant and also illegal and where possible the council will prosecute those who are caught."

A closing observation: Suppose White had been prosecuted by the CPS instead of the council, then it would have been a standard £85 costs application. Councils typically ask for costs of several hundred pounds, even in the most straightforward of cases. In the absence of any other information the court will usually award full prosecution costs, because the defendant is assumed to have a relevant weekly income commensurate with full-time employment.