Homeless Woman Jailed for Begging

A homeless woman has been jailed for begging, according to a headline in today's Independent on Sunday.

It's the sort of sensationalised headline I really cannot abide, as it only reflects half the truth of the story. Normally I'd expect better quality journalism from this particular newspaper. It is, of course, regrettable that in twenty-first century Britain anyone is homeless and has to beg on the streets, but that is not the reason Susan Piggott was jailed.

To its slight credit, the Indy does go on to clarify that Piggott was banned from begging under the terms of a Criminal Behaviour Order.

The North Wales Pioneer, where the Indy sourced its article from, further added that Piggott had also been handed a Suspended Sentence Order only ten days earlier.

Llandudno Magistrates' Court heard that Piggott asked for money and received it from five passers-by, despite being prohibited from sitting on the ground for more than ten minutes in town centres in Conwy County during shop opening hours.

Her solicitor, Nia Dawson, said the 55 year-old woman was in poor health, that there was no allegation of aggressive begging, and that no one had complained about her behaviour.

Even so, taking everything into consideration Magistrates deemed that Piggott's offence was so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate. By going out begging she was knowingly breaching two court orders, one of which was only a few days old.

Piggott was jailed for six weeks.

Sending anyone to custody is a very sobering experience and the bench of the day would not have done so unless it had very good cause and justification.

Breaching a Suspended Sentence Order so soon after it was imposed is a sure fire way of having that custodial sentence activated in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. The public would quickly lose all faith in the justice system if breachers were given chance after chance without any consequences to their reoffending.

Truro Thug Jailed After Supermarket Fracas

A Truro man has been jailed after being caught shoplifting in a Newquay supermarket.

Robert Edwards Derosa was challenged by security staff in Sainsbury's on Alma Place, Newquay last Wednesday, 24th April 2019.

The 37 year-old, of City Road in Truro, was detained and became aggressive towards staff in the supermarket. The police arrived shortly afterwards and Derosa became violent, assaulting five police officers and a security officer.

Derosa appeared in custody at Bodmin Magistrates' Court on Friday, 28th April 2019. He admitted five charges of assaulting an emergency worker, assault by battery, theft, a public order offence and breaching a criminal behaviour order. You can read the terms of that order here.

Magistrates agreed that the totality of Derosa's offending was so serious that immediate custody was the only appropriate sentence. He was jailed for 16 weeks.

Inspector Dave Meredith of Devon and Cornwall Police said: "The actions of this individual were truly reprehensible.

"Five police officers and a store security officer were subject to unprovoked assaults by this man.

"It is reassuring to see that the courts have dealt with the offences with a custodial sentence. Newquay is now a safer place with this man behind bars."

Violent Prisoner Kicks Off in Secure Dock

A violent prisoner had to be restrained by six custody officers when he kicked off in the secure dock.

Liam James, 26, gave his address as the local Salvation Army hostel when he appeared in custody at Grimsby Magistrates' Court last Tuesday.

James, who has dozens of convictions to his name, admitted a charge of assault and criminal damage at the hostel, but became aggressive when asked to indicate a plea on a charge of attempted theft.

He started arguing about whether he was guilty or not guilty and demanded that the Grimsby Telegraph be brought in to investigate "corruption" at the court.

"I want the Grimsby Telegraph to come down and see me about this corruption," he shouted.

"All I am doing is wanting my rights."

James started struggling violently in the secure dock and two custody officers restrained him, wrestled him to the floor and tried to hold him down.

He continued struggling, swearing and shouting and four more custody officers came up the stairs from the cells to help restrain him.

They quickly succeeded in pinning him down and he was taken down the stairs to the cells, still struggling.

James continued shouting: "All I want is my fucking rights."

Magistrates remanded James in custody. He will next appear before the court via video link.

Incidents like this are fortunately very rare.

Prolific criminals like James tend to know all about their rights, but very little about their responsibilities.

Allocation of Either Way Offences

As we have previously mentioned, an either way offence is one that can be dealt with at either the Magistrates' or Crown Court.

The process of determining which cases are dealt with by the Magistrates' or Crown Court is known as allocation.

Allocation Procedure for Guilty Plea

If the defendant enters a guilty plea the Magistrates/District Judge will need to decide whether or not to sentence the defendant at the Magistrates' Court or commit the case for sentence at the Crown Court. 

The Magistrates/District Judge will hear representations from the prosecution and defence advocates and carefully consider the Sentencing Guidelines.

If the offence (or combination of offences) can be appropriately sentenced using the powers available to the Magistrates' Court, then that court will normally sentence the defendant.

If the offence is likely to attract a sentence exceeding the maximum available to the Magistrates' Court, then the case will be committed for sentence at the Crown Court.

In borderline cases the Magistrates/District Judge should consider obtaining a pre-sentence report before deciding whether to commit to the Crown Court for sentence.

Where the offending is so serious that the Magistrates/District Judge are of the opinion that the Crown Court should have the power to deal with the offender, the case should be committed to the Crown Court for sentence even if a community order may be the appropriate sentence (this will allow the Crown Court to deal with any breach of a community order, if that is the sentence passed).

Allocation Procedure for Not Guilty Plea

If the defendant enters a not guilty plea the Magistrates/District Judge will need to decide the most appropriate venue for the trial, be that the Magistrates' or Crown Court.

Trials at the Magistrates' Court are known as summary trials; those at the Crown Court are known as trials on indictment. Summary trials happen much faster and cost far less than trials on indictment.

Generally speaking, the Magistrates/District Judge should accept jurisdiction for a summary trial unless:

• the outcome would clearly be a sentence in excess of the court's powers for the offence(s) concerned after taking into account personal mitigation and any potential reduction for a guilty plea; or
• for reasons of unusual legal, procedural or factual complexity, the case should be tried in the Crown Court. This exception may apply in cases where a very substantial fine is the likely sentence. Other circumstances where this exception will apply are likely to be rare and case specific; the court will rely on the submissions of the parties to identify relevant cases.

In cases with no factual or legal complications the Magistrates/District Judge should bear in mind their power to commit for sentence after summary trial and may retain jurisdiction notwithstanding that the likely sentence might exceed the Magistrates' Court's powers.

Cases may be tried summarily even where the defendant is subject to a Crown Court Suspended Sentence Order or Community Order.

All parties should be asked by the court to make representations as to whether the case is suitable for summary trial. The Magistrates/District Judge should refer to the Sentencing Guidelines to assess the likely sentence for the offence in the light of the facts alleged by the prosecution case, taking into account all aspects of the case including those advanced by the defence, including any personal mitigation to which the defence wish to refer.

Where the Magistrates/District Judge decide that the case is suitable to be dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court, they must warn the defendant that all sentencing options remain open and, if the defendant consents to summary trial and is convicted or pleads guilty, the defendant might still be committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The defendant may, at this stage, ask the Magistrates/District Judge for an indication of whether a custodial or non-custodial sentence would be more likely should they consent to summary trial and subsequently change their plea to guilty.

If the Magistrates/District Judge decline jurisdiction for summary trial, the defendant will undergo trial on indictment at the Crown Court.

Even when the Magistrates/District Judge have accepted jurisdiction for summary trial, the defendant can elect trial on indictment at the Crown Court.

Derby Bully Convicted of Controlling or Coercive Behaviour

A Derby man has been convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour against his former girlfriend.

Sam Rose, 21, bombarded the victim with calls and texts demanding to know her every move at all hours of the day.

He constantly monitored her social media accounts, forcing her to send screenshot images of what she was saying and to whom.

The victim joined a gym in an effort to escape Rose's relentless scrutiny, but he forced her to send regular Snapchat updates of her exercise regime.

Rose admitted a charge of controlling or coercive behaviour during his recent appearance at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court.

This is an offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. It is an either way offence with a maximum penalty of 12 month's imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction, 5 year's imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Rose appeared in custody, as he is currently serving a 20 week sentence for harassing the same woman.

Lynn Bickley, prosecuting, said: "She could never do anything on her own while she was with him.

"She said he would constantly want to know where she was and who she was with.

"He accused her of sleeping with other men and, on one occasion, he pushed her against a wall at their home.

"She was terrified, he said he would break her jaw, then he went upstairs, shut himself in the bathroom and threatened to kill himself."

Miss Bickley told the court that the pair were in a relationship between April 2018 and February 2019. The woman went to the police when the relationship ended and Rose was arrested.

"He would blame her all the time for things that were not her fault.

"She said he would be so vile and horrible to her that she did what he said because it was easier that way,

"There were occasions when she was in work meetings and he would call her more than 20 times.

"If she had been online he demanded to see screen shots of who she had been talking to.

"During the relationship, if she had a bath he would demand to sit in the room with her to check who she was talking to on Snapchat."

James Close, defending, said although his client does not accept all of the allegations the prosecution outlined he admitted his behaviour on a full facts basis. This means he will be sentenced on the prosecution's evidence.

Magistrates sent the case to Derby Crown Court for sentence. Rose will next appear before that court on 16th May 2019.

Road Traffic Offences: Totting Up and Exceptional Hardship

Whenever a driver accumulates 12 penalty points within a period of 3 years then the court must order their disqualification from driving.

This procedure, which is carried out in accordance with section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, is known as the totting up rule.

Under this rule, a driver who has not previously been disqualified for a period of 56 days or more in the preceding 3 years, will be subject to a minimum disqualification of 6 months; a driver who has been disqualified once for a period of 56 days or more in the preceding 3 years will be subject to a minimum disqualification of 1 year; a driver who has been disqualified twice (or more) for a period of 56 days or more in the preceding 3 years will be subject to a minimum disqualification of 2 years.

Whenever a driver commits an endorsable offence that would ordinarily trigger a totting up disqualification they have to attend court in person. They will either receive a postal requisition to that effect or be rerouted from the Single Justice Procedure. At the hearing they can either accept the disqualification on the chin or, as is increasingly popular, put forward an exceptional hardship argument in a bid to avoid (or lessen) disqualification.

Exceptional hardship, just as the name suggests, occurs when the circumstances of a driver mean that disqualification would have a disproportionately harsh impact upon them or, more likely, other people.

Disqualification is meant to punish the driver by making their life less convenient and giving them ample time to reflect on the standard of their driving when they do eventually get their licence back. Exceptional hardship goes above and beyond the normal hardship and inconvenience of disqualification.

If the court accepts that exceptional hardship would occur as the result of the disqualification, it has to power to disqualify for a shorter period of time or to not disqualify at all.

There are no hard and fast rules about what qualifies as exceptional hardship, so it really boils down to the opinion of the bench on the day.

The following circumstances might amount to exceptional hardship:

• Loss of employment: For example, the driver is a business owner whose business would fail and employees would lose their jobs if they were disqualified. 
• Financial hardship: For example, the driver relies entirely on driving for their income and could therefore not afford the mortgage of the family home if they were disqualified.
• Carer responsibilities: For example, the driver lives in a rural area and is the carer of someone with a serious medical condition who needs regular hospital visits.
• Impact on health and safety: For example, the driver is a doctor who needs to drive to carry out home visits to patients.

Suppose a driver was successful with their exceptional hardship argument, they would not be able to submit the same argument again within the next 3 years.

I am not a fan of the exceptional hardship rule, as some lawyers know how to play the system to their client's advantage rather than in the spirit the legislation was intended. It cannot be right that there are drivers on the road with 20+ points on their licence, who have committed multiple offences to get that far.

Magistrates' Court Trials

Whenever a defendant pleads not guilty to an offence a trial is needed.

The Magistrates' Court can only deal with summary and either way offences. For that reason trials taking place at the Magistrates' Court are known as summary trials. Indictable offences, which have an entitlement to trial by jury, are sent to the Crown Court.

In today's article we shall focus on the general conduct of a summary trial. It should be stressed that very few of the summary trials listed actually take place. Quite often there is last minute horse trading between the prosecution and defence advocates, which negates the need for a trial.

Sometimes the prosecution witnesses fail to appear, which means the prosecution can offer no evidence against the defendant and the charges against them are dismissed. Conversely, if the defendant is told that all prosecution witnesses are in attendance then they might change their plea at the last minute. Occasionally the prosecution will offer no evidence against the defendant if new information comes to light.

If the defendant fails to appear then the trial will normally proceed in their absence, unless it is contrary to interests of justice to do so. Additionally, for a defendant bailed to appear for trial, they run the risk of an absconding charge and warrant being issued for their arrest.

At the start of the trial the only information the bench will have are the charges laid and a copy of the PET (preparation for an effective trial) form. They do not have access to any of the evidence in the case or the defendant's previous convictions, although they may have had previous dealings with the defendant.

Supposing the trial does go ahead, then it will proceed as follows.

1. The legal advisor confirms the not guilty plea:

The charges are put to the defendant, just in case they have decided to change their plea at the last minute. In the event that a guilty plea is now entered, the prosecution will outline the facts of the case and the defence can mitigate. The court will then be in a position to sentence the defendant (or adjourn for sentence at some later date). The trial will proceed if the defendant maintains their not guilty plea.

2. Consideration of PET form, trial issues and timetable:

This step is sometimes very brief or omitted entirely. In theory the legal advisor will draw the court's attention to the issues agreed and disputed in the PET form. The advocates will be asked to confirm these issues. The legal advisor will also remind the advocates of the timings indicated in the PET form.

3. Prosecution summarises its case:

The prosecutor will summarise the case against the defendant and introduce any relevant legislation.

4. Prosecution presents its evidence:

The prosecution advocate will present any of its evidence that is formally agreed. This could involve reading out transcripts of police interviews or section 9 statements (e.g. witness statements that are not in dispute).

5. Prosecution witness - evidence in chief:

The witness will be sworn by the usher. The prosecutor will begin by asking the witness to identify them self to the court. The prosecutor will ask subsequent questions of the witness to help reinforce the prosecution case.

6. Prosecution witness - cross-examination:

The defence advocate will ask questions of the witness in an attempt to cast doubt on the prosecution case.

7. Prosecution witness - re-examination:

The prosecutor may ask further questions of the witness to clarify any issues raised during cross-examination. The prosecutor should not be trying to adduce new evidence from the witness.

8. Questions from the bench:

The bench will have the opportunity to ask questions of the witness. These questions should be to clarify anything raised by the witness' earlier evidence. The bench should not be trying to adduce new evidence from the witness.

9. Submission of no case to answer:

At this stage the defence advocate might make a submission that there is no case to answer - e.g. the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof required for a conviction.

10. Defence witness - evidence in chief:

The witness will be sworn by the usher. The defence advocate will begin by asking the witness to identify them self to the court. The defence advocate will ask subsequent questions of the witness to help cast doubt on the prosecution case.

11. Defence witness - cross-examination:

The prosecution advocate will ask questions of the witness in an attempt to cast doubt on the defence case.

12. Defence witness - re-examination:

The defence advocate may ask further questions of the witness to clarify any issues raised during cross-examination. The defence advocate should not be trying to adduce new evidence from the witness.

13. Questions from the bench:

The bench will have the opportunity to ask questions of the witness. These questions should be to clarify anything raised by the witness' earlier evidence. The bench should not be trying to adduce new evidence from the witness.

14. Prosecution representations:

The prosecutor will summarise the key points of the prosecution case and try to convince the court that the defendant is guilty of the offence.

15. Defence representations:

The defence advocate will summarise the key points of the defence case and try to convince the court that the defendant is not guilty of the offence.

16. Legal advisor addresses the court:

The legal advisor summarises key points of law to the bench - e.g. which conditions/elements need to satisfied in order to convict the defendant.

17. Verdict and reasons:

The bench will normally retire to consider its verdict. The verdict is given in open court along with the reasons that verdict was arrived at. If the defendant is found guilty of the offence, then they will be sentenced either immediately (for those offences attracting a discharge or financial penalty) or after an adjournment (for those offences deemed serious enough for a community or custodial sentence). If the defendant is found not guilty, then they will be free to leave the court.

Man Charged Over Burning Model Grenfell Tower

A London businessman is due in court after making and distributing a video of a model Grenfell Tower on fire.

Landlord Paul Bussetti, 46, will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court tomorrow after he was charged with an offence under the Communications Act 2003.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "A man has been charged following an investigation into a video posted online that showed a cardboard model of Grenfell Tower being burnt.

"Paul Bussetti, 46, of South Norwood was charged on Friday, 12th April with two counts of sending/causing to be sent grossly offensive material via a public communications network, contrary to section 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003."

Under section 127(1)(a) of the Act it is an offence to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.

In accordance with section (3) of the Act the maximum penalty for this offence is 6 month's imprisonment and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited).

Six men were arrested after the video of a cardboard model of the tower circulated online shortly after bonfire night last year. The five other men remain under investigation.

A total of 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017.

New Shrewsbury Justice Centre

Shrewsbury court users are benefitting from a state of the art new Justice Centre thanks to £5m of Government funding.

Crown Court and social security cases will be heard at the town's former Magistrates' Court, which has been completely refurbished since its closure in 2016.

Officially opened today (Friday 12th April) by the Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, Lady Justice Macur, the Justice Centre is part of HMCTS' commitment to improving the condition of court buildings and access to justice for all users.

The investment allowed two Crown courtrooms and an adaptable tribunal hearing room to be built as well as a full refurbishment of communal and office space and improved security features throughout the building.

Justice Minister, Lucy Frazer said: "We want to provide the best experience possible for the victims, witnesses, staff and legal professionals who use our courts every day and we have invested £5m here in Shrewsbury to do just that. This new centre will ensure continued access to justice for years to come."

Resident Judge, His Honour Judge Peter Barrie said: "Local judges are delighted to move into Shrewsbury Justice Centre at the former magistrates’ court building. The old site has been extensively refurbished to accommodate juries and now promises a much improved working environment for everyone involved with the court."

The investment is part of HMCTS' ambitious £1bn reform programme, designed to bring new technology and modern ways of working to the justice system. This is in addition to £15m announced by the Chancellor last year to improve court buildings in England and Wales.

The reform programme is already benefitting people up and down the country with more than 150,000 using HMCTS' online justice services in 2018.

(Article reproduced from an HMCTS press release)

GP Denies Failing to Provide Blood Sample

A general practitioner has denied failing to provide a specimen of blood for analysis, after he was arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

This is an offence under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the maximum penalty for which is a level 4 fine and/or 3 month's imprisonment.

Dr Michael Brendan Farrell, 45, of Fishbourne Grove, Ingleby Barwick was pulled over by police in the early hours of 6th January 2019. The officer had reason to suspect Dr Farrell of being under the influence of alcohol and required him to undertake a roadside breath test.

The result of that test indicated that Dr Farrell had 127 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millitres of breath, although it should be stressed that this roadside reading cannot be used as the basis of charge.

Dr Farrell was arrested and taken to the local police station where it would appear, for whatever reason, that an evidential breathalyser machine was unavailable. That being the case he was required to provide a specimen of blood for analysis, which the prosecution claim he failed to do without reasonable cause.

The case first appeared before Teesside Magistrates' Court yesterday, where Dr Farrell pleaded not guilty to the offence.

The court was shown body worn camera footage of Dr Farrell in custody. A police officer tells him that he is "drunk" and "not thinking clearly" as he repeatedly refuses to consent to the blood sample.

He warns Dr Farrell: "You will lose your licence if you don't give a sample."

The doctor demands to have "legal represents in the room", but the officer tells him the process can not be delayed while a solicitor is called.

The clip shows the pair's 15-minute dialogue in a police station medical room, as a health care professional looks on.

"You're heavily intoxicated," said the officer. "We're going round in circles."

Hauled to the custody desk, Farrell then claims he has a "massive issue with needles".

He adds: "I'm not refusing to provide a sample, I'm refusing to provide a blood sample because it involves pain."

The exchange ends with the officer asking: "Are you willing now to provide a sample?"

Farrell replied: "Without legal representation, the answer is no."

The officer said: "You have had your chance I'm afraid," before saying to a colleague: "There's only so many chances you can give someone when they are drunk."

Michael Robinson, defending, indicated that the basis of his client's not guilty plea would be failures by the police. He also said that Dr Farrell's genuine fear of needles amounted to a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide a blood specimen.

Mr Robinson conceded that Dr Farrell's medical records make no specific mention of his fear of needles.

On his Linkedin profile Dr Farrell describes himself as "hardworking, honest, good humoured, supportive, innovative, physically fit". He mentions three previous deployments as an RAF medical officer to Iraq and Afghanistan.

District Judge Tim Capstick adjourned the matter for trial on Tuesday, 14th May 2019.

Update (2/6/19): Dr Farrell was convicted after trial.

Upskirting Legislation Comes into Force

The new Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 comes into force on 12th April 2019.

Upskirting typically involves offenders taking intimate photographs under a person's clothing without their knowledge. The new legislation bans the degrading practice to deter perpetrators, better protect victims, and bring more offenders to justice.

The Act adds two new offences to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to cover the practice of upskirting. The new offences apply when:

• Without consent, an individual operates equipment or records an image beneath a person's clothing;
• The offender has a motive of either obtaining sexual gratification or causing humiliation, distress or alarm to the victim.

The offence has a maximum sentence of two years with conviction on indictment or one year with summary conviction. In the most serious instances of upskirting - those where the purpose of the offence is for sexual gratification - the offender will be placed on the Sex Offenders' Register.

Prior to the introduction of the new Act, the offence of Outraging Public Decency could be used to prosecute those accused of upskirting. However, deficiencies in that legislation meant that some instances of upskirting were not covered. The new Act creates a specific offence applicable to all instances of upskirting, which should lead to more effective enforcement.

Gina Martin, 27, has campaigned tirelessly for the new legislation after a pervert took a photograph underneath her skirt at a music festival.

Gina described the incident in an earlier interview with ITV show Lorraine: "I saw one of the guys on his phone in front of me... and he had this very well taken photo of a girl's sort of crotch and genitals and I realised it was me immediately.

"And he shared it with everyone."

Justice Minister Lucy Frazer said: "Those who commit such a degrading act will face prison, and victims' complaints will be dealt with seriously.

"Gina Martin and other victims, charities and MPs supporting her should be immensely proud. Her efforts show how one campaigner can work with Government to change the law for everyone."

The new Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 applies in England and Wales only. Upskirting is already a specific offence in Scotland.

Thieving Carer Narrowly Avoids Prison

A carer who repeated stole from an elderly client has narrowly avoided an immediate custodial sentence.

Kelly Harris, 39, of Buxton Road, Diss previously admitted four counts of theft at Norwich Magistrates' Court. She was sentenced earlier today, after a month-long adjournment for the preparation of reports.

We first wrote about this case last month, but are providing an update now that Harris has been sentenced.

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 covert camera equipment in Mr Barker's assisted living flat, which caught Harris  red-handed in the act of stealing from his wallet. The shamed carer eventually admitted taking at least £600 from Mr Barker over the months.

Today's bench clearly agreed with our earlier suggestion that Harris' offences had crossed the custody threshold. However, taking everything into account, Magistrates decided to suspend the 12 month sentence for 2 years, instead of sending Harris directly to prison.

She was also ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid community work, pay £420 in compensation and a £115 victim surcharge.

Presiding Justice Louise Barber said: "This court takes an extremely dim view of what you have done."

Don't we all?!

Chelsea Footballer Drinkwater on Drink Drive Charge

Chelsea midfielder Danny Drinkwater has been charged with drink driving after pranging his Range Rover in the early hours of the morning.

The incident took place yesterday on Ashley Road in Mere, Cheshire.

A Cheshire Police statement said: "A 29-year-old from Nether Alderley has been charged with drink driving following an incident in Cheshire.

"Danny Drinkwater, of Bollington Lane, was arrested shortly after 12.30am on Monday, 8th April following a one-vehicle collision on Ashley Road in Mere.

"He has been released on unconditional bail and is set to appear at Stockport Magistrates' Court on Monday 13 May."

Despite the police mentioning a single vehicle collision, it would appear that a second vehicle was involved.

Emma Brown, 20, is said to have been driving a Skoda which was hit by Drinkwater's vehicle.

According to The Sun, Drinkwater and solicitor Beth Mantel were travelling together at the time of the collision. They had attended a chav-themed charity party in Manchester earlier in the evening.

The maximum penalty for drink driving is an unlimited fine and/or 6 month's imprisonment.

Update (13/5/19): You can now read the outcome of Drinkwater's case here.

Drink Driving and Public Places

Disappointingly, given public awareness of the dangers of mixing alcohol and vehicles, drink driving remains one of the more common offences dealt with by the Magistrates' Court.

It is a very serious offence. Anyone convicted of drink driving faces disqualification, which will undoubtedly cause them significant social and/or financial inconvenience. They will also face steeper insurance premiums as well as the social stigma attached to this particular crime.

Despite numerous Department for Transport anti-drink driving campaigns over the years, there are still far too many people of the opinion that consuming an alcoholic drink or two is acceptable before taking to the driving seat.

I am of the firm belief that any amount of alcohol in a person's body can seriously impair their ability to drive safely and to the required standard. That being the case, anyone intent on driving should refrain from alcohol entirely.

Something else that worries me, hailing from a rural area as I do, is the misguided impression that the police aren't bothered about enforcing the legislation on deserted, winding country roads and farm tracks.

The relevant legislation, section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, makes it an offence to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place when over the prescribed alcohol limit. The offence can just as easily be committed on a motorway as a bridleway or supermarket car park - all that matters is that it is a public place where other drivers and/or pedestrians can come and go freely.

I am reminded of a case where a pub diner, who was under the influence of alcohol, went into the car park to move his vehicle into a more desirable space when it became available. He ended up jostling for the parking space with another driver, which led to an argument and the police being called. On arrival, having heard the circumstances, the police officer decided to breathalyse the diner, who was over the limit and subsequently convicted of drink driving.

Another case that springs to mind is that of a resident on a caravan park. The park, despite being private property, was ungated and therefore had public access. The man in question had enjoyed a few beers earlier in the evening, but events turned sour and he ended up arguing with his partner. He decided that he would let the dust settle by sleeping outside in the car. The people in the caravan next door, who had earlier been disturbed by the argument, called the police when they saw him staggering towards the vehicle. The police attended, the man was breathalysed and subsequently convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

The take home message is that anyone drinking alcohol should definitely be nowhere near the driving seat until they are absolutely sure that they are sober and fit to drive.