Lowestoft Businessman Fails in Exceptional Hardship Argument

A company director has failed in his bid to avoid driving disqualification, having been caught speeding when he already had 15 points on his licence.

Jeffrey Razaq, 58, of Gunton Cliff, Lowestoft appeared before Norwich Magistrates' Court for an exceptional hardship hearing.

Ordinarily a driver who accumulates 12 penalty points on their licence within a 3 year period faces a six month disqualification under the so-called totting up rule. 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.

Magistrates heard that Razaq had been clocked speeding on three separate occasions in the past 12 months.

Last September he was clocked at 66 mph in a 50 mph zone on the M23; in December he was caught at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone at Fritton; and in January he was caught at 51 mph in a 40 mph zone on the A12 in Suffolk.

Razaq already had 15 points on his licence as a result of two earlier speeding offences. Despite his poor driving record, Razaq had been allowed to keep his licence after an earlier successful claim of exceptional hardship.

On this occasion, however, the businessman's luck had ran out.

"The business depends on my bringing deals through the door," Razaq told the court.

He said he would lose his job and his home were he to lose his licence. He also warned that his business would have to dismiss employees if he was banned from the roads.

"I haven't had any holiday and if I was to be banned for weeks rather than months I could take some holiday, which could help my situation rather than lose my job," he told the court.

"I am sorry for my actions."

Razaq was fined £523 for the offences. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £52.

He was banned from driving for 28 days for each offence, to run concurrently.

Of course if Razaq had been genuinely concerned about his job, home and employees he wouldn't have exceeded the speed limit for the umpteenth time.

Having given him the benefit of the doubt previously, it is reassuring that the court stood firm on this occasion.

Cumbria and Lancashire Magistrate Recruitment Campaign

The Cumbria and Lancashire Advisory Committee is currently seeking to appoint new Justices to the Lancashire, South Cumbria and North & West Cumbria Benches.

Around 30 new Justices are sought to sit in the adult criminal court in Lancashire. Anyone appointed will be expected to sit at courthouses in Burnley, Blackburn, Blackpool, Lancaster and Preston.

Around 20 new Justices are sought to sit in the adult criminal court in South Cumbria. This Bench has only one courthouse, which is located in Barrow-in-Furness.

Around 20 new Justices are sought to sit in the adult criminal court in North & West Cumbria. Anyone appointed will be expected to sit at courthouses in Carlisle and Workington.

Further details about the application and selection process can be found on our Becoming a Magistrate page.

The application form and associated guidance notes can be downloaded from the Gov.uk website. The Advisory Committee would prefer that the completed application form is returned by email to: CL-Advisory@justice.gov.uk

Applicants are reminded that they need to observe at least one Magistrates' Court session, involving a bench of Magistrates, prior to submission of the form. A minimum of three observations is preferred.

Those shortlisted and invited for interview will be expected to demonstrate a good knowledge and understanding of social issues in the local area in which they wish to serve, in particular the causes and effects of crime. This would typically be gained by living or working there.

The closing date for applications is 30th September 2019 in all cases. Interviews will take place in October. Those shortlisted in Lancashire will be asked to attend for interview in Preston; those in Cumbria will be asked to attend for interview in Carlisle.

Best of luck to anyone applying.

Grenfell Tower Model Bonfire Trial Underway

The trial of the man accused of distributing a video of a burning Grenfell Tower effigy is underway.

Landlord Paul Bussetti, 46, appeared before Chief Magistrate and Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot at Westminster Magistrates' Court earlier today.

Bussetti, of South Norwood, denies 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.

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).

Bussetti admits recording the 3 minute video clip, but his legal team disputes that it was "grossly offensive" to share it on two private WhatsApp groups.

Mark Summers QC, defending, told the court that his client never intended for the footage to appear on YouTube and was not responsible for uploading it there.

The video depicted a four foot tall cardboard mock up of the Grenfell Tower, complete with victims waving for help at the windows, being lowered onto a bonfire and set alight.

A group of people could be heard laughing and joking in the background as flames took hold of the model.

The footage was branded "revolting" by the aunt of 12-year-old Jessica Urbano Ramirez, who died in the fire.

In a statement read to the court, Sandra Ruiz said: "The video made a mockery of her death. To see people making a mockery of that is vile."

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

The trial continues.

Northumbria Police Appeal for Witnesses After Incident in Newcastle's Bigg Market

Northumbria Police is appealing for witnesses after a car appeared to be used as a weapon against pedestrians in Newcastle city centre.

The incident, shown in the footage above, took place in the city's Bigg Market at around 9 pm last night (Saturday, 27th July 2019). The spot is popular with revellers, containing several bars and clubs.

Footage shows an irate female repeatedly banging on the windscreen of a black Ford Focus with the heel of her shoe. The driver's side door of the Focus appeared to have been bent back on its hinges.

Two males got into the Focus, which then sped a short distance causing the female to fall onto the road and hitting a male standing on the pavement. The male got to his feet and approached the Focus to remonstrates with the occupants.

The Focus drove a short distance down the Bigg Market towards the Mosley Street junction before reversing, swerving onto the pavement and running up against the male. The male was knocked flying when the front of the Focus made contact with him. The occupants of the Focus then drove away from the scene.

It should be stressed that the full circumstances surrounding the incident (e.g. what happened before the camera started rolling) are unknown, but the footage is pretty damning.

The police are understandably taking a very keen interest in the incident.

Acting Inspector Michelle Jahangiri, of Northumbria Police, has now warned that such behaviour will not be tolerated in Newcastle.

She said: "This is a very serious incident that happened in a very busy street in Newcastle city centre.

"This could have resulted in a very serious injury, and I would like to reiterate that this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

"We are aware of footage circulating on social media regarding the incident, and would ask members of the public to respect the ongoing investigation."

"Officers are the process of identifying the victims and offenders involved, and will take robust action against anybody found to be involved."

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to contact Northumbria Police 101 quoting reference 1160 270719 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

It should not take the police too long to track down the driver, so stay tuned for updates on this one.

Update (29/7/19): Northumbria Police has just issued an update on this incident. They have spoken to the victims and have identified the driver of the Focus, but he has not yet been traced or arrested.

Update (30/7/19): Northumbria Police has just issued an update on this incident. A 28-year-old male was arrested in the Durham area last night and is currently in police custody.

Update (31/7/19): Daniel Walmsley, 28, of Whiteoaks, Leam Lane, Gateshead appeared at Bedlington Magistrates' Court this morning charged with attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, assault, driving whilst disqualified, driving without a licence and driving without insurance. The first offence is indictable only, so Walmsley was remanded to appear at Newcastle Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2019.

Prime Minister Announces 20,000 New Police Officers

The Prime Minister has announced an additional 20,000 police officers, with the recruitment process set to start within a few weeks.

Addressing the House of Commons for his first time as Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson MP said: "As I said on the steps of Downing Street this week, my job as Prime Minister is to make our streets safer.

"People want to see more officers in their neighbourhoods, protecting the public and cutting crime.

"I promised 20,000 extra officers and that recruitment will now start in earnest."

A new national policing board will be established to oversee the recruitment drive, with the Home Office given responsibility for hitting the target.

Home Secretary, The Rt. Hon. Priti Patel MP, said: "Officers up and down the country put themselves in danger every day to keep us safe, they deserve our support.

"The rise we’ve seen in serious violence is deeply worrying. An additional 20,000 officers sends a clear message that we are committed to giving police the resources they need to tackle the scourge of crime.

"This is the start of a new relationship between the Government and the police working even more closely together to protect the public."

Between March 2010 and March 2018 the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by 21,732, resulting in the lowest numbers since 1981.

Numbers of police community support officers (PCSOs), who patrol the streets, have fallen by nearly 40% during this period, from 16,688 in 2010 to 10,139 in 2018.

Chief Constable Mike Cunningham, chief executive of the College of Policing, warned of a "wide variety of logistical challenges that come with the recruitment process".

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said the challenge was "not just getting people through the doors, but the assessment process, the attraction, recruitment campaigns, the vetting, and then of course training people, making sure they are fit for the responsibilities that they have".

Also speaking on the Today programme Kit Malthouse MP, the Minister of State for Policing, said that the target was "achievable", but conceded it was "a logistical challenge for all of us".

Geordie Shop Thief Pleads Poverty

A Newcastle man stole £116 of goods from a supermarket, because he was struggling to make ends meet on Universal Credit.

Alan Cunningham, 39, of St Peter's Road, Byker entered the Asda store in Benton and was tracked on CCTV as he selected items, detagged them and placed them in a shopping trolley.

Prosecutor Ami Dodd outlined the facts of the offence, which took place on 14th May 2019: "He went into the store and was seen on CCTV selecting many different items like gin, razors and T-shirts, removing tags and putting them in the trolley.

"He leaves the store without making any attempt to pay."

Cunningham received two conditional discharges earlier this year, when he stole from a Tesco store in North Shields.

Adrian Ions, mitigating, told the court that the offence was unsophisticated and his client had made full admissions to the police when interviewed.

Mr Ions added: "He was struggling with day-to-day living. He's in receipt of Universal Credit.

"Mr Cunningham is left with £190 per month, £6.30 per day. With the best will in the world, you are going to struggle to survive. That's £2 for every meal."

Mr Ions told the court that Cunningham's intention was to sell the items and use the proceeds to buy food.

"He is not a serial shoplifter. He is not doing this on a professional basis.

"In the two months since this incident, he has tried to ease his situation. He had drug problems in the past. He was referred to Plummer Court (an NHS drug and alcohol treatment facility), he is putting his life back in order."

The case was adjourned until 2nd August for pre-sentence reports.

If a shop thief walks around a store filling a trolley with spirits and razor blades and detagging them as they go, that does indicate a certain degree of planning and sophistication.

Given the timescale involved, Cunningham must be in breach of both his earlier conditional discharges and a pattern of offending is clearly beginning to emerge. This is a case that would merit the intervention of the Probation Service.

Trial Collapses Due to CPS Blunder

A Selby man has been acquitted of charges of stalking and voyeurism, after the CPS failed to disclose its evidence in the case to the defence.

Two days of valuable court time had been set aside for the man's trial, which involved ten prosecution witnesses. The defendant spent five weeks on remand in the lead up to the trial.

The man was accused of stalking a woman between December and February by making phone calls and visiting her property. He was also said to have made video recordings of the woman for his own sexual gratification.

The CPS also alleged he had committed two offences on bail. He was charged with stalking the woman between April and June by going to her place of work and staring through its windows and breaching a non-molestation order made by the Family Court to protect the woman.

For three months, ever since his first court appearance, despite three court orders made on three different days and several requests from the defence for information, the CPS failed to disclose details of its case to the defence, York Magistrates Court heard.

District Judge Adrian Lower blamed the collapse of the trial on the CPS, saying: "These are serious charges. It is clearly the prosecution's fault. There cannot be a fair trial."

Chris Hartley, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS Yorkshire and Humberside, said: "We were very disappointed at the outcome of this case and we would like to apologise to the complainant for the distress caused.

"We have immediately begun a full and thorough review of the circumstances in order to understand why we were not able to fully respond to the defence submissions that were accepted by the District Judge and to identify any lessons to be learned so that we can ensure this does not happen again.

"When this review is completed, we will be writing to the complainant to provide a full explanation."

A very poor effort by the CPS on this occasion. All parties will understandably feel very aggrieved at the way things have panned out.

Breaches of the Peace

Watch any police documentary on television and you can pretty much guarantee that someone will be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace.

In today's article we explore breaches of the peace in further detail, including the conditions needed for a breach of the peace to occur and the options available to the police and courts in dealing with a breach of the peace.

Breach of the peace is a common law offence, which has been around for hundreds of years - indeed as long as the office of Justice of the Peace. A common law offence is an action or behaviour that has been deemed unacceptable through centuries of tradition and legal precedent, instead of being written onto the statute books.

The leading authority for breaches of the peace is the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Regina vs. Howell, 1982.

Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Tasker Watkins, dismissed the Appeal in that case, but not before making some insightful comments on what actually constituted a breach of the peace. If you have half an hour to spare, you can read a copy of that judgment here.

Cutting to the heart of the issue, Watkins LJ deemed that a breach of the peace occurred if the behaviour of the person involved caused the police officer (or private citizen) to believe that:

• a breach of the peace had or would occur; and that
• it related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/her presence, their property.

If there is no harm, or likelihood of harm, to a person or their property, then a breach of the peace cannot occur. It is regrettable that some police officers do not understand that point.

The police have a common law power to arrest and detain anyone who is committing a breach of the peace or is (imminently) about to commit a breach of the peace. If a breach of the peace is occurring or about to occur on private property the police can enter that property, without warrant, for the purposes of stopping or preventing that breach of the peace. There is no power of arrest if a breach of the peace has happened in the past, however recent that may have been.

If the police arrest a person to prevent (or stop) a breach of the peace, they have a couple of options available to them:

• release the person if the source/catalyst of a potential breach of the peace has been removed. This is the pragmatic approach on a Saturday night when the cells are already heaving with drunks and brawlers.
• hold onto the person and put them before the next available Magistrates' Court. The court will give due consideration to the fact they have already been held in police custody, probably for several hours.

A breach of the peace is not a criminal offence and proceedings do not give rise to a criminal conviction. If a breach of the peace is admitted or proved the Magistrates' Court does, however, have the power to bind a person over to keep the peace. This means they will forfeit a surety if they fail to keep the peace for the duration of the bind over. At the end of the bind over period the slate is wiped clean.

In the exceptionally rare event that a person who has breached the peace refuses to be bound over, they can be imprisoned for a period of up to 6 months (or until they accept to be bound over) in accordance with section 115(3) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.

Fraudster Jailed for Ringing the Changes

A Waltham Cross man has been jailed for using a combination of sleight of hand and distraction to dupe shop assistants into handing over their takings.

This scam is often referred to as "ringing the changes". A demonstration is shown in the YouTube video below.

John Webster, 31, admitted five charges of fraud when he appeared via videolink at Worcester Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 18th July 2019.

The offences were committed on 26th April 2019, when Webster and an accomplice entered several shops in Worcester city centre.

Magistrates heard that £146 was conned out of a shop assistant in Card Factory when Webster made an elaborate request to change some banknotes. In a nearby Greggs shop, he requested a specially-made sandwich in order to distract the manager and leave a younger, inexperienced member of staff in charge of the till.

The pair were arrested shortly afterwards and found to have £355 in banknotes in their possession.

Nicola Ritchie, prosecuting, said all the offences "had the same aim" with the pair asking for "various notes to be changed from the till" and doing their best to confuse the assistant.

Nick Roberts, mitigating, said his client "takes no point" with anything said, but described the offences as "quite amateurish", flippantly adding: "It's not his fault if a manager leaves younger staff while he goes to check things."

Jayne Stewart, of the National Probation Service, said Webster had previously been recalled to prison in relation to a different offence and had spent six months unlawfully at large before being arrested in April. That prison term finishes in November.

Webster was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, which will run consecutively with his existing prison sentence.

Stephen Webster, who is charged with the same offences, was not present at court and his hearing was adjourned until 8th August 2019.

Closure Notices and Orders: A Tool for Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 contains a range of powers designed to tackle anti-social behaviour.

One of those powers is the ability to close premises where disorder or nuisance to members of the public has occurred or is likely to occur. This is achieved by issuing a closure notice in the first instance, which may be followed up by a closure order later on.

Closure notices and orders can be a very effective tool for nipping anti-social behaviour in the bud. It is a shame that some police forces and local authorities are reluctant to use them, as there are many responsible members of society having the peace, enjoyment and safety of their homes shattered by the anti-social/criminal tendencies of a selfish few.

Closure Notices:

Section 76 of the Act describes the circumstances and manner in which a closure notice can be issued.

A closure notice can only be issued when there is a reasonable belief:

• that the use of particular premises has resulted, or (if the notice is not issued) is likely soon to result, in nuisance to members of the public; or
• that there has been, or (if the notice is not issued) is likely soon to be, disorder near those premises associated with the use of those premises,

and that the notice is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring.

A closure notice can be issued by a police officer of at least inspector rank or a local authority employee. A closure notice is normally issued for 24 hours in the first instance, but can be granted for 48 hours (or extended from 24 to 48 hours) by a police officer of superintendent rank or local authority chief executive (or person specifically delegated the authority of the chief executive).

A closure notice can prohibit access to the premises by anyone who does not habitually live there or the owner.

A closure notice can only be granted when reasonable efforts have been made to inform anyone living at the premises, or having control or ownership of the premises, that one is being considered.

A copy of the closure notice must, if possible, be handed to anyone living at the premises or having control or ownership of the premises. A copy should be affixed to a prominent place on the premises. A copy should also be affixed to every normal means of access to the premises and any outbuildings associated with the premises. A police officer or local authority employee can enter the premises, by force if necessary, to serve a closure notice.

A cancellation notice can be issued by the person who authorised the closure notice (or, if that person is unavailable, by someone who could have authorised the original notice).

Closure Orders:

Section 80 of the Act describes the circumstances and manner in which a closure order can be made.

Unless a cancellation notice is issued, an application for a closure order must be made to the Magistrates' Court. This application must be heard by the Magistrates' Court within 48 hours of the closure notice being issued. Only Christmas day is not counted towards the 48 hour time limit, so an application needs to be made as a matter of urgency.

The court may make the closure order if it is satisfied:

• that a person has engaged, or (if the order is not made) is likely to engage, in disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour on the premises; or
• that the use of the premises has resulted, or (if the order is not made) is likely to result, in serious nuisance to members of the public; or
• that there has been, or (if the order is not made) is likely to be, disorder near those premises associated with the use of those premises,

and that the order is necessary to prevent the behaviour, nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring.

A closure order can prohibit access to the premises by anyone, including a person living there or having control or ownership of it. It can apply at all times, or only those times specified. It can apply in all circumstances, or only those circumstances specified. It can be made in respect of the full premises, or part thereof.

A closure order can be made for any period of up to 3 months, which can be extended to an absolute maximum of 6 months on successful application to the court.

The Magistrates' Court may adjourn the hearing of a closure order application to allow any person with an interest in the premises an opportunity to show why a closure order should not be granted. In these circumstances, the court can extend the closure notice by up to 14 days to cover the adjournment period.

An application may be made to the Magistrates' Court for the discharge of a closure order at any time prior to its expiry.

Offences:

It is an offence to contravene a closure notice or closure order. It is an offence to obstruct a police officer or local authority employee who is serving a closure notice, entering the premises or securing the premises.

• The maximum penalty for breaching a closure notice (or temporary extension thereto) is an unlimited fine, or 3 months' imprisonment, or both.
• The maximum penalty for breaching a closure order is an unlimited fine, or 6 months' imprisonment, or both.
• The maximum penalty for obstructing a police officer or local authority employee serving a closure notice is an unlimited fine, or 3 months' imprisonment, or both.

Royal Mail Cleaner Stole Posted Cards and Gifts

A cleaner at Royal Mail's Flint Delivery Office has been convicted of stealing items of post.

Susan James, 61, of Dee Cottages, Flint denied four counts of theft, but was found guilty of the offences at her recent trial.

James fell under suspicion when a Flint woman reported that an anniversary card she had posted on 27th September 2018 failed to reach her parents on Anglesey. A £20 Asda gift voucher was enclosed with the missing card.

The woman went to Asda's Flint store to cancel the gift voucher, but was told that it had already been spent on teabags and cigarettes. CCTV footage from the store showed James using the gift voucher two days after the missing anniversary card had been posted.

Royal Mail launched an investigation after enquiries revealed that James was in the habit of handling the missorted mail, even though her manager had previously told her not to.

North East Wales Magistrates' Court, sitting at Mold Justice Centre, heard that Royal Mail investigators placed two test greetings cards on the missorted mail frame to see if they were taken.

Andrea Fitzgerald, prosecuting for Royal Mail, said that James became evasive when asked to unlock her cleaning cupboard. Once inside, officers found 52 greetings cards concealed beneath black bags. The two test items were recovered from the same room.

Officers also found a leaving card in an opened envelope addressed to a former employee of the Delivery Office.

James denied having stolen the anniversary card destined for Anglesey, saying instead that she had found the Asda gift voucher when sweeping the yard of the Delivery Office. She said she thought it had been thrown away, but admitted she was wrong to spend it.

When asked about the 52 items of mail found in the cleaning cupboard, she said she didn't know they were there. James conceded that she may have "mistakenly" picked up a tray containing the cards, when she really meant to pick up the missorted mail tray instead.

She also denied stealing £50 cash from workers who had chipped in for the staff leaver, claiming she hadn't finished the collection which was why the open card was found in her cleaning cupboard.

Magistrates were unconvinced by the defence offered by James, finding her guilty of all four counts of theft. She had previously admitted fraud by dishonestly spending the gift voucher at Asda.

Bethan Jones, defending, said James had made a "genuine mistake" storing the mail items.

That mistake could well cost James her liberty when she is sentenced on Wednesday, 17th July 2019.

Shop Thief's Dirty Laundry Aired in Public

A Derby shop thief soiled himself when apprehended by store security guards.

Eamonn Machado, 32, of Edward Road, West Bridgeford admitted stealing £55 worth of goods from Homebase on the city's Wyvern Retail Park on Wednesday, 19th June 2019.

Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court heard that Machado was observed concealing items and challenged by staff. He tried to flee from the scene, but was caught by security guards a short time later, by which time he had messed himself.

Prosecutor Lynn Bickley told the court: "There were reports of a male being aggressive who had been detained by staff. Police arrived, the male was this defendant and was arrested.

"He (had) put the items in his bag and when he was challenged to show what was in his bag he refused and ran out of the store.

Ms Bickley said that during his police interview, Machado admitted he didn't have enough money to pay for the items and decided to steal them.

She also said that all the goods were recovered.

Charles Clark, mitigating, said: "He takes the items as he needed the items as part of his work. He didn't have sufficient money with him and, foolishly, he took the items.

"When he is challenged he immediately seems to have been overcome with shame and remorse and ran away initially.

"He was rather embarrassed. He defecated in his trousers."

Mr Clark told the court that his client, who had previously served for a short time in the Royal Marines, had recently secured a job.

Machado was fined £80 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £30 victim surcharge.

Peter Dexter, chairman of the bench, told him: "You have got employment now and criminal activity can jeopardise employment.

"This has to be the last time you appear in court."

More on GPS Location Monitoring

At the start of the year the Justice Secretary, David Gauke MP, announced the introduction of GPS location monitoring for those suspected or convicted of an offence.

After trials in the North West, Midlands and North East the new system, which compliments the existing system of RF tags used for the monitoring of curfews, should be available across England and Wales by the end of August 2019.

The new GPS-enabled tags can be used for enforcing bail conditions and monitoring those offenders on community and suspended sentence orders. In common with the existing RF tags, the GPS tags are monitored around the clock by Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS). Unlike the existing RF tags, the GPS tags will allow the tracking of the wearer at any place or time - they do not need to be within range of the base station positioned in their home.

The GPS tags can be used by the court to:

• Set exclusion zones (such as a shopping centre popular with prolific shoplifters or around a football stadium on match day);
• Monitor attendance at a particular activity or appointment (such as their job during working hours or substance misuse appointments if drugs or alcohol are relevant factors in their offending);
• Monitor a defendant's whereabouts ("trail or monitoring"). This data can be requested retrospectively from EMS for these cases. This is not an option for bail, only for those on community or suspended sentence orders;
• Support an existing electronic curfew where other location conditions or requirements are imposed (but not replacing existing stand-alone curfew monitoring).

EMS will attend the defendant's residence on the evening GPS location monitoring is ordered by the court. They will fit the GPS tag to the defendant's ankle and install a base station. Unlike the existing RF tags, the GPS tags need to be kept charged in order to work. To that end, every defendant will be provided with both a wall charger and portable charger unit. They will be instructed to charge the GPS tag for at least an hour each day.

The GPS tags are bulkier than the RF tags, but are just as durable and waterproof. The GPS tags will not be damaged by normal exercise, bathing or swimming.

Should the defendant breach the location requirements of their order, a message will be transmitted to EMS and enforcement action can be initiated. The system can be programmed to recognise transport corridors, which means that sentencers can allow the defendant passage through an exclusion zone in certain circumstances - e.g. if they are travelling on public transport to go directly to work, home or a probation appointment.

The introduction of these new GPS tags is welcome news as it increases the likelihood that those breaching their bail conditions or court orders will be detected and brought to book. Some cynics have labelled the system a cheaper alternative to custody, but that remains to be seen.

Axe Attacker Denied Taxi Licence

A Newcastle man with a chequered past has been refused a taxi licence after Magistrates deemed him unsuitable.

Imran Akram, of Tamworth Road, Fenham told Magistrates that he had changed his lifestyle, found the Islamic faith and wanted to be a proper father to his three children.

The court heard he committed weapons offences in 2011 and 2015, a caution for possession of class B in 2012 and conspiracy to supply drugs in 2017. He was released from prison in 2017 and police spotted a car insured in his name being used to deal drugs last summer.

In 2014 he was jailed for wounding with intent after attacking a man with an axe.

Akram told Magistrates that the axe attack had been "in the heat of the moment"

"I'm a changed man," he said.

"I was just a child at the time."

Louise Coulson, for Newcastle City Council, stated if he did get the job, there was a strong chance he'd run into a hostile situation at some point.

"How would you ensure you didn't act in the heat of the moment again?" she asked.

Magistrates agreed with the Council and refused Akram's application.

"We do not think you are a fit and proper person," the chairman of the bench told him.

Dyfed Powys Magistrates Courts Open Evenings

The Dyfed Powys Advisory Committee is currently seeking to appoint Magistrates to the Adult Criminal and Family Courts.

The area is served by Magistrates' Courts in Llanelli, Haverfordwest, Aberystwyth and Welshpool.

Prospective applicants and interested members of the public are invited to attend one of the following open evenings:

• Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court: 16th July 2019, 4.30 pm - 6 pm;
• Aberwrystwyth Magistrates' Court: 24th July 2019, 4.30 pm - 6 pm;
• Welshpool Magistrates' Court: 25th July 2019, 4.30 pm - 6 pm.

Serving Magistrates will be on hand to answer questions about the role and application process.

Further information is available on the Gov.uk website. You could also read our Becoming a Magistrate page.

Anyone wishing to attend one of these events is asked to book a place by contacting the Advisory Committee: hmctswalesadvisory@justice.gov.uk.

Contemptor Jailed for Threatening Presiding Justice

A man has been jailed for threatening the Presiding Justice dealing with his case.

Philip James Thomas, of Heamoor in Penzance, appeared before Truro Magistrates' on another matter on Monday, 8th July 2019. Unfortunately we don't know why he was appearing in the first place, so we'd be grateful if anyone in the know drops us a comment below.

As he was sentenced and led away from the dock he said to the Presiding Justice dealing with his case: "I will be coming for you next".

As convention dictates the 50-year-old was given time to reflect on his behaviour and apologise to the court, but he refused to do so.

Truro Magistrates' Court documents said: "Offence so serious because As Mr Thomas was being led away by the custody officers he became angry and abusive towards the bench and, in particular, he made a threat to the chairman saying in a very menacing manner, 'I will be coming for you next'.

"He has been given time to reflect on his actions and receive advice from his solicitor. He has been given an opportunity to apologise to the court. He refuses to come before the court and apologise for his words and actions.

"We have therefore determined that we will proceed in his absence. We find that Mr Thomas has acted in a manner which amounts to a contempt of court.

"The nature and gravity of what he said is serious. What he did would have caused any reasonable person to fear for their safety. The threat to the chairman is something that is a direct attack upon the administration of justice.

"We find that we have no alternative but to impose a sentence of 28 days for the contempt that Mr Thomas has shown the court today."

In accordance with section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the Magistrates' Court has the power to imprison any person who insults the Justices (or other officer of the court or witness) for a period not exceeding one month, or to fine them a maximum of £2,500, or both. The court can choose to revoke such a penalty at any time.

Sheer Brass Neck: Burglars Target Maidstone Magistrates' Court

Maidstone Magistrates' Court remained closed today after being burgled over the weekend.

It is thought that burglars entered the building, which is adjacent to the town's police station, at around 5 am on Sunday morning. Maybe they knew that the police station didn't open until 9 am? Computer equipment was taken in the raid, which left office staff unable to complete their work this morning.

Today's list was transferred to Maidstone Crown Court. It is hoped that Maidstone Magistrates' Court will be open as usual tomorrow.

Officers are appealing for anyone with information that may assist the investigation to call Kent Police on 01622 604100, quoting reference 08-0201.

North Yorkshire Magistrate Recruitment Campaign

With the recent sad demise of Northallerton Magistrates' Court we've written a fair bit about the provision of justice in the North Yorkshire area.

On this occasion, breaking with recent tradition, we are bringing the positive news that the North and West Yorkshire Advisory Committee is seeking to appoint 15 (or thereabouts) new Justices to the North Yorkshire Bench.

In particular the Committee is seeking applicants who live or work near to Scarborough Magistrates' Court, although those appointed would be expected to sit at other North Yorkshire court houses (at York, Harrogate and Skipton).

Applications are particularly welcome from members of groups currently under-represented amongst the Magistracy. That includes members of Black and Minority Ethnic communities, people under the age of 50, people from non-managerial or professional occupations, and people with a disability who are able, either unassisted or with reasonable adjustments, to carry out the full range of a magistrate’s duties.

It is expected that every applicant will have observed TWO Magistrates' Court sessions, which they will be questioned on if they are subsequently invited for interview.

The Committee is also seeking to appoint 25 new Justices to the West Yorkshire Bench, which has court houses in Bradford, Hudderfield (Kirklees) and Leeds.

Further information is available on the Gov.uk website. You could also read our Becoming a Magistrate page.

Applications close on 31st July 2019. Applications received after that date will not be processed.

Best of luck to anyone applying.

Taxi Driver Convicted of Stealing Passenger's Watch

A Tenby taxi driver has been convicted of theft after finding a passenger's watch and trying to sell it on eBay.

Mark Ian Powell, of Jameston, Tenby, admitted a single charge of theft by finding when he appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court on 2nd July 2019.

The court heard that Powell, 34, took over the taxi from another driver at the end of his shift. A £390 Clogau gold woman's watch was left in the back of the vehicle, having earlier fallen from the owner's wrist.

Vaughan Pritchard-Jones, prosecuting, said: "Instead of handing it in to control, as he should have done, he kept it and gave it to his wife.

"She did not like it so he tried to sell it to get some money."

The watch's owner spotted the advert for their property online and a family member contacted Powell to get his details, which were passed to the police.

Mr Pritchard-Jones said: "He handed it over to the police, but initially denied the theft. He said it was a complete coincidence that he was selling it and he had bought it for his wife.

"He was in a position of trust. When people get into a taxi, especially when drunk, they often leave things in taxis, and they should be returned."

Mike Kelleher, mitigating, said that Powell was of previous good character.

"Mr Powell found the watch at the end of his shift, any number of people could have lost it", Mr Kelleher said.

"He made a huge mistake and did something that he had never done before. The watch was returned so there is no loss."

Powell was sentenced to a 12-month community order with 150 hours unpaid work requirement. He was ordered to pay £85 victim surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

As we said in our earlier theft article, the finder of any item of property is under a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ascertain who the owner is and return the property to them. Powell failed to do that, even though the number of paying passengers in the back of his taxi that day would have been quite small.

Suspended Sentence for Derby Trolley Dash Thief

A prolific shop thief has narrowly avoided a return to prison after dashing out of a supermarket with a trolley full of shopping.

Leon Tilt, 33, of Midland Road, Swadlincote, pleaded guilty to one charge of theft from a shop when he appeared at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court in Derby.

Lynn Bickley, prosecuting, described how Tilt had visited Asda on the city's Sinfin Lane on 4th April 2019.

She said: "The defendant goes to Asda, in Sinfin Lane.

"He starts filing up a trolley with items to the value of £256.90. He pushes the trolley out of the store without making payment.

"He makes his way to the car park and is chased by security staff."

Tilt abandoned the loaded trolley in the store's car park, so all of the goods were recovered.

Alice Hornsby, mitigating, told the court that Tilt had stolen the goods to feed himself.

"His benefits had been stopped and he had no money", she said.

"It was a blip. He has attended his supervision appointments and has started opening up to them.

"He is no longer taking heroin and is on a methadone script."

Magistrates sentenced Tilt to 12 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. A condition of the order is that he will undergo a 12 week electronically monitored curfew between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am.

Tilt was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £115 and prosecution costs of £85.

Colwyn Bay Man Jailed for Assaulting Court Security Officers

A Colwyn Bay man has been jailed for assaulting two court security officers after a disagreement over drinking water.

Lawrence William Davies, 58, of the town's Egerton Road, was in the public gallery at Caernarfon Magistrates' Court on 28th February 2019 when he was observed drinking water from his own cup.

Davies was asked to stop drinking, but refused so was asked to leave the courtroom. When he also refused to leave the courtroom two security officers - Edward Wyn Jones and Ian Cutler - were tasked with ejecting him. A scuffle ensued, which resulted in Davies throwing water at the officers, punching them and damaging Mr Cutler's watch.

Under section 58 of the Courts Act 2003 security officers have the lawful authority to eject any person from a court building, using reasonable force if necessary, at the direction of a Judge or Justice of the Peace.

Davies denied assaulting the officers, but was convicted of two charges of assault and one of criminal damage following a trial at North East Wales Magistrates' Court in Mold.

Andrew Downey, prosecuting, told the court that Davies deliberately threw water at the officers and landed blows on them as he was ejected from the courtroom.

Davies, defending himself, argued that as a type-2 diabetic he had the fundamental human right to drink water at a time of his choosing. He claimed to have acted in self defence when the "arrogant and confrontational" officers manhandled him from the public gallery.

"I was prepared to stand up for my rights, the rights of all of us", Davies said.

"I was calm at all times. I don't break the law. I respect the law but I do stand my ground. It was unlawful for them to try and remove me from the court because I had water. I was not doing anything wrong."

Deputy District Judge Steven Jonas rejected Davies' defence and found him guilty of the offences as charged.

The Judge commented that the security officers were entitled to remove Davies' cup when he refused to hand it over. He said that Davies' could have left the court building to drink his water, or asked a member of court staff to provide some. Davies did not, according to the Judge, have the right to drink his own water when he had already been asked not to.

Davies was sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment for the assaults and 4 weeks consecutive for being in breach of a suspended sentence order.

The prosecution was unsuccessful in its application for a restraining order banning Davies from all Magistrates' and Crown Courts in North Wales.

After the convictions, Davies complained that there had been "a litany of malicious prosecutions from 2011 until now".

He added: "I believe the State is persistently and maliciously pursuing me in anything I do."