Farmer Granted Restraining Order Against Militant Vegan

A Dorset sheep farmer has been granted a restraining order after suffering months of abuse at the hands of a self-styled "militant vegan".

Wimborne farmer John Wood and his family were branded "murderers" and "animal abusers" in an eight-month campaign of hatred orchestrated by Animal Liberation Front supporter Emma Christoforakis.

Christoforakis, 37, of Langton Long Blandford, was convicted of one count of harassment without violence during her recent trial at Poole Magistrates' Court. She was sentenced by the court on 23rd August 2019.

It is an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for an individual to pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another, which they know or ought to know amounts to harassment of that other. The offence is triable summarily and has a maximum sentence of 6 months custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited).

Magistrates heard that Mr Wood runs the "Meat & Greet British Farming" Facebook page, which had attracted the negative attention of animal rights protestors including Christoforakis.

Richard Oakley, prosecuting, described how Christoforakis, pictured below with her husband Dimitri, turned up at Mr Wood's family home brandishing a camera when he was not present.

"She said she wanted to ask [Mr Wood] questions about abuse on Facebook", Mr Oakley told the court.

"Mrs Wood told the children to go inside and was not happy with the defendant being on private property.

"The defendant then shouted: 'How many sheep die? What’s your mortality rate?'. Mrs Wood then walked away. She then shouted: 'You are murderers'."

Mr Wood made a visit to Bournemouth to promote livestock farming in March 2018, where he was confronted by a group of protestors including Christoforakis.

On another occasion, she turned up at a livestock market and asked the organisers if they had ever dealt with him.

In August 2018, Christoforakis made a Facebook post with Mr and Mrs Wood's profile picture, calling them "animal abusers".

In October 2018, she posted a video of sheep being sheared, as part of an animal rights campaign, and commented: "We know first-hand how vile sheep farmers are, don't we? One in Wimborne too."

In March this year the police advised Mr Wood to cancel his farm's annual lambing open day, due to concerns that Christoforakis would arrange a demonstration that day. The event, which attracts around 2,000 people, raises funds for charities including Macmillan Cancer Research.

In a victim impact statement, which was read to the court, Mr Wood said: "My day-to-day life has changed.

"I no longer go to Bournemouth because I don't want the confrontation.

"I don't go into Blandford for fear of running into her.

"I have had many sleepless nights. I find myself worrying we will be broken into.

"She has recently been involved in the liberation of farm animals, which is a concern because I am worried we are going to have some lambs stolen."

Magistrates handed Christoforakis, pictured above campaigning for Dorset Animal Save, a two-year restraining order prohibiting her from contacting John or Karen Wood, either directly or indirectly, including via social media or a third party. The order also prohibits Christoforakis from going within 200 yards of the Woods' farm.

She was given an 18 month conditional discharge, ordered to pay Mr Wood compensation in the sum of £400, prosecution costs of £620 and a victim surcharge of £20.

Christoforakis told Farmers Weekly that she decided to visit John Wood's farm because she wanted to put a stop to online bullying she was experiencing on his Facebook page.

Magistrates' Court Reporting and Public Apathy

A recent article in Press Gazette has highlighted the worrying decline in press/media reporting from the Magistrates' Court.

Research conducted by academics at the University of the West of England revealed that only three news articles were published about cases at Bristol Magistrates' Court during one week in January 2018.

More than 240 cases passed through the court that week, but researchers saw only one working journalist during that time.

The study looked at the number of these cases reported by 40 local newspapers and media outlets serving the Bristol area.

Despite acknowledging the small, localised scale of their research, the authors of the report concluded that there is "some justification for the perception that court reporting at this level is in a poor state".

They added: "...the lack of coverage during the week is clear when compared to the hundreds of cases heard during that period, concerning people across Bristol and the surrounding area.

"Effectively, this local-level justice was being conducted invisibly."

The authors noted that many newsworthy cases never made it to print, with some only appearing in the briefest terms due to the availability of a press release.

They argue that the absence of independent journalistic oversight is at odds with the key concept of open justice.

Based on my experience, these observations are not isolated to Bristol. In the past month or so I have sat six days at a busy urban Magistrates' Court and on only one occasion have I noticed a journalist in court. He bobbed into court for only an hour for the purposes of reporting on a neighbour dispute that turned nasty, despite us having dealt with many other arguably more newsworthy cases.

One of the questions I was asked when I was interviewed to become a Magistrate was about the challenges that lay ahead for local justice. Having been the sole independent observer in many courts by that stage, I replied that I was worried about public apathy surrounding the role of the Magistrates' Court - based on my experiences up until that point the presence of journalists and members of the public was the exception rather than the rule.

I also said that I was concerned that some Magistrates' Courts had an austere attitude towards observing members of the public, the presence of whom was often a whispered topic of conversation between the bench and the legal advisor. The court should be warmly embracing any member of the public taking a keen interest in the delivery of local justice.

I would encourage anyone with a Magistrates' Court nearby to spend a morning in the public gallery and have their eyes opened to the issues affecting their local community.

Magistrate Interview Process

The Magistrate application and selection process involves two interviews (the first and second stage interviews).

In this article we explore some of the questions that might arise during each interview. We recommend that this article is read in conjunction with our Becoming a Magistrate page.

Interviews always take place in a public building, quite often a courthouse. The interview panel, which is normally 3 or 4 strong, consist of members of the local Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace. Some of these will be Magistrate members, others will be lay members.

The first and second stage interviews are often held on different days, but they can be concentrated into a single day if necessary.

Usually there are far more applicants than there are places, but assuming a person submits their application form in good time and completes it to a good standard there is a reasonable chance they will be invited for a first stage interview. Anyone who submits their application form late or with obvious errors or omissions will undoubtedly be rejected without an interview.

There seems to be a current drive towards asking for references before the first stage interview. Previous practice was to use the first stage interview to whittle down the number of applicants and only request references for those invited back for a second stage interview.

The Advisory Committee will normally invite three times as many applicants as there are vacancies to a first stage interview. Of those, somewhere between half and two thirds would progress to a second stage interview.

During each interview, the applicant will be asked the following good character and background question:

"Is there anything in your private or working life, or in your past, or to your knowledge in that of your family or close friends, which, if it became generally known, might bring you or the Magistracy into disrepute, or call into question your integrity, authority or standing as a Magistrate?"

As mentioned on our Becoming a Magistrate page an affirmative answer is not necessarily a bar to appointment, but would definitely be explored further at interview.

In the following sections, for the information of applicants, we have provided some examples of questions that might arise in each interview.

First Stage Interview:

The purpose of the first stage interview is to check an applicant's general suitability for the Magistracy, paying particular attention to the six key qualities:

• Good character;
• Understanding and communication;
• Social awareness;
• Maturity and sound temperament;
• Sound judgement;
• Commitment and reliability.

Applicants will not advance to a second stage interview unless they can demonstrate some evidence of each key quality.

The first stage interview is likely to begin with a review of the completed application form, which the applicant will be reminded of on their arrival at the interview venue. As the application form may have been completed some months earlier, this is also the ideal opportunity to check and update any personal details on the form.

The following sorts of questions are likely to arise at the first stage interview:

1. Why do you wish to serve as a Magistrate?

2. What do you know already about the role of a Magistrate?

3. What would be the advantages/disadvantages to you of being a Magistrate?

4. When you visited the Magistrates' Court, was there anything that caused you surprise/ disappointment?

5. Tell us about some of the cases you saw when you visited the Magistrates' Court.

6. What skills and qualities could you bring to the Magistracy?

7. What do you do in your spare time?

8. Tell us about your experiences of doing community/charity/voluntary work.

9. What crimes affect people the most where you live?

10. What factors cause people to commit crime?

11. What do your family/friends/employer think about your application to become a Magistrate?

12. If successful in your application, what sort of commitment could you offer to the Magistracy?

Applicants are reminded that the interview panel is looking for evidence of the six key qualities.

Second Stage Interview:

Having confirmed an applicant's general suitability for appointment as a Magistrate at the first stage interview, the second stage interview is designed to gauge their potential judicial aptitude.

Applicants will be provided with a copy of their completed application form to jog their memory.

The second stage interview contains a case study exercise and a ranking exercise.

• Case study exercise: Applicants will be given a case study about a fictional crime to consider. They will subsequently be questioned about the circumstances of the crime, including any aggravating/mitigating factors.
• Ranking exercise: Applicants will be given a list of about 10 fictitious crimes, from which they select the four most severe in their opinion. They will subsequently be questioned about their choices. Applicants aren't expected to know all the right answers, but will be expected to demonstrate sound logic for arriving at their particular choices. You can read more about the ranking exercise in our earlier article.

Applicants will then be given a series of interview questions to test their understanding of the two exercises and their general understanding of crime and the justice system.

These questions are likely to be along the lines of:

1. Explain how you chose the four most serious offences described in the ranking exercise.

2. Suppose [offence name] happened in the middle of the day when there are lots of members of the public about. How would that change your view of the offence?

3. Suppose [offence name] was committed by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs. How would that change your view of the offence?

4. Suppose [offence name] was committed by a person who immediately admitted their guilt and showed remorse. How would that change your view of the offence?

5. What impact do you think [offence name] would have on the victim and why?

6. What is the purpose of sentencing offenders?

7. What are your views on whether cannabis should be legalised?

8. Suppose you are appointed as a Magistrate and a work colleague appears in court before you. How would you handle that situation?

9. Suppose you are appointed as a Magistrate and a work colleague challenges you over the way the court had dealt with a case. How would you handle that situation?

10. What do you know about the sentences available to the Magistrates' Court?

We hope you found this article useful and informative.

Best wishes and good luck to anyone applying to become a Magistrate.

Further Reading

We have covered the most important points of the interview process above, but there are several books exploring the subject in greater depth:

• How 2 Become A Magistrate: The Insider's Guide, by Richard McMunn.
• Magistrate Interview Questions and Answers: Sample Insider Tips for Passing the Magistrate First and Second Interview, by Richard McMunn.
• Wildy's Handbook for Magistrates, by Robert J. Allan and Pauline M. Callow.

Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Orders

The Crime and Security Act 2010 ("the Act") empowers the police to provide immediate emergency protection to the victims of domestic violence.

After the immediate intervention of the police, the Magistrates' Court is asked to reinforce and confirm the protection afforded by the legislation.

Here we provide a brief summary of the domestic violence provisions of the Act. Readers are encouraged to consult the legislation directly if they require further information.

Domestic Violence Protection Notices:

Section 24 of the Act describes the circumstances in which a Domestic Violence Protection Notice (DVPN) can be issued by the police.

A DVPN can only be issued by an officer of at least superintendent rank, who is referred to as the authorising officer in the legislation.

The authorising officer can issue a DVPN to a person (P) aged 18 years or older if satisfied that:

• P has been violent towards, or has threatened violence towards, an associated person (V);
• the issue of the DVPN is necessary to protect V from violence, or the threat of violence, by P.

For the purposes of the legislation, an associated person is defined by section 64(2) of the Family Law Act 1996.

Before issuing a DVPN the authorising officer must, in particular, consider:

• the welfare of any person under the age of 18 whose interests the officer considers relevant to the issuing of the DVPN (whether or not that person is an associated person);
• the opinion of V as to whether the DVPN should be issued;
• any representations made by P as to the issuing of the DVPN;
• if P lives in the same premises as V, the opinion of any other associated person living within that premises.

V does not need to agree to the issuing of the DVPN.

A DVPN must include a provision to prohibit P from molesting V.

If P lives in the same premises as V, the DVPN may also include the following provisions:

• to prohibit P from evicting or excluding V from the premises;
• to prohibit P from entering the premises;
• to require P to leave the premises;
• to prohibit P from coming to within a certain distance of the premises, that distance being specified in the DVPN.

Section 25 of the Act states that a DVPN must be in writing and served personally on P by a police constable.

A DVPN must inform P that an application for a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) will be made at the Magistrates' Court within 48 hours of the DVPN being served. The time and venue of the hearing must be given, in case P wishes to make representations to the court. Christmas Day, Good Friday, Sundays and Bank Holidays are not counted towards the 48 hour time limit.

If P breaches the DVPN they are liable to arrest without warrant, in which case they will be held in custody, for not more than 24 hours, until the hearing of the DVPO application.

Domestic Violence Protection Orders:

Section 27 of the Act describes the circumstances in which a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) can be issued by the Magistrates' Court.

In common with the DVPN, the court can only make a DVPO if satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the following conditions are met:

• P has been violent towards, or has threatened violence towards V;
• the issue of the DVPO is necessary to protect V from violence, or the threat of violence, by P.

Before issuing a DVPO the court must, in particular, consider:

• the welfare of any person under the age of 18 whose interests the officer considers relevant to the making of the DVPO (whether or not that person is an associated person);
• the opinion of V as to whether the DVPO should be made;
• any representations made by P as to the making of the DVPO;
• if P lives in the same premises as V, the opinion of any other associated person living within that premises.

V does not need to agree to the making of the DVPO.

A DVPO must include a provision to prohibit P from molesting V.

If P lives in the same premises as V, the DVPO may also include the following provisions:

• to prohibit P from evicting or excluding V from the premises;
• to prohibit P from entering the premises;
• to require P to leave the premises;
• to prohibit P from coming to within a certain distance of the premises, that distance being specified in the DVPO.

A DVPO is made for a period of at least 14 days and not more than 28 days, as specified in the DVPO.

If P breaches the DVPO they are liable to arrest without warrant, in which case they will be held in custody, for not more than 24 hours, to be brought before the Magistrates' Court.

If, for whatever reason, the court does not dispose of the matter, P may be remanded in custody until the next opportunity that the court can dispose of the matter.

A breach of a DVPO is a civil breach and does not result in a criminal conviction. It can be punished in accordance with section 63 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, namely:

• by the imposition of a fine not exceeding £50 for each day the order is breached;
• by a period of imprisonment not exceeding 2 months.

Man Cleared Over Video of Burning Grenfell Tower Effigy

A man accused of distributing a video of a burning Grenfell Tower effigy has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

Landlord Paul Bussetti, 46, of South Norwood, was acquitted of two charges 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.

The charges related to a video of a burning Grenfell Tower effigy, which circulated on social media towards the start of November 2018.

The 3 minute long 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.

Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, the Chief Magistrate, presided over the two day trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

The prosecution argued that the video, which showed the model of the tower with black and brown cardboard figures of people inside as it burned, was racist in nature. While the court heard he had used racial epithets in private chats, Bussetti denied holding racist views.

Bussetti claimed it was a joke and that the characters were actually misunderstood references to him and his friends. Giving evidence earlier today, he said it was "certainly not the case" that the figures in the cardboard model, which had "Grenfell Tower" written on it, were meant to be those who died in the fire.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was criticised after its last minute revelation that two other individuals had told police that the cardboard figures represented Bussetti and his friends.

The CPS was also late in disclosing the existence of a second video of the incident, which cast into doubt whether the video made by Bussetti was actually the one that went viral online.

Judge Arbuthnot said: "I am just appalled at the disclosure in this case," adding that it was "highly unsatisfactory to say the least".

Acquitting Bussetti, she said: "I cannot be sure the video relied on by the Crown is the one taken by the defendant."

She added that she could not be sure that the cardboard figures in the burning model were not meant to represent Bussetti and his friends.

Hertfordshire Man Convicted of Impersonating Police Officer

A Hertfordshire man has been convicted of impersonating a police officer, after buying police uniform and paraphernalia online.

Craig Buttery, 21, of The Coppice, Bishop's Stortford, admitted one charge of impersonating a police officer, contrary to section 90 of the Police Act 1996; another of common assault, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and a third of driving otherwise in accordance with a licence, contrary to section 89 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, during a recent hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court.

District Judge Timothy King heard how Buttery had bought kit including handcuffs, a fluorescent jacket, belt and radio with earpiece online.

Ashley Petchley, prosecuting, described how the young fantasist visited a pub wearing full police uniform. He also pulled over a car and questioned the couple inside, before searching them and confiscated a small amount of cannabis.

On 16th January 2019, whilst dressed as a police officer, Buttery pinned a man against a wall and accused him of threatened to smash his friend's car with a baseball bat.

The motoring offence relates to an incident when Buttery drove a friend's vehicle, having falsely reassured her that he was allowed to do so "because policemen are insured on any vehicle".

Judge King said he did not believe Buttery had bought the uniform for "theatrical purposes" and his victim had believed him to be a genuine police officer.

He said: "It is a lot of effort to go to for a theatrical act. It is quite clear that those members of the public thought you were a police officer.

"The public has to have confidence that those who are dressed as police officers are police officers," the Judge added.

Zoe Hoskin, mitigating for Buttery, said he was young and very apologetic for what he had done.

She said: "He recognises it wasn't the best thinking process."

Buttery was sentenced to a 12-month community order with 140 hours unpaid work requirement.

He was fined £126 and his driving licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points.

The CPS appears to have missed a trick here. If they'd been a bit sharper they could have also charged with him possession of cannabis!

Authorisation of Continued Detention and Warrants of Further Detention

Whenever a person is arrested the police have 24 hours to either charge them with an offence, release them without charge (possibly on bail) or, in the case of certain offences, seek permission to extend their period of detention.

In this article we explore the key issues surrounding authorisation of continued detention and warrants of further detention.

These two processes, which are separate but closely related, are only applicable in the case of a person arrested on suspicion of an indictable offence (which includes an either way offence, as that can be tried on indictment).

We provide only a brief overview - anyone seeking a deeper or more authoritative account should refer directly to sections 39 to 45 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

We should also mention that warrants of further detention, which are where the Magistrates' Court plays a role, are actually quite rare. Generally speaking the police have already charged or released a person long before a warrant is necessary. The granting or refusal of these warrants does attract particular attention in high profile cases reported by the media.

Calculating the Period of Detention (vide subsection 41(2) of PACE):

As viewers of Channel 4 documentary 24 Hours in Police Custody will already be aware, the period of detention, which is referred to as "the relevant time" in the legislation, begins: 

• For a person arrested in England or Wales, the moment the person is arrested or the moment they arrive at the police station, whichever is earlier; or
• For a person arrested outside England or Wales, the moment they arrive at the police station in England or Wales where the offence is being investigated, or the moment they enter England or Wales, whichever is earlier; or
• For a person who initially attends the police station voluntarily, or accompanies a constable to the police station voluntarily, the moment they are arrested at the police station; or
• For a person arrested when they attend the police station to answer bail, the moment they arrive at the police station;

There are a few other less common permutations, but we shan't dwell on those here.

Release Without Charge:

As we mentioned earlier, the police have 24 hours from the relevant time in order to gather sufficient evidence to either charge the detainee, release them without charge (possibly on pre-charge bail) or seek permission to extend their period of detention.

A person released without charge shall not be re-arrested for the same offence unless: 

• New evidence comes to light; or
• An examination or analysis of existing evidence has been made that could not reasonably have been made prior to their release.

The custody officer should give the person being released a written notice that they are not being prosecuted.

Authorisation of Continued Detention (vide section 42 of PACE):

A police officer of at least superintendent rank, who is responsible for the police station at which a person is held, can authorise their continued detention up to a period of 36 hours from the relevant time if they have reasonable grounds to believe that:

• The continued detention of the person is necessary to secure or preserve evidence of the offence for which they were arrested, or to obtain such evidence by questioning them; and
• The offence for which they were arrested was an indictable offence (including an either way offence, as mentioned earlier); and
• The investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.

No such authorisation can take place unless:

• A period of less than 24 hours has elapsed since the relevant time; and
• The person's second review of detention has been carried out (this will be at least 15 hours after their detention was first authorised).

Before the superintendent authorises a person's continued detention they must allow that person or their solicitor the opportunity to make representations about the detention. The superintendent may refuse to hear oral representations from the person if they are deemed to be in an unfit condition or behaving in an unfit manner.

In the event that the superintendent refuses to authorise the person's continued detention they must be released, with or without bail conditions.

Warrants of Further Detention (vide section 43 of PACE):

If the police wish to detain a person beyond 36 hours from the relevant time they need to make an application for a warrant of further detention to the Magistrates' Court.

The application must be made on oath and supported by an information (e.g. a written statement outlining the basis of the application).

The person being detained must have been provided with a copy of the information and they must appear in court in person, so that they have the opportunity to make representations.

The application must be made to the Magistrates' Court within 36 hours of the relevant time. If it is not possible for the court to sit within 36 hours of the relevant time, the application may be heard within a further 6 hours (so within 42 hours of the relevant time). In these circumstances, the person may be detained beyond 36 hours of the relevant time until the application is heard.

The application may be granted if the court is satisfied that:

• The continued detention of the person is necessary to secure or preserve evidence of the offence for which they were arrested, or to obtain such evidence by questioning them; and
• The offence for which they were arrested was an indictable offence (including an either way offence, as mentioned earlier); and
• The investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.

If the court is of the opinion that the criteria above are not satisfied the application should be refused or adjourned until a time not later than 36 hours after the relevant time.

The application should be dismissed if the court is of the opinion that:

• It was made later than 36 hours after the relevant time; and
• The police could have reasonably made the application within 36 hours of the relevant time.

If a warrant of further detention is granted, the Magistrates' Court should indicate the period of detention authorised by the warrant. This should not be more than 36 hours (which would equate to 72 hours from the relevant time assuming a full 24 hours without charge plus 12 hours authorised further detention).

In the event that the Magistrates' Court refuses to grant a warrant of further detention the person must be either charged forthwith or released, with or without bail conditions.

Extension of Warrants of Further Detention (vide section 44 of PACE):

If the police wish to detain a person beyond the period authorised by a warrant of further detention, they can apply to the Magistrates' Court for an extension to the warrant.

The application must be made on oath and supported by an information (e.g. a written statement outlining the basis of the application).

The person being detained must have been provided with a copy of the information and they must appear in court in person, so that they have the opportunity to make representations.

The court can extend the warrant for any period it deems fit, but not beyond 96 hours of the relevant time.

In the event that the Magistrates' Court refuses to extend the warrant the person must be either charged forthwith or released, with or without bail conditions.

That concludes our brief overview of authorisation of continued detention and warrants of further detention.

We hope you found it useful and informative. If so, you might be kind enough to share the link on social media and read some of our other featured articles.

As always, we welcome any suggested additions/improvements to this article. Please feel free to drop any comments below.

Judge Defers Sentence After Woman Spat at Pharmacist

A woman has been spared an immediate custodial sentence after a District Judge at York Magistrates' Court deferred her sentence for assault.

Carla Louise Graham, 43, used to collect her methadone from Boots in York city centre, but staff made alternative collection arrangements after she behaved badly in the store.

Jane Chadwick, prosecuting, told District Judge Adrian Lower that despite these alternative arrangements being in place Graham attended the store in an effort to obtain the heroin-substitute on 2nd May 2019. The pharmacist on duty declined to serve Graham, who promptly spat in her face.

Graham, of the Changing Lives hostel in Walmgate, York, admitted one charge of assault.

Keith Whitehouse, mitigating, said: "She felt she was being ordered about a little bit like an animal rather than like a human being.

"It is not an excuse at all, she felt that was the catalyst (for the assault)."

Judge Lower took the unusual decision to defer sentence after hearing that Graham was engaging well with the probation service and working hard with the Changing Lives rehabilitation agency.

The judge told Graham that he would spare her a custodial sentence if she continued to engage positively with these agencies for the next 3 months.

"If this is just a flash in the pan or more importantly you go on to commit offences, I'm afraid you are going to go to prison," he warned her.

Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 allows the court to defer a sentence for up to six months, during which time it may impose requirements on the offender.

The purpose of deferment is to enable the court to have regard to the offender's conduct after conviction or any change in his or her circumstances, including the extent to which the offender has complied with any requirements imposed by the court.

The judge in this case is clearly of the belief that Graham's continued engagement with probation and support agencies gives the best chance of a positive outcome.

Sending her to prison now would be a retrograde step. It would only serve to hone her criminal tendencies and fuel her drug abuse.

Former Science Teacher in Hot Water Over Taxidermy Collection

A former school biology teacher was caught with an illegal taxidermy collection, when a potential buyer saw images of her home on property website Zoopla.

Susan Tate, 57, from Newborough, Anglesey, said she had had a lifelong interest in taxidermy and did not know the items were illegal.

This is an unusual case and one very few Magistrates' Courts will ever come across. For that reason we won't be delving any deeper into the relevant legislation, other than to say that certain stuffed animals cannot be kept unless they have been correctly processed, registered and are of traceable origin.

In response to information received, North Wales Police obtained a warrant to search Tate's Bryn Rhedyn home. During the search, which took place in February 2019, the police found four illegal exhibits: a eurasian red squirrel, large blue butterfly, Scottish wild cat and porpoise skull.

A BBC Crimewatch crew were present at the time of the search.

Tate admitted that she had the illegal items in her possession. Given the substantial prosecution costs in this case, it would appear that she has only pleaded guilty on the day of her trial.

Speaking outside Caernarfon Magistrates' Court, Tate said: "I think they could have dealt with it differently.

"I don't even think they needed a search warrant.

"They could have knocked on the door and I would have let them in. I am from a police family."

Sarah Marsh, prosecuting, told Magistrates that a caution had been considered at first, but a decision was taken to prosecute when multiple offences were uncovered.

Adrian Roberts, mitigating, said police had searched the property because they wrongly believed a stuffed wolf was there.

He said: "The porpoise skull she found on a beach in Dorset some years ago.

"She didn't know it was illegal to own it.

"She had no idea when she received three packages of butterflies, one was illegal. The red squirrel she paid £40 for on eBay."

Mr Roberts said his client had been "blissfully ignorant" of any wrongdoing but had since discovered the dead squirrel may have come from a French market stall.

The displayed wild cat was inherited from her late mother.

The lawyer said she had been astonished to find herself in trouble.

Tate was fined £56 on each of the four charges and ordered to pay £650 towards prosecution costs and £30 victim surcharge.

Rob Taylor, of North Wales Police rural crime team, said after the case: "We hope this case will raise awareness to other members of the public of the risks of purchasing or collecting such items from auction sites and the possible consequences."

Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut is a phrase that immediately springs to mind.

Was it really necessary and proportionate to obtain a warrant to search Tate's home given that she was making no secret of the fact she possessed the illicit items? Was it really necessary to prosecute a woman of previous good character over family heirlooms and items she acquired in good faith?

Repeat Drink Driver Banned

A former Yorkshire Evening Post journalist is making the headlines for the wrong reasons after being caught drink driving for the second time in five years.

Timothy Zillessen, 61, of Malham Moor, admitted driving whilst over the prescribed limit during a hearing at Skipton Magistrates' Court earlier today.

Police attended the village of Malham on 21st July 2019 after a concerned member of the public reported a suspected drink driver.

Officers located Zillessen and noticed that his eyes were glazed and he smelt of alcohol. Suspecting him of being behind the wheel whilst under the influence of alcohol, they required him to take a roadside breath test.

Having failed the roadside breath test Zillessen was arrested and an evidential specimen of breath was obtained at the police station. The evidential breathalyser recorded that Zillessen had 59 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the legal limit being 35 microgrammes.

Martin Butterworth, prosecuting, said Zillessen had a previous drink driving conviction in 2017, for which he received a year's ban. He also has a previous conviction for failing to provide a specimen for analysis, but more than 10 years ago.

Zillessen, who now works as a British Army press officer, told the court that he had worked for the army for 22 years. During that time he had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

He asked Magistrates to adjourn sentencing, so that he could find alternative accommodation closer to his work at Catterick Garrison.

"Quite where this leaves my career with the army, I don't know," he said.

Magistrates declined Zillessen's request and proceeded to sentence.

He was disqualified from driving for 3 years, fined £500, ordered to pay £85 in prosecution costs and £50 victim surcharge.

Malham is a very small village, with a population of well under 300. It is a place with very little crime and ordinarily very little police presence. It would appear that Zillessen thought he could chance "one for the road" before jumping into his vehicle for the 5 minute journey home.

Unfortunately for him, in circumstances eerily reminiscent of his 2017 conviction, a community minded member of the public has tipped off the police that he was unfit to drive. You would really think, given his previous experience, he would understand that he should not be drinking any alcohol at all if he intends to drive.

Police Officer Convicted of Theft After Failing Integrity Test

A Metropolitan Police officer has been convicted of theft after failing an integrity test staged by an undercover colleague.

Robin Ruston, 36, was handed a bag containing cash and a phone charger "to test his integrity".

Instead of processing the supposedly lost property in the correct manner, Ruston dipped into the bag and took the £200 in cash for himself. For whatever reason the media appears to have taken very little interest in this story, but a short piece has appeared on the talkRADIO website.

Ruston appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court earlier today, where he admitted a single charge of theft.

We have previously written a Brief Guide to Theft for anyone interested in the legalities surrounding the offence.

The officer of 15 years' standing broke down in tears in court and said he had "ruined his good name, let down his colleagues, friends, partner and the public".

Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "The degree of breach of trust in a case like this could not be higher.

"The circumstances of this case are an undercover police officer gave you lost property and he did so to test your integrity. And they don't do it randomly," he said.

He added: "They were testing your integrity and you failed because you kept the money for yourself. If we can't trust our police officers who can we trust?"

Tom Doble, mitigating, said Ruston was declared bankruptcy after getting divorced in 2015 and is in "acute financial difficulty" with an overdrawn bank account.

"He took the money because he had a holiday booked with his children at the end of the week. He didn't want to be the dad who didn't have any money again for his children," he said.

Ruston has been paying child support for three children with his ex-wife, and also provides for a child he has fathered with a new partner as well as her four children.

Judge Ikram deemed that Ruston's crime, which involved a serious breach of trust, was so serious that it justified a custodial sentence. However, given the officer's previous good character and personal circumstances the judge indicated that he would be inclined to make a suspended sentence order instead of sending Ruston straight to custody.

Ruston was sentenced to 16 weeks' custody, which was suspended for two years.

He was also ordered to pay £207 in costs and £122 victim surcharge.

Totality: Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences

Whenever the court sentences a combination of two or more offences, it has to arrive at a final sentence that is just and proportionate and fairly reflects the circumstances.

This is known as the totality principle.

When considering the totality of offences, the court has to decide whether the sentences imposed will run concurrently or consecutively to each other.

Not wishing to digress into an English lesson here, but for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know already:

• Concurrent sentences run alongside each other at the same time. Suppose a person was sentenced to 12 weeks' custody and 4 weeks' custody to run concurrently, that would mean an overall sentence of 12 weeks' custody.
• Consecutive sentences run one after the other. Suppose a person was sentenced to 12 weeks' custody and 4 weeks' custody to run consecutively, that would mean an overall sentence of 16 weeks' custody.

Generally speaking, concurrent sentences are used when:

• The offences arise out of the same incident;
• There is a series of very similar offences, especially when committed against the same victim.

Consecutive sentences are used when:

• The offences arise from different incidents;
• There are a combination of different offences, where it is important that each one is separately recorded;
• It needs to be ensured that each of the offences are appropriately punished, for example where one of the offences has a minimum sentence.

If the court has determined that the sentences should be served concurrently, it will ensure the sentence to be served reflects the overall criminality. This can mean that the sentences for each individual offence are increased to reflect the presence of the other offences.

If the court has determined that the sentences should be served consecutively it will consider if the total, once the sentences have been added up, is just and proportionate. If it concludes that the total sentence is not just and proportionate it will adjust each of the sentences.

Before the final sentence is announced, the court will consider whether the overall sentence(s) is just and proportionate and consider if people will understand it.

Remember that the maximum custodial sentence the Magistrates' Court can impose is 6 months for a single offence or 12 months for a combination of two or more offences.

If an offender commits another offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence order (SSO), then the court can activate that suspended period of custody in addition to any new sentence imposed.

Cumulatively, this can result in an offender having to serve more time in custody than the 6 or 12 month limit that would otherwise apply - e.g. an offender convicted of two separate non-dwelling burglaries could be sentenced to 12 months in custody to run consecutively to the 10 weeks in custody suspended for 12 months they received a fortnight earlier.

Birkenhead Couple Jailed for Animal Cruelty

A Birkenhead couple have been jailed for cruelty towards their dogs.

The body of American bulldog Luna was found dumped in a back alleyway after her owners attacked her in the garden of their Parkside Avenue home.

An RSPCA investigation led back to Luna's owners, Leila Horvath and Norbert Farkas, who appeared at Wirral Magistrates' Court yesterday (Tuesday, 13th August 2019).

The couple admitted eight charges under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2008.

They were each given an immediate 10-week prison sentence and a lifetime ban on keeping animals.

Magistrates heard that Luna had suffered a "slow death" after Horvath and Farkas beat her with a metal bar, poisoned her with antifreeze and stabbed her in the neck.

RSPCA inspector Anthony Joynes said: "Farkas said that Luna had 'gone for' his foot and that although there was no injury, it hurt and he felt fear for his and his partner's life. He described using a metal weightlifting bar to forcefully strike Luna two to three times on the head.

"Farkas stated that Luna had been alive in the garden for around an hour. Horvarth admitted that she had then gone outside and given Luna antifreeze in sausages."

The court heard that Luna, who had recently given birth to a litter of 12 puppies, became very protective of them and difficult to manage. Horvath used the internet to research the cost of having Luna put to sleep humanely by a vet, but he decided it would be cheaper to poison her instead.

Luna lay in the garden for at least three days suffering from the effects of antifreeze poisoning, before she was finally stabbed to death.

"It is absolutely horrific to think what Luna went through. Luna was caused suffering on multiple levels over several days, which was unnecessary and cruel," Inspector Joynes said.

"Horvath and Farkas knew Luna could have been put to sleep humanely by a vet but evidence shows that she was killed in her own way over a period of several days, leaving her to suffer greatly."

A male American bulldog and 12 puppies were seized from the Parkside Avenue property by police while the investigation was carried out.

Vet examinations of the puppies showed that they were suffering from respiratory illnesses.

All 12 puppies have now been rehomed. The male dog is now in RSPCA care and will be up for rehoming soon.

A truly horrendous case of the worst possible animal cruelty, which undoubtedly surpassed the custody threshold.

But only 10 weeks? There must be some logic behind that decision, but it is not immediately obvious from media reports.

Bangor Man Convicted of Despicable Theft from Blind Busker

A Bangor man has been convicted stealing money from the guitar case of a blind busker.

Gary Williams, 51, of Love Lane, Bangor, denied stealing from Chris Chadwick-Parnell, who was busking in his normal spot on the city's High Street on 26th June 2019.

Williams, who had falsely claimed he was helping Mr Chadwick-Parnell collect his earnings, was convicted at his recent trial at Caernarfon Magistrates' Court.

His co-accused, Alan Fothergill, 43, of Plas Mabon, Bangor, admitted theft at a previous hearing. He will be sentenced next week.

Williams' deceit was exposed by a video recording taken by a concerned passer by who noticed his crime against the vulnerable busker.

Laura Thomas, who took the video, was praised by Magistrates for her public spiritedness.

In a victim impact statement, Mr Chadwick-Parnell described how music helped him and the financial impact of not being able to busk.

"I don't feel safe to work outside any more," he said.

Williams pleaded guilty to a public order offence, having sworn at a police officer when arrested and having arrived late to court for his trial.

He was told to pay £110 in a fine and costs for these offences.

Magistrates sent the theft matter to Caernarfon Crown Court for sentencing.

Peter Talbot, chair of the bench, described the theft as "a despicable act."

He added: "Our sentencing powers are insufficient. This was a group action on a vulnerable victim."

Credit to Mr Talbot for being so reserved in his comments. This is a particularly low crime - stealing not only a blind man's money, but also his confidence, way of life and faith in humanity. It really is a wicked act that deserves the utmost punishment.

Here's hoping the judge at the Crown Court hands down a sentence befitting the crime.

CPS Criticised Over Charging Decision

A Crown Court judge has criticised the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to apply lesser charges to a violent criminal who launched an unprovoked attack on an autistic teenager.

Jake Campbell, 26, pictured above, headbutted, punched and choked 20-year-old Jacob Comertoglu shortly before Christmas last year.

Jacob was on his way to see the Christmas lights in Bodmin when Campbell repeatedly hit him, blacked his eyes and left his face covered in blood. Jacob's injuries are clearly shown in the image below.

Despite satisfying many of the charging criteria for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), the CPS went against its own guidelines and instead charged Campbell with the lesser offence of common assault.

ABH, an either way offence, has a maximum sentence of 6 months' imprisonment and/or a fine at level 5 on summary conviction; 5 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment. Common assault, a summary offence, has a maximum sentence of 6 months' imprisonment and/or a fine at level 5 on summary conviction.

Campbell's attack on Jacob put him in breach of an earlier Crown Court suspended sentence order, which is why the case - despite involving a summary offence - was sent to Truro Crown Court for sentencing.

Campbell appeared before HHJ Robert Linford at Truro Crown Court yesterday.

Judge Linford said: "How on earth is this a common assault? [The CPS] are utterly wrong and I can only sentence him on the charges he faces. This was not a temporary injury.

"This was ABH and it's ridiculous it could be thought of as anything else."

Prosecutor Holly Rust told the court the assault was Campbell's second breach of a suspended sentence after he was convicted of an offence of wounding last year.

Describing the attack, she said: "Jacob felt a sudden blow to the left of his face without warning and everything went white for a few seconds. He was then hit repeatedly and describes spinning for a few seconds.

"[Jacob] did not walk away, instead asking what he did wrong. The defendant told him nothing and to walk away but when he didn't he was choked and headbutted before the defendant let go."

Campbell, of no fixed abode, has 75 previous convictions.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, Jacob said he was confused and helpless by the sudden attack and did not want to walk away until he knew what he had done wrong. He added that he had been told to stand his ground when dealing with bullies.

Barry Hilliard, mitigating for Campbell, asked Judge Linford to spare his client immediate custody for the assault and breach of the suspended sentence.

He said Campbell had been making positive steps with the Probation Service and was in regular work.

Judge Linford deferred sentence until 23rd December, telling Campbell that if he stays out of trouble and meaningfully saves for compensation, he will avoid a prison sentence.

However, he warned that if Campbell misbehaves, he faces a year in prison for breaching his suspended sentence, with an additional four months for the assault.

Update (4/7/20): We have just revisited this case in a future article, so thought we would provide an update on the eventual outcome. Barely a fortnight after HHJ Linford deferred sentence in this matter the defendant, Jake Campbell, breached his suspended sentence order for a third time, this time by being drunk and disorderly. True to his word, the Judge activated the 12 month suspended sentence in full and added an additional 4 months for the vicious assault on Jacob Comertoglu. The Judge also fined Campbell £100 for being drunk and disorderly.

Failure to Identify the Driver of a Vehicle

The introduction of the Single Justice Procedure and centralised courts dealing with certain non-imprisonable summary offences (speeding, traffic signal contravention, fare evasion, TV licence evasion and the like), means that very few traffic offences appear before the Magistrates' Court in normal session.

Certainly in the courts that I frequent we are only likely to sentence those offences in the rare event that a defendant has been convicted without their knowledge, makes a Statutory Declaration to set aside the original conviction and then admits the offence when the charge is put to them afresh. You might question the logic in doing that, but the court will invariably give them full credit (e.g. 1/3 off their fine) if they admit an offence in such circumstances, whereas they would have received no credit on the first occasion they were convicted without their knowledge.

We do handle quite a lot of trials when the defendant has denied an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - namely that they have failed to provide information as to the identity of a person driving a vehicle at the time of an alleged traffic offence.

Briefly, for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the system, suppose a vehicle was clocked by a camera exceeding the speed limit or jumping a red light. For the police to prosecute the driver they would first need to identify who the driver was at the time of the offence. This is achieved by sending a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and Section 172 Notice to the registered keeper of the vehicle. These documents must be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence and the registered keeper has 28 days from the date of service to provide the information requested. Under subsection 172(3) of the Act, an offence is committed if no information is forthcoming.

The maximum penalty for an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Act is a fine at level 3 (£1,000 maximum) and 6 penalty points. Current Sentencing Guidelines indicate the most appropriate penalty is a Band C fine and 6 penalty points.

If the registered keeper knows they were driving at the time of the offence, they should identify themself as the driver. If they were not driving, but they know who was, they should nominate that person as the driver. The police will then get in touch with that person with a view to prosecution for the offence. Providing a false declaration - e.g. falsely nominating someone as the driver - is a very serious offence, as former MP Fiona Onasanya will no doubt testify.

Occasionally, despite having used reasonable diligence (e.g. checking records and asking questions) to ascertain who was driving at the time of the offence, the registered keeper is genuinely unable to confirm who was behind the wheel. This could happen, for example, in the following circumstances:

• A vehicle hire company is registered keeper of a vehicle which was clocked speeding. On consulting its records the hire company sees that a husband and wife had joint permission to use the vehicle at the time of the offence. On making enquiries with the hirer, they are unable to confirm who was driving at the time of the offence as they are unfamiliar with the camera location. In this case, unless there was further evidence pointing towards a particular driver, it is unlikely the police would pursue a prosecution.
• A car was clocked speeding close to the family home. In addition to the policy holder (the father of the household), there are two named drivers on the policy (his two grown up children). As each person uses the car every day, the registered keeper can't remember who was behind the wheel at the time of the offence. In this case, unless there was further evidence pointing towards a particular driver, it is unlikely the police would pursue a prosecution.
• A small business (referred to as a "body corporate" in the legislation) has a van that jumped a red traffic light close to its premises. Each member of staff is insured to use the van and it is regularly used for running errands during the day. The manager can't remember which of the four members of staff working that day was behind the wheel at the time of the offence. In this case a prosecution could be brought against the company instead of an individual driver, but clearly there would be no penalty points on conviction. It should also be noted that companies are legally obliged to maintain accurate driver records for this very reason, so further action might follow in that regard.

In any of the situations described above, the obligation is on the registered keeper to provide as much information as they can in response to the Section 172 Notice, even if that is a list of possible drivers.

In order to prove an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Act, the prosecution will need to satisfy the court of the following:

• That the NIP and Section 172 Notice were correctly served on the registered keeper within the 14 day time limit. Normally a Certificate of Service is signed by the police staff member responsible for sending out the documents, which confirms they have been posted first class to the address of the registered keeper as shown on the DVLA database. In the absence of a Certificate of Service, it is unlikely the court would convict the registered keeper.

Possible defences against a charge under subsection 172(3) of the Act:

• The registered keeper denies receiving the NIP or Section 172 Notice. This defence will be more credible if the registered keeper has previously complained to Royal Mail about their post being misdelivered, damaged etc.
• The registered keeper claims to have returned the completed Section 172 Notice within time, but it has not been received by the police. This defence will be more credible if a witness is available who can confirm the documents were completed and returned. In the past, registered keepers have presented photocopies of the completed forms and Royal Mail proof of postage certificates to support this defence.

Just to draw this article to a close, it should be noted that an offence under subsection 172(3) of the Act invariably attracts a far greater penalty than the original offence would. That being the case, it would be foolish of a registered keeper to think they can beat the system by being coy about the identity of the driver.

Pre-Sentence Reports

Whenever the court considers imposing a community or custodial sentence it should request a pre-sentence report unless, and exceptionally, it considers it unnecessary in all the circumstances to do so.

We have previously described, in general terms, what a community or custodial sentence entails. A community sentence should be imposed when the offence is "serious enough" to merit one; a custodial sentence should be imposed when the offence is "so serious" that only custody is appropriate.

A pre-sentence report contains information designed to assist the court in choosing the most appropriate sentence for an offender, given the circumstances of their offence and their personal circumstances. It is completed by an officer of the National Probation Service and can be delivered to the court verbally, which is useful for a speedy sentencing exercise, or as a written document, which is more appropriate when sentencing is adjourned.

It would take a brave lay bench to sentence an offender to a community or custodial sentence without seeking the views of the National Probation Service beforehand. However, if a report had previously been prepared quite recently, which may well be the case for a repeat offender, it could be referred to for the current sentencing exercise.

When the court asks the National Probation Service to prepare a report it will indicate the level of sentence (low, medium or high level community, or all options) and requirements being considered. The typical requirements associated with low, medium and high level community orders are shown in the table below. The court should make clear to all parties that an indication of sentence at this stage in no way binds a future bench to the same decision, so that any sentence within the law could still be imposed.

The first step in preparing a report is for a probation officer to interview the offender. The officer will ask a series of questions, which are used to determine an offender's understanding of the consequences of their behaviour, level of remorse, willingness to address their behaviour, and personal circumstances.

The officer will also assess the offender's risk of reoffending (e.g. committing any future offence) and risk of serious harm (e.g. committing an offence that causes death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological).

The report will give an update on the offender's level of compliance and engagement with any previous community sentences imposed. It will also indicate the suitability (or not) of an offender for different requirements of a community sentence. For example, a curfew requirement would probably not be appropriate for an offender with young children and no nearby family; unpaid work would probably not be suitable for an offender with a serious physical disability; an alcohol treatment programme would be appropriate for someone who commits their offences when drunk; custody might be appropriate for an offender who shows no remorse or willingness to engage with the requirements of a community sentence.

It should be noted, however, that the court is not bound by any recommendations made in a pre-sentence report.

Once the report has been delivered and digested, the court can go ahead and sentence the offender.