Wigan Parents Fined Over School Non-Attendance

Magistrates in Wigan have fined five local parents for failing to send their children to school on a regular basis.

Under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 a parent is guilty of an offence if they fail to secure the regular attendance of their child at the school they are registered at. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1,000).

Under section 444(1A) of the Act a parent is guilty of an offence if they knowingly fail to ensure the same. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (currently £2,500), a period of 3 months imprisonment or both.

The names of the parents have been reported in the local press, so we must assume that the court omitted to make an order to protect the identities of their children.

The first couple, who failed to attend court, were each fined £660 and ordered to pay £100 costs and £66 victim surcharge. Their 5-year-old daughter only attended school 66 percent of the time between February and July 2018, despite living only a five minute walk from her school.

The mother of a 15-year-old boy received the same penalty when Magistrates heard that he had an attendance of 73 percent in the last school term.

The mother of a teenage girl with a 70 percent school attendance last year received the same penalty. The girl has 100 percent attendance so far this year, but we are only three weeks in.

The mother of a boy received a lesser penalty when Magistrates heard he had more than 90 percent attendance. Wigan Council continued with the prosecution because of his poor punctuality last term. She was fined £60 and ordered to pay £50 costs and £30 victim surcharge. Although the article does not specifically mention anything, we suspect she provided information to assist the court in pitching the fine at the right level.

Failing to attend school on a regular basis negatively impacts on a child's academic performance, perhaps having a detrimental effect on their career, health and lifestyle choices in later life.

Hopefully these sentences will encourage irresponsible parents to take a greater interest in their child's education and life prospects.

Dishonest Wilko Employee Stole Almost £10k from Cash Machine

A dishonest Wilko employee stole almost £10,000 from an in-store cash machine he was responsible for looking after.

Ryan Gillespie, 20, admitted a single charge of theft when he appeared at Worcester Magistrates' Court.

Theft is an either way offence contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum penalty for theft is 7 years in custody. We have previously written an article on the legalities surrounding theft.

The court heard that Gillespie, a man of no previous convictions, took £9,600 from the machine inside the Droitwich store between 6th June and 6th July 2019.

Emily Clewer, prosecuting, explained that Gillespie was in charge of the machine and worked out a way to get round security.

Miss Clewer said: "It was a spate of theft over time.

"In total he had £9,600 from the machine that dispensed cash.

"There was an element of sophistication, he worked out a way to get round it.

"But there was CCTV coverage, and other security measures he was not aware of.

"It was a breach of trust.

"The Crown put it at medium culpability."

Mark Sheward, mitigating, said that Gillespie had worked at the St Andrews Square store for 3 years prior to committing the offence.

"It was part of his responsibility to deal with the ATM," Mr Sheward said.

"His family had helped him with his debts, but were struggling themselves. He saw an opportunity to pay them back. He thought he recognised an opportunity. He didn't understand fully the system, and that was why other employees worked it out.

"He accepts full responsibility. He realises the the company should be reimbursed for their loss."

Deputy District Judge Simon Morgan, sentencing, said: "If everybody stole £9,000 from their work, companies would not be able to employ anybody, because they couldn't afford it.

"I give you credit for having the good sense to admit the theft - that removed the need by the police to have had to carry out a full investigation."

Gillespie was handed a 12 month community order, with 150 hours unpaid work requirement.

He was ordered to pay £9,600 compensation, £85 prosecution costs and £85 victim surcharge.

London Recruitment Advisory Committee Seeking Non-Magistrate Members

The London Recruitment Advisory Committee is seeking new non-Magistrate members.

The Advisory Committee is responsible for the recruitment and selection of new Magistrates in the London area. Members are typically involved in sifting, interviewing and selecting prospective Magistrates. Non-Magistrate members bring valuable life experience to the recruitment and selection process.

After two years' appointment there may also be the opportunity to be appointed to the Regional Conduct Panel looking into cases of alleged misconduct or lack of competence by Magistrates, along with other matters affecting Magistrates post-appointment.

The qualities sought in members of Advisory Committees include: good interpersonal skills; good, objective judgment of character and ability; the ability to communicate effectively; awareness of their own personal prejudices and an ability to set them aside; discretion in handling confidential information; understanding or willingness to acquire understanding of the needs of local benches; willingness to talk about the Magistracy and to participate in recruitment activities; the ability to work as a team member; commitment and enthusiasm; willingness to undergo such training as prescribed by the Lord Chancellor.

Members also need to be able to participate in interviewing candidates for the Magistracy and therefore experience of interviewing is an advantage, but not essential.

Membership of the Advisory Committee is voluntary, but reasonable travel and subsistence expenses will be reimbursed. Members in employment are also able to claim an allowance to cover any loss of earnings incurred as a direct result of Advisory Committee duties.

Members can expect a time commitment of at least 10 days interviewing per year as well as a 2-day induction course and occasional meetings.

For further information please refer to:

- "Applying to become a member of an advisory committee or sub-committee: notes for guidance", which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/advisory-committees-justices-peace/
- Advert on the Cabinet Office website: https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/non-magistrate-member-for-recruitment-advisory-committee/

Applications close on 31st January 2020.

For an application form please email: londonacrecruitment@justice.gov.uk

Callous Barrow Thief Stole Charity Collection Boxes

A prolific South Cumbrian thief has been jailed for stealing charity collection boxes.

Matthew David Holland, 39, of Newport Street, Barrow-in-Furness, admitted two charges of theft when he appeared by PCVL at South Cumbria Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 26th September 2019.

Magistrates heard that Holland swiped one of the collection boxes from the front desk of Apollo Bingo in Barrow's Hollywood Park on 30th August 2019. He concealed the box under his coat before leaving the premises. The box in question, which was raising funds for St Mary's Hospice in nearby Ulveston, contained around £30.

The second theft took place at the same bingo hall on 14th September 2019, when Holland stole a Great Ormond Street Hospital collection box containing around £10.

Prosecutor Lee Dacre told the court that Holland was last before the courts in 2018 when he was jailed for 14 months for burglary. Of the 85 offences to his name, 30 of them relate to theft and kindred offences. Holland was subject to post-sentence supervision at the time of these latest offences.

Liz Phizacklea, mitigating, said Holland had since been into the bingo hall to apologise.

"He tells me that he has recently moved in with his partner; he was previously living with his cousin," she said.

"Him and his partner wanted to do something together so they joined the bingo.

"He says his actions were stupid and describes himself as an idiot.

"He has been into the bingo hall since and apologised to the owner and says when he is released from custody he plans to go back and repay the money he has taken."

Magistrates activated an existing 6 week suspended sentence order in full. They imposed an additional 2 weeks in custody, to run consecutively, for the thefts.

The chair of the bench said: "The money in the collection box was meant for a charity in the local area.

"We believe a custodial sentence is appropriate because of your previous offending and the fact that when the offence was committed you would have been on post-sentence supervision."

Holland was also ordered to pay £30 compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £122 victim surcharge.

Man Remanded After Child Killed in Newcastle Hit and Run

A man has appeared at Newcastle Magistrates' Court charged with causing death by dangerous driving after allegedly running over a 10-year-old girl and leaving her for dead.

Melissa Tate was struck by a Renault Kangaroo on Hillsview Avenue in the Kenton area of the city at around 6.40pm last Wednesday evening.

She was taken to the city's Royal Victoria Infirmary, but sadly died of her injuries shortly afterwards.

Connor Marsden, 23, of Ambridge Way, Kenton, appeared before Magistrates sitting earlier today at the Combined Court Centre on Newcastle's Quayside.

In addition to causing death by dangerous driving, he has been charged with failing to stop after an accident, causing death whilst driving uninsured, causing death whilst driving without a licence, driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and driving without insurance.

Causing death by dangerous driving is an offence contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is an indictable only matter, with a maximum penalty of 14 years' custody.

Prosecutor Keith Laidlaw asked Magistrates to remand Marsden in custody. Janice Hall, defending, made no application for bail.

Marsden was remanded in custody until 28th October 2019, when he will appear before Newcastle Crown Court at the same venue.

Suffolk PCC: Ipswich Magistrates' Court Feeling the Strain

The Police and Crime Commissioner of Suffolk has warned that the county's only remaining Magistrates' Court is feeling the strain.

Tim Passmore, who has been PCC since the post was established in 2012, told members of the Suffolk Public Sector Leaders group that the closure of Magistrates' Courts in Bury St Edmunds and Lowestoft had left the only remaining court, Ipswich Magistrates' Court, facing an increased workload and lack of investment.

According to the East Anglian Daily Times he also raised concerns about access to justice, with many court users have difficult and protracted journeys to get to Ipswich.

Mr Passmore said: "The main court in Ipswich is in need of improvement to make sure it is fit for purpose.

"If that means opening another court in Ipswich, then fine.

He added: "This is about trying to make sure we can look at value for money and access to justice.

"We are concerned for access to justice, particularly for those who are vulnerable or don't have access to public transport.

"No one should have an impediment to the criminal justice system."

Mr Passmore also raised concerns at the rumour that the CPS intends to decrease the number of prosecutions at Ipswich Magistrates' Court, despite the area experiencing a slight uplift in the number of reported crimes.

"I am concerned because the thought of prosecution should be a deterrent to criminals and bad behaviour. It comes across as a quota or target.

"As a PCC I think that's an erroneous position to take."

Following the meeting, Mr Passmore added: "It is really concerning because access to justice is the cornerstone of living in the UK. We had a piece of research done by the university which showed that in some rural areas of Suffolk, particularly the west, cases had been compromised as witnesses couldn't turn up.

"I don't think this is acceptable at all. Justice had got to be done."

Nobody from the CPS was at the meeting to respond to Mr Passmore's comments.

Frustrations of Being a Magistrate: Episode 2: Telephone Interpreters

It is crucially important that every defendant appearing before the court understands exactly what is going on.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights mandates: "(3) everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights - (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court."

To that end an interpreter is made freely available to any defendant who does not understand English sufficiently well to be able to follow proceedings.

In my area it is the responsibility of the police, in liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service, to book an interpreter if required for the initial hearing of any defendant they have charged. It is the police's responsibility to book an interpreter if required for any defendant arrested, held in police custody and produced before the court.

Frustrations arise when the police neglect to book an interpreter as they should do, which happens far more frequently than you might imagine. In those circumstances the court will still want to make progress if at all possible, so will often use the fallback option of a telephone interpretation service.

A company called thebigword Group Ltd is contracted to provide face-to-face, telephone and video-remote interpreting services for spoken languages, as well as translation and transcription services, to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).

Telephone interpretation is a useful tool at the disposal of the court. Had it been used by Colchester Magistrates last month, there is the chance the authorities would now know the whereabouts of a potentially dangerous alleged sex offender.

In theory there is an army of talented foreign linguists available whenever the court needs to call upon their expertise. In practice antiquated court telephone systems often make using an interpreter very challenging indeed. It must be stressed that the actual telephone interpreting service works well most of the time, although it is obviously not as efficient as having an interpreter present in court. It's the technology at the user-end that seems to cause the biggest problems.

There are often scenes reminiscent of Dom Joly's Trigger Happy TV, with Presiding Justices and advocates shouting at the telephone in an effort to be heard. Defendants in custody have to press their ears hard against the glass of the dock to hear the interpreter. For those not in custody, there is sometimes no other option than to let them lean over the legal advisor's desk to speak into the telephone. I have seen ushers running backwards and forwards, passing the telephone to whoever needs to speak or listen next.

Ideally some sort of system is needed where the telephone system can be easily hooked up to external microphones and speakers. I'm sure such a system wouldn't be that expensive and would serve to increase the efficiency of the court's dealings with non-English speaking defendants.

Driving Ban for Australian Cricket Legend Shane Warne

Australian cricket legend Shane Warne has been disqualified from driving after admitting a speeding charge.

The 50-year-old leg spinner appeared at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court earlier today.

The court heard that Warne, who already had 15 penalty points on his driving licence, was behind the wheel of a Jaguar hire car when he was clocked at 47 mph in a 40 mph zone in Kensington on 23rd August 2019.

Normally a driver would be liable to a totting up disqualification when they achieved 12 or more points on their licence, but this appears not to have happened in Warne's case owing to an administrative oversight.

His 15 penalty points were accumulated as a result of five separate speeding offences committed in fairly quick succession.

"When offences are dealt with in a very short space of time, sometimes it is not picked up", said defence lawyer Barry Warburton.

"It may be there is a slightly different date of birth or address, and you can build up a huge number of points."

Deputy District Judge Adrian Turner said: "The purpose of disqualification is to punish and to protect the public and to deter.

"There are 15 points to take into account together with the three I must impose today.

"Between April 2016 and August last year Warne committed six speeding offences.

"It may well be that none on its own were particularly serious but for points disqualification purposes the triviality of the offences is not to be taken into account.

"A period of 12 months is necessary for the purposes I have mentioned."

In addition to his year-long disqualification Warne, of Little Venice, west London, was fined £900 and ordered to pay £775 in prosecution costs and £170 victim surcharge.

In 2013, the cricketer was fined £500 after admitting driving at more than 100 mph on a motorway in Scotland.

Lincolnshire Badger Baiters Banned from Keeping Dogs

Two Lincolnshire men have been banned from keeping dogs for five years, after admitting offences relating to badger baiting.

Murphy Thorne, of Gray Street, and Dale Shields, of Laburnum Avenue, both in Gainsborough, each admitted charges of interfering with a badger sett and attempting to kill a badger, when they appeared at Mansfield Magistrates' Court on 4th September 2019.

Attempting to kill, injure of take a badger is an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Interfering with a badger sett, which includes damaging, destroying, obstructing or releasing dogs into a sett, is an offence under section 3 of the Act.

Each of these summary offences has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited).

A gamekeeper spotted the pair acting suspiciously on farmland near Beckingham on 7th April 2019. Sufficiently concerned by his observations he alerted the police, who later arrested Thorne and Shields close to the location of a damaged badger sett. The court heard how Thorne told police: "I don't get paid for doing it, but do it as a sport and it is something I enjoy."

When searched upon their arrest Thorne and Shields had various items of badger baiting paraphernalia in their possession. The police also seized two dogs fitted with radio collars, which had received facial injuries consistent with them fighting badgers. One dog was in a collapsed state at the scene due to exhaustion.

RSPCA inspector Keith Ellis said: "The gamekeeper said he could see the men jump into a six-foot hole which they had dug down into the badger sett so he called the police.

"When they attended the scene it was clear that the sett had been interfered with and there were spades nearby.

"The dogs were wearing radio-collars which are used so the owners can locate where they are underground and when the dogs locate the badger the handlers dig down and usually kill the badger."

No dead badgers were recovered from the scene, but a badger expert witness told the court that the sett had been active and recently disturbed. Inspector Ellis suggested that badgers might have been killed deep within the sett.

Thorne and Shields were each sentenced to 18 weeks in custody, suspended for 12 months. They were each ordered to pay £300 costs and a £115 victim surcharge.

The court also made an order banning the pair from keeping dogs for five years and forfeiting the two injured dogs to the RSPCA.

A third man denied the offences and his trial will take place at a later date.

Barrister Convicted Under New Upskirting Legislation

A barrister has been convicted of upskirting on the London Underground.

Daren Timson-Hunt, 55, of Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, admitted an offence under section 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 during his recent appearance at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

The charge relates to an incident on 1st June 2019 when the former HMRC and Government lawyer concealed his mobile phone in an effort to film up the skirt of a young female Tube passenger.

Timson-Hunt, who lost his job as director of a primary school in Essex as a result of the case, then followed the woman after she got the Northern Line train at Embankment station.

Aaron McCallister, prosecuting, told the court: "He was observed to go to the bottom of the stairs and wait until she was at the top to take his phone out."

"A member of the public also noticed him."

Nicholas Opston, mitigating, said: "The defendant has lost his job as a result of these proceedings, he's been sacked summarily and he's looking for work. He is living in London and has to be able to travel around on the Tube."

Presiding Justice Sarah Houston called for pre-sentence reports before deciding whether or not the court's power is sufficient to sentence Timson-Hunt.

Imposing strict bail conditions, she said: "Mr Timson-Hunt, this matter is too serious for us to sentence.

"We're going to ask for more information before doing so. This means you will be interviewed by a probation officer in this building.

"You will then comeback to court on 26th September to be sentenced. Your bail conditions have changed slightly.

"From now on you are not to travel on any London Underground network unless attending one of the following - a medical appointment, a pre-arranged meeting with a solicitor, a court hearing, or a job interview.

"Second, you are not to have a device capturing an image or recording in any public place, with the exception of one work-related laptop which must be turned off and conveyed in a closed laptop bag."

Detective Inspector David Udomhiaye, of the British Transport Police Sexual Offences Unit, said: "We're pleased that we have been able to charge someone for the very first time under the new legislation - this is a big step in us clamping down on this invasive and disgusting form of sexual offending."

Siwan Hayward, Director of Compliance and Policing at Transport for London, said: "Upskirting is a predatory crime and we are determined to rid the transport network of this vile offence.

"We will continue to work closely with the police using this new legislation to push for the strongest charges for offenders.

"We would strongly encourage anyone who experiences this crime to please report it by texting 61016 or calling 101, so that it can be investigated."

This is one of the first offences charged under the new legislation, which came into being earlier this year with the enactment of the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019.

Update (26/9/2019): Timson-Hunt has been sentenced to a 24 month community order, with a 35-day programme requirement, up to 30 days rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) and 60 hours of unpaid work. He will also appear on the sex offenders register for five years.

Essex Man Skips Bail After Interpreter Cock-Up

An Essex man has disappeared after being arrested for breaching his bail conditions, but re-bailed by the Magistrates' Court when an interpreter failed to attend.

Halwest Muradi, 24, was charged with rape, attempted rape and sexual assault after a woman was attacked in Colchester in November 2018.

He was arrested by Essex Police on 31st July 2019 and appeared at Colchester Magistrates' Court the same day. Despite the seriousness of the charges against him, the Bench was minded to release Muradi on conditional bail. One of the conditions was that Muradi was curfewed to his home address.

The next day, 1st August 2019, Muradi was arrested for breaching his curfew and he appeared before the court in custody the following day. Had the breach been admitted or proved, the Bench in this case would have almost certainly remanded Muradi in custody. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there was no interpreter present so the court was unable to deal with the alleged breach.

Section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 requires that a defendant accused of breaching their bail conditions is put before the court within 24 hours of their time of arrest. As an interpreter was unavailable at court within the 24 hours time-frame, Muradi was re-bailed on the same conditions. He has not been seen since.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: "In this case, an interpreter was required for the case to proceed on Friday, 2nd August.

"The information received by the court from the interpreting service was that an interpreter would not be available and, despite strenuous efforts by the court to find another interpreter, it was not possible to do so."

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We continually meet the demand for interpreters and complaints about any of the issues raised are extremely rare."

Thebigword, the company which provides court interpreter services on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, said it had booked an interpreter who was able to attend court by 13:00 BST but by that time CPS had withdrawn the breach of bail.

It has now been more than a month since Muradi was last seen. Local enquiries have drawn a blank so Essex Police is now widening its appeal for information.

Detective Chief Inspector Stuart Truss, said: "It's of the utmost importance that we find Halwest Muradi and speak to him about this alleged breach. Anyone who has seen him is asked to call us immediately.

"We believe he may have links to Kent and Swansea, but he could still be in the county and we would urge anyone with information about his whereabouts to reach out to us.

"You can call the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate on 101 and quote Operation Oslo, email us on scd.appeals.essex@essex.pnn.police.uk, or speak to Crimestoppers 100% anonymously on 0800 555 111 or through their website."

Muradi, who is of Iranian descent, is described as 5ft 7ins tall, of medium build with short, dark hair.

Frustrations of Being a Magistrate: Episode 1: Ineffective Trials

Whenever a defendant denies the charge against them a trial is needed to determine whether or not they did commit the offence in question.

I really enjoy trials. It must be my inner Inspector Morse. I find it satisfying following the evidence and weighing up the arguments on either side.

That being the case, it is frustrating that so many trials go off at the very last moment. These are referred to as ineffective trials and it is are regrettable fact that they regularly outnumber effective trials.

Based on my observations there are two frustrating causes of ineffective trials - over-listing and cracking.

Over-listing:

The most recent Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly indicates that one-third of all ineffective trials at the Magistrates' Court arise due to administrative errors. In my neck of the woods over-listing seems a particular problem.

Just like airlines deliberately over-sell flights, so court administrators deliberately over-list trials. They do this in the realisation that half the trials listed on any particular day won't go ahead. This invariably results in the situation where there are four two-hour trials ready to go, with four sets of advocates and witnesses poised ready for action, but there is only time for two of them to actually go ahead.

The witnesses for the two trials that cannot now go ahead are surplus to requirements so are sent away, having probably already waited around for 2 or 3 hours, with a kindly word for their public spiritedness and in the hope that they will return when their trial is relisted six weeks further down the line. Of course some of them won't bother to return, having wasted their time on the first occasion.

Cracked trials:

Trials are also ineffective when they crack. Cracked trials are those listed to go ahead on a particular day, which don't go ahead due to a last minute action on the part of the prosecution or defence. Cracked trials account for another third of ineffective trials at the Magistrates' Court.

In my experience cracked trials usually arise in two situations:

• When a key prosecution witness fails to attend: This means the prosecution is unable to offer sufficient evidence to prove its case. In these circumstances the court will usually call the case on, but the prosecutor will immediately rise to their feet and formally offer no evidence. This results in the court dismissing the charge against the defendant.
• When the defendant changes their plea to guilty on the day of trial: Having had considerable time for reflection, the defendant might plead to the original charge or an alternative (invariably lesser) charge offered by the prosecution.

I find the non-attendance of prosecution witnesses particularly irksome when the witnesses in question are police officers or staff. Two such historical cases spring to mind, which still niggle at me despite the passage of time.

In the first case a defendant was charged with using his mobile phone whilst driving. The trial had been listed on a previous occasion, but had been adjourned in the interests of justice when the CPS failed to realise that the police officer witness was on leave that day. Come the second trial the CPS prosecutor reported that the police officer witness was again unavailable as he was on a rest day. The prosecutor then shamelessly asked for a further adjournment, despite the unrepresented defendant being present and ready to contest the charge for a second time.

The legal advisor asked the defendant his thoughts on a further adjournment. The defendant was clearly bemused by the situation, but adamant that he wanted to get matters dealt with once and for all. There was no way that we were going to entertain the idea of a further adjournment, so the prosecutor sheepishly acknowledged that he could offer no evidence. The charge was duly dismissed.

I seem to recall that we were all fizzing at the CPS's lacklustre performance that day, but the chairman somehow resisted the urge to tear a strip off the prosecutor.

The second case involved the theft of a lawnmower. The prosecution case hinged entirely on the account of a PCSO, who claimed to have witnessed the defendant removing the lawnmower from a residential garden. The PCSO had had previous dealings with the defendant, so was confident of his identity.

Come the day of trial the prosecutor rose and informed us that the PCSO was unavailable, as he was on a rest day. The defence advocate responded that it was entirely the CPS's fault that the PCSO hadn't been correctly warned and his rest days had been muddled up. He pointed out that had the defendant failed to appear, the CPS would have happily ploughed on with the trial regardless and probably laid Bail Act charges to boot. To compound matters, the police had been dragging their heels and the offence was already a year old by the time it got to trial.

Given the circumstances, we were minded to agree with the defence perspective. The prosecutor could offer no evidence, so the charge was dismissed. I dread to think the opinion the owner of the lawnmower will have formed of the justice system.

In the case of trials cracking with a change of plea, in the twenty-first century it is ludicrous that last minute horse trading happens on the day of trial. By that stage both parties have had ample time to mull over the evidence and consider their respective positions. There is absolutely no need to drag witnesses many miles to court, build up their apprehensions about standing in the box and then send them away unused. I'm sure nearly every change of plea, bar those of unrepresented defendants, could be dealt with administratively in advance of the trial date.

This may well become a regular series, so stay tuned for further frustrations of being a Magistrate in the future!

Newton Hearings

Occasionally a defendant admits they have committed an offence, but on a different basis to the facts put by the prosecution.

A Newton hearing is needed to determine the facts if the defence and prosecution version of events are at odds with each other and the sentence imposed would be materially different if the court accepted one version of events in favour of the other.

If the court decides to sentence without a Newton hearing, then it is obliged to take into account only the defence version of events.

The need for a Newton hearing is perhaps best illustrated by reference to an example.

Suppose a defendant has admitted a charge of common assault, but denies the prosecution version of events.

The prosecution version:

The victim in the case was stood talking to a man outside a city centre bar popular with gay people. He was repeatedly punched about the head and upper body in an attack lasting around one minute. The assault happened at 7 pm, so there were several members of the public passing nearby. The defendant, who has a previous conviction for a homophobic assault from a year earlier, deliberately targeted the victim on the basis of his presumed sexual orientation. It was an unprovoked assault and the victim sustained a black eye and bruising to his chest as a result. The victim had popped outside the bar to have a cigarette on the pavement and was passing the time of day with another smoker.

The defence version:

The defendant, who is not local to the area of the offence, just happened to be passing the bar when he heard the victim shout something in his direction and stick his fingers up. The defendant, who was in a poor frame of mind having received bad news earlier that day, saw red and lashed out at the victim. He admits hitting the victim around the head and upper body, but denies it lasted for more than a few seconds. He claims to have landed only a couple of blows, but accepts the injuries the victim sustained as a result of the assault. As he was not local to the area, the defendant claims he had no idea the offence took place outside an establishment popular with gay people. That being the case, he had no idea that the victim might be gay.

Sentencing:

Referring to the Sentencing Guidelines, it would appear that prosecution version of events would suggest a category 1 offence (greater harm, higher culpability).

Arguably the offence is one of greater harm because the bench might consider one minute, in the context of the offence, to be quite a sustained period of time when punches are raining down on the victim. The offence is one of higher culpability if the bench accepts the prosecution claim that it was motivated by the victim's presumed sexual orientation.

The defence version of events would suggest a category 2 offence at most (greater harm, lower culpability).

The bench might still be inclined to consider the offence a repeated assault, given the defendant's admission that he landed more than one blow on the victim. If the bench accepts the defence account that it was a chance encounter, with some provocation, no premeditation and no homophobic element then it would likely consider it a lower culpability offence.

If the bench sentences on the basis of a category 1 offence then all options, up to including custody, are available to it. If it sentences on the basis of a category 2 offence then it is likely to fall within the community band.

Such a material difference in sentencing outcomes would suggest the need for a Newton hearing to determine which of the differing accounts should be considered for sentencing.

Neglectful Northumberland Dog Breeder Jailed

A neglectful dog breeder has been jailed after RSPCA inspectors found dozens of animals at her home in a terrible state.

Lynn Stoker, 62, of Raw House Farm, Byrness, Northumberland had vehemently denied the commission of sixteen offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but was convicted at trial on 15th August 2019. The maximum penalty for these summary offences is 26 weeks in custody and/or an unlimited fine.

Stoker was convicted of eleven offences contrary to section 4 of the Act (causing or allowing the unnecessary suffering of an animal) and five offences contrary to section 9 of the Act (failing to ensure the welfare of an animal).

During the trial District Judge Bernard Begley, sitting at South East Northumberland Magistrates' Court in Bedlington, heard that Stoker bred far more dogs than she was able to sell, house or address the welfare needs of.

Stoker initially sought the help of the RSPCA in rehoming some of her animals, but when relations turned sour the animal welfare charity obtained a warrant under section 23 of the Act allowing them to enter Raw House Farm and gather evidence against her.

The court heard that inspectors found 113 dogs, two cats and three tortoises at the isolated property. Many of he dogs were packed into overcrowded cages, the floors of which were soaked in urine. Three dogs had fractured jaws, as a result of severe dental disease and having been crammed so tightly into cages. Many had chronic health problems, which had gone untreated for months or even years. There was also insufficient clean drinking water.

Prosecutor Stewart Haywood told the court that many of the animals were "at an advanced stage of suffering".

He added that Stoker had failed to co-operate with RSPCA, accusing the charity of a "conspiracy" to remove her dogs and sell them on at a profit for themselves.

Throughout the trial Stoker, who had been a dog breeder for 25 years, denied that any of the animals were in bad health at the time they were seized by the RSPCA. She maintained that she had a strict daily regime of looking after the needs of the animals.

At last Thursday's sentencing hearing Paul Blanchard, mitigating, told Judge Begley: "It's fair to say circumstances had got beyond my client.

"She has the traits of a hoarder, which is a personality disorder. This wasn't a deliberate act, it's a reckless act.

"She was not dealing with matters as she could have done, she closed her eyes to the reality of the situation."

Judge Begley, passing sentence, said: "The report I've read shows a repetition of the assertions made by you during the trial of a lack of any fault, the conspiracy of others and, somewhat predictably, not a shred of remorse.

He added: "I really can't find any redeeming features in your case."

Stoker was sentenced to 21 weeks immediate custody.

She was ordered to pay £50,000 towards the RSPCA's prosecution costs and an order was made banning her from breeding or keeping animals for at least 15 years.

Magistrates' Allowances and Expenses

Magistrates volunteer their time to perform their judicial duties, but the system recognises that they should not be left out of pocket for doing so.

To that end they are able to claim several different types of allowance to cover any expenses incurred as a direct result of their duties as a Magistrate.

There are three main types of allowance payable:

• Financial Loss Allowance;
• Travelling Allowance (which includes Motor Vehicle Allowance);
• Subsistence Allowance.

These can be claimed whenever a Magistrate attends a qualifying judicial duty.

You can view the current rates of these allowances here.

Qualifying judicial duties:

The following count as qualifying judicial duties, for which allowances are payable:

• Sittings in the Magistrates' Court;
• Magistrates' Court appeal sittings in the Crown Court;
• Training sessions and training courses;
• Attendance at meetings necessary for the proper function of the Bench;
• Attendance at formal committees to which Magistrates are elected or requested to attend as part of their judicial duties;
• Attendance of the Chairman of the Bench (or nominated Magistrates) at functions in a formal or official capacity, including pastoral visits;
• Attendance at meetings with other agencies or institutions, as approved by the Chairman of the Bench or HMCTS;
• Attending special occasions (e.g. the swearing in of new Magistrates, the attestation of police officers), as approved by the Chairman of the Bench or HMCTS;
• Attending the service and opening of the legal year;
• Making telephone calls, postage, faxing, printing and photocopying in connection with judicial duties.

Financial Loss Allowance:

Financial Loss Allowance is payable when a Magistrate provides evidence as part of the annual declaration process that they personally have incurred additional costs or experienced loss of earnings as a result of performing their judicial duties.

The maximum amount that can be claimed by self-employed Magistrates is greater than for those in employment. This is because self-employed Magistrates are responsible for paying their own income tax, whereas those in employment have had income tax deducted at source.

Travelling Allowance:

Travelling Allowance is payable when a Magistrate has incurred additional costs travelling to perform their judicial duties.

Travelling Allowance includes the following:

• Motor Vehicle Allowance: This is to reimburse the Magistrate for the costs incurred using their private motor vehicle (or motorcycle) for travelling from either their home or work address to their place of judicial duty. The distance travelled is calculated using the AA Route Planner and claimants can be confident it will be checked to the nearest mile and rejected if there are any errors. The rate was previously dependent on the size of the engine, but it's now a fixed amount. An additional amount can be claimed for up to a maximum of four passengers, who would have been entitled to claim the allowance in their own right. Tolls and parking fees (if there is no HMCTS parking provision) can also be claimed.
• Public Transport Allowance: This is to reimburse the Magistrate for the costs incurred using public transport for travelling from either their home or work address to their place of judicial duty. Magistrates can claim the lowest standard class fare available at the time of travel.
• Taxi Allowance: In exceptional circumstances, in a case of urgency or when no public transport is reasonably available, a Magistrate may claim for the reimbursement of taxi fares and a reasonable gratuity.
• Bicycle Allowance: Magistrates can claim a fixed rate when using a bicycle for conveyance between their home or work address and place of judicial duty.
• Air Travel Allowance: Magistrates may claim the cost of any air fares incurred as a result of performing their judicial duties. The amount that may be claimed is the lesser of either the actual expenditure incurred or the lowest standard rate fare available. Magistrates should seek approval prior to booking a flight.

HMCTS requires that copies of tickets and receipts are retained for audit purposes for a period of 3 years, but electronic copies are acceptable.

Subsistence Allowance:

Subsistence Allowance is payable when a Magistrate has personally incurred expense on subsistence for the purposes of enabling them to perform their judicial duties. The allowance is paid at a fixed rate based on the length of time a Magistrate is absent from their home or place of work, irrespective of the actual amount spent on subsistence.

The attendance of Magistrates and duration of their judicial duties is verified using the online Magistrates' Rota application and local records. If a Magistrate travels further to their judicial duty, therefore takes a longer time travelling, then they are likely to claim a higher rate of subsistence than one who lives just around the corner from the court.

There is normally no need for the Magistrate to retain or submit receipts for subsistence, as it can be reasonably assumed that subsistence expenses would be incurred for all but the briefest of judicial duties.

The rates are very modest. On a typical full day in court, which attracts a subsistence payment of around £10, I might buy a coffee on the way there, lunch and a coffee on the way home.

Claiming Allowances:

Magistrates are encouraged to submit their claims on a regular basis. These can either be in paper or electronic format via their eJudiciary email account. The Judicial Expenses Account Number (JEAN) is now obsolete. Magistrates are now uniquely identified by their eJudiciary email address.

Payment of Allowances:

Payments are now processed on a weekly basis, so no-one should have to wait longer than 10 or so days for payment (assuming their claim was in order). Payment is made by BACS to a UK bank or building society account.

Magistrates in the Crown Court: Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence

Every criminal case begins its life in the Magistrates' Court and more than 90 percent of those will be concluded there too.

In the overwhelming majority of cases dealt with by the Magistrates' Court the parties accept the decision and any sentence imposed.

Occasionally, in well under 3 percent of cases, the court reaches a decision or imposes a sentence that the parties disagree with, in which case an appeal can be made to the Crown Court.

Such an appeal must be lodged with 21 days of the offence being sentenced at the Magistrates' Court. There are other ways of appealing a Magistrates' Court decision, but we shan't dwell on them here.

Composition of a Crown Court appeal bench:

In accordance with section 74 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 a Crown Court appeal bench will be composed of a High Court Judge/Circuit Judge/Recorder and not less than two, no more than four, Justices of the Peace, depending on the circumstances.

All members of the appeal bench have an equal voice when it comes to deciding the outcome and the majority vote will prevail, even if that does not include the professional Judge. In the event that there is an evenly split decision, the Judge will have a casting vote.

As the Crown Court does not have legal advisors, the Judge will be the expert on any issues of law. The Judge will be very familiar with the legal issues surrounding either way offences, but may have less experience of dealing with summary offences. The Justices' working knowledge of those offences may prove useful.

Justices are forbidden from sitting on appeals of cases that they heard earlier at the Magistrates' Court.

Eligibility of Justices to sit on Crown Court appeals:

To be able to sit on Crown Court appeals a Justice needs to have the support of their Bench Chairman and Justices' Clerk and approval of the relevant Justices' Training, Approvals, Authorisations and Appraisals Committee (JTAAAC). The JTAAAC may have its own criteria that need to be met before adding a Justice to the Crown Court list.

A limited number of Justices are required for Crown Court appeals. To allow all interested Justices the opportunity to sit on Crown Court appeals, it might be that additions to the list are made for a fixed period of time.

Sittings in the Crown Court are counted in the same manner as those in the Magistrates' Court.

Types of appeal:

The Crown Court hears appeals against sentences and convictions imposed by the Magistrates' Court. The defendant in appeal cases is known as the appellant and the prosecutor is known as the respondent.

The hearing in the Crown Court will be 'de novo' - e.g. the matter of guilt and/or sentence will be considered afresh and on the evidence presented to it. This may include new matters not considered by the Magistrates' Court earlier on. In effect the defence gets a second chance to rehearse and present its case in full, which is obviously to its clear advantage.

Appeal outcomes:

On hearing an appeal the Crown Court may confirm, vary or overturn the original decision, including varying the sentence where the appeal was against conviction. In respect of sentencing, the Crown Court will be limited to the same sentencing powers as the original Magistrates' Court but it may increase the sentence. The Crown Court also has certain powers to remit the matter back to the Magistrates' Court for re-hearing.

Prisoner Escapes from Custody at Medway Magistrates' Court

A prisoner has escaped from custody at Medway Magistrates' Court.

Adam Savage, 34, of Meadow Bank Road, Chatham, escaped lawful custody by apparently smashing his way out of the dock and evading the two dock officers present at the time. He reportedly burst out of the courtroom and fled the building, with the two officers unsuccessfully giving chase.

Savage had just been brought from the cells and was in the process of being sentenced for breaching the conditions of a suspended sentence order. He made good his escape on hearing the news that he was being handed 45 days in custody for missing several probation appointments.

Police were called to the court at around 11.30 am yesterday and conducted a search of the surrounding area, but to no avail.

Savage attended Medway Police Station in the early hours of this morning to hand himself in.

GeoAmey, the Ministry of Justice's Prisoner Escort and Custody Services contractor, is responsible for the custody of prisoners at Medway Magistrates' Court.

The company told the Kent Messenger that an internal investigation into the incident was underway.

We don't know the full circumstances, but this is an embarrassing blunder nevertheless.

GeoAmey needs to be carefully reflecting on exactly what went wrong.

Blackburn Man Jailed for Breaching Sexual Offences Prevention Order

A Blackburn man has been jailed for breaching his sexual offences prevention order after police found a smart phone concealed within his room.

Carl Clifford Windsor, 32, of Haworth House probation hostel on the town's St Peters Street, admitted two breaches of the order and failing to comply with his notification requirements on the sex offenders register.

The order was imposed in 2017, when Windsor was imprisoned for possessing indecent images of children and sexually assaulting a female child.

He admitted breaching the order in March this year and was recalled to prison until 21st August.

Prosecutor Catherine Allen told Blackburn Magistrates that Windsor was caught with the illicit smart phone only a few days after his release.

Police had visited his hostel accommodation on a routine compliance check, but were suspicious so returned for a second visit shortly afterwards.

It was at that stage the police discovered the smart phone concealed behind a wall mounted noticeboard.

On examination of the device, it was discovered that Windsor had been accessing the internet in a name that had not been notified in accordance with his registration requirements.

"These were deliberate breaches and he went to considerable lengths to hide the phone from the police," said Miss Allan.

Colleen Dickinson-Jones, defending, said Windsor believed the orders interfered with his freedom.

"I have explained to him that is exactly what they are for," said Mrs Dickinson-Jones.

"The orders will continue to restrict his activities until a court directs he no longer needs to be supervised."

Magistrates took a dim view of Windsor's flagrant disregard for court orders.

They sentenced him to 30 weeks imprisonment for the combination of offences.