Workington Man Handed 89 Pence Compensation Order

A Workington man has been handed an 89 pence compensation order after stealing kitchen foil from a local discount store.

Thomas Edward Morton, 42, of no fixed abode, admitted charges of theft and possession of a controlled drug when he recently appeared at West Cumbria Magistrates' Court in Workington.

Magistrates heard that Morton stole a roll of kitchen foil from the town's Home Bargains store on 2nd December 2019.

A subsequent search of Morton's person uncovered a small amount of the class A drug heroin (diamorphine), which gives rise to the possibility that the foil was taken to facilitate his drug use.

Reports of the case do not give much information, but the Bench was clearly satisfied that the circumstances justified a pragmatic approach to sentencing.

Morton was given a 12 month conditional discharge for the drugs matter and ordered to pay 89 pence compensation to Home Bargains to cover the theft.

A forfeiture and destruction order was made for the heroin.

This case reminds me of another I am familiar with, where a homeless man walked into a discount food store and walked out with a 50 pence tin of corned beef.

A short time later, him having now consumed the corned beef, he was challenged by staff and admitted stealing the item because he was cold, hungry and wanted something to eat. In line with company policy, the store manager called the police and the man was arrested and duly charged with theft.

The man, who was lightly convicted, appeared before Magistrates charged with stealing the corned beef and the prosecutor read his full and frank admissions to the theft.

The Magistrates in that case had no difficulty believing that the man had fallen on hard times and had stolen to eat. In the circumstances, faced with a defendant with no means at all, the Bench decided that the right thing to do was to make him pay 50 pence for the corned beef he had eaten.

Of course the question arises: quite how does 50 pence theft end up costing thousands in police, CPS and court time and resources in the first place?

Swadlincote Disqualified Driver Jailed for Christmas

A Swadlincote man has been jailed after being caught behind the wheel less than a week after being disqualified from driving.

Nicholas Connell, 35, of Ladyfields Way, Newhall, admitted driving whilst over the prescribed limit when he appeared at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court on 17th December 2019. As a result of that conviction he was disqualified from driving for three years.

On 22nd December 2019, only five days into his disqualification, officers observed Connell driving his Audi A4 on Wellwood Road, Newhall.

The vehicle was stopped by the police, who noticed that Connell had "bloodshot eyes". A provisional roadside breath test indicated Connell had 45 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the legal limit being 35 microgrammes. However, at the police station he refused to provide an evidential specimen of breath, so was charged with failing to provide a specimen for analysis.

Connell claimed he was delivering the vehicle to its new owner, having recently sold it to raise money for Christmas presents.

Connell admitted charges of driving whilst disqualified, driving without insurance and failing to provide a specimen for analysis when appeared before the same court on 23rd December 2019. He also admitted two charges of possession of cannabis dating back to 24th May 2019.

Peter Bettany, prosecuting, said: "The defendant was seen driving a vehicle and was followed by the police until he stopped. Officers could smell alcohol on his breath and his eyes were red and bloodshot.

"He told officers he had been drinking the night before. He gave a roadside sample of 45. He refused to provide a sample (at the police station) with no medical grounds offered.

"He was disqualified for an excess alcohol matter that took place in November and he appeared in court on 17th December. He was caught five days into the ban."

In relation to the cannabis charges, Mr Bettany explained that police were called to a Swadlincote pub for another matter when they came across Connell.

He said police found nine wraps of cannabis on him at the time and then found 26 grams of cannabis when officers searched his home.

Simon Stevens, mitigating, told the court he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and personality disorder.

He said: "It is easy to send him to HMP Nottingham this afternoon, very easy. He received a phone call from someone up the road who said they could take the car now if he brought it around and that's where the foolish decision was taken.

"An unmarked police car was watching. He didn't travel a long distance, nobody else was in the vehicle, there is no suggestion the driving was below standard.

"The roadside breath test was 45, but that was not on the accurate machines. He complied right the way through. When it came to the machine goodness knows what came over him and he failed to provide.

"He tried to go back, but the police had made their decision."

Magistrates deemed Connell's offences, when considered in totality, were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Paul Leatherland, Presiding Justice, said: "We have taken some time on this. We have heard from the CPS and because you pleaded guilty, you will get credit for that.

"This is a blatant disregard for a court order for a disqualification from driving. For this you will received an immediate custodial sentence."

Connell was sentenced to 26 weeks in custody and disqualified from driving for 48 months from his date of release.

He was also ordered to pay £122 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs.

Hunting Wild Mammals: The Hunting Act 2004

The former head of Britain's National Wildlife Crime Unit has said that illegal fox hunting continues with impunity, with the police and courts failing to tackle those involved in the crime.

The Hunting Act 2004 ("the Act") makes it an offence, with a few notable exceptions, for a person to:

• hunt wild mammals with a dog, unless that hunting is exempt (section 1 of the Act);
• knowingly permit land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1 of the Act (section 3(1) of the Act); 
• knowingly permit a dog that belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1 of the Act (section 3(2) of the Act); 
• participate in a hare coursing event, attend a hare coursing event, knowingly facilitate a hare coursing event, or permit land belonging to him to be used for the purposes of a hare coursing event (section 5(1)(a-d) of the Act);
• enter a dog for a hare coursing event, permit a dog to be entered for a hare coursing event, or control or handle a dog in the course of or for the purposes of a hare coursing event (section 5(2)(a-c) of the Act).

The definition of hunting is given in section 11(2) of the Act, as follows:

• For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where:
• a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and
• one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction).

For the purposes of the legislation land belongs to a person if he owns it, manages it or controls it. A dog belongs to a person if he owns it, is in charge of it or controls it.

Offences under the act are triable summarily and have a maximum penalty of a level 5 fine (unlimited).

Martin Sims, currently Director of Investigations for the League Against Cruel Sports, told the Guardian: "When you see stickers on hunt followers' cars - like 'Keep calm carry on hunting', 'Fuck the ban, fight the ban' - it's clear they've got no intention of stopping as the legislation currently stands."

Data provided by the League shows that by 2018 - the most recent year for which figures are available - 497 convictions had been obtained for all offences under the Act. A further 47 people have received cautions for hunting offences.

The Countryside Alliance, which campaigns in favour of hunting, denies that illegal hunting is so widespread. It points to the fact that since the commencement of the 2004 Act there have been fewer than 30 people associated with registered hunts convicted under the legislation. It should be noted, however, that prosecutions have arisen under alternative legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

A spokesman for the Alliance questioned the validity of League Against Cruel Sports statistics and said its members regularly faced unfounded allegations of illegal hunting.

"If there is any evidence of illegal hunting activity then we would always expect it to be taken to the police to be investigated in the appropriate manner, rather than trying to create publicity through the media," he added.

Opposition politicians have been campaigning to strengthen the provisions of the Act. In its recent General Election manifesto, the Labour Party pledged to close "loopholes", toughen penalties and introduce a recklessness clause to the legislation.

Setting aside the issue of hare coursing for a moment, it has to be said that it is quite difficult to prove an offence under section 1 of the Act. It therefore follows that offences under sections 3(1) and 3(2), which can only come about in the presence of a section 1 offence, are even harder to prove.

Applying the definition of hunting given in section 11(2) of the Act, it can be observed that hunting is an intentional activity (e.g. the person is engaged or participating in it). A person is only guilty of hunting if the court is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that they intended to hunt (non-exempted) wild mammals with a dog. This is why, no doubt, the Labour Party was mulling over the idea of a recklessness amendment.

It is a perfectly valid defence for a person to claim "my dog was out of sight when it took chase of a [insert name of non-exempt wild mammal], so I didn't realise it was happening". In the absence of evidence to the contrary the offence could not be proved in those circumstances, because the person is neither engaged or participating in the hunting of the non-exempt wild mammal.

The legislation, as currently formulated, is difficult to enforce as there are a myriad of perfectly valid and plausible defences. If the Government wishes to retain the Act and have it applied in the spirit as originally intended, it might be an appropriate time to take another look at the wording.

The court, remember, can only apply the legislation that is in force. Personal feelings and emotions should not feature.

Shropshire Remand Cases: Defence Advocates Reiterate Concerns

Defence advocates using Telford Magistrates' Court have again highlighted the "ludicrous" situation that sees remand prisoners transported 25 miles to Kidderminster, despite perfectly good facilities being available locally.

As mentioned in an earlier post on the Magistrates' Blog, from 1st April 2018 those remand cases being handled by Telford and Worcester Magistrates' Courts were transferred to Kidderminster Magistrates' Court.

In practical terms this means anyone arrested in the Telford or Worcester areas has to be transported to Kidderminster by van. If, for whatever reason, a prisoner misses the once-daily van then they are held in police custody until the van the following morning, which has led to claims that the police are being left "babysitting" prisoners. The police in Worcester even went as far as advising anyone wanted on warrant the best time to hand them self in to avoid missing the van.

It would appear that Telford Magistrates' Court, like so many others, has become an unloved satellite venue used mainly for trials.

Using information obtained via Freedom of Information requests, the Shropshire Defence Advocates Group, which has vigorously opposed the new remand arrangements, have calculated that transporting prisoners from Telford to Kidderminster has resulted in more than 8,000 hours of unnecessary custody between 2nd April 2018 and 7th September 2019. It also claims that 57 prisoners were detained in excess of 24 hours before being presented at Kidderminster Magistrates' Court.

John McMillan, co-chair of the Shropshire Defence Advocates Group, said: "In a country which prides itself on the rule of law, to detain prisoners for an unnecessary 8,227 hours is almost beyond belief, but it is happening.

"This new policy is also a ludicrous waste of public money which is compounded by the cost of free bed and breakfast provided by the police for an unnecessary 8,227 hours, the blocking of police cells that are unavailable for new arrests, the costs of transportation, the costs to Shropshire relatives in journeying to Kidderminster and released prisoners returning to Shropshire with a free rail ticket, the costs of Shropshire police officers having to attend there and their resultant inability to carry out their duties in Shropshire whilst they are in the next county and the costs incurred by public funds in paying for lawyers to travel thousands of unnecessary miles per month to service this – not to mention the crass and wasteful carbon footprint all of this brings about."

Mr McMillan, a partner at Telford-based WMB Law, continued: "Shropshire (Telford) Magistrates Court is still open every day for business with secure cells, fully staffed and prior to April 2018 Shropshire prisoners were produced in a Shropshire court by being taken through the secure tunnel from the police station to the court – one minute away – which was the most efficient way to deal with them."

The Ministry of Justice has said that it is looking into the possibility of providing videolink facilities between Telford and Kidderminster, which would negate the need for remand prisoners to make the 25 mile journey. The new videolink should be in place by Spring 2020.

The Ministry of Justice declined to comment on the findings of the Shropshire Defence Advocates Group, explaining that there were no comparable figures available from before the changes were introduced.

Bar Maid Blew FIVE Times Drink Drive Limit

A Wisbech barmaid has been convicted of drink driving after blowing more than FIVE times the legal limit.

Teeda Emma Sims, 30, of Long Drive, Coldham, Wisbech, appeared for sentencing at King's Lynn Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 19th December 2019, having earlier admitted one charge of driving a motor vehicle when the amount of alcohol in her breath exceeded the prescribed limit.

This is an offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has a maximum penalty of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

Robyn Khan, prosecuting, told the court that Sims was filmed by witnesses as she drove erratically, weaving all over the road at around 5 pm on 30th July 2019. She stopped at The Five Bells public house in New Road, Upwell, where she had been given a job just the day before.

The witness's statement said: "She got out of her car and staggered inside. I remained there until police arrived."

Sims was arrested at the pub and subsequently provided an evidential specimen on breath containing 178 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the legal limit being 35 microgrammes (the Eastern Daily Press article gives the incorrect units). Such a reading is phenomenally high - the highest I can remember hearing about.

Sims' offence is aggravated by the fact she has previously been convicted of drink driving back in October 2009.

Ruth Johnson, mitigating, said: "Right from the outset it has been made clear to Miss Sims that, in my view, this crosses the custody threshold."

Miss Johnson urged the bench to suspend any prison sentence as her client had taken steps to address her drink problem and "significant improvements" had been made since the offence in July.

"She's absolutely devastated by her behaviour. Her primary concern was the risk that she posed to other road users and accepts that she could have been in court for something entirely different," added Miss Johnson.

Louise Gayton, Presiding Justice, told Sims: "This is an extremely serious offence. I don't need to reiterate the potential that it could have caused."

Sims was sentenced to eight weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with the requirement that she completes an alcohol treatment programme.

Given her previous conviction, Sims was disqualified from driving for 3 years. She was also ordered to pay £122 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs.

Disturbance at North Tyneside Magistrates' Court

Three police officers required hospital treatment after a disturbance at North Tyneside Magistrates' Court earlier today.

According to reports, security staff called the police after a disturbance in the court building. Officers arrived a short time afterwards and were confronted by family and friends of a defendant appearing in custody before the daily remand court. A fight broke out between the parties.

A Northumbria Police spokesperson said: "Shortly after 10 am today (Thursday) we received a request for assistance from North Tyneside Magistrates' Court, following a report of a disturbance.

"Officers attended the scene and three sustained injuries while trying to detain those involved and have attended hospital for non-serious injuries.

"A 43-year-old-man was arrested on suspicion of assault by beating an emergency worker and a 29-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of obstructing an officer in the execution of duty. They both remain in custody at this time.

"Enquiries are ongoing and anyone with information about this incident is asked to contact police by calling 101 quoting log 274 191219, or alternatively you can contact Crimestoppers anonymously."

Weapons Seized at Walsall Magistrates' Court

West Midlands Police have released details of the dangerous weapons seized by security staff at Walsall Magistrates' Court in the past month.

The horrifying array, pictured in the image above, includes kitchen knives, flick knives, lock knives, knuckle dusters, cutlery and tools. The items were seized from members of the public attending court.

It would seem the ideal opportunity to thank the security staff who do such a good job keeping court users safe across England and Wales.

They are sometimes criticised, but on the whole perform their duties with the utmost diligence, professionalism and good humour. We are grateful for their efforts and wish them all the best for Christmas and the New Year.

Former Premier League Footballer Convicted of Exposure

A former Premier League footballer has been convicted of exposure after being observed masturbating in public.

Neil Jason Shipperley, 45, of West Drayton, London, admitted one charge of exposure when he appeared at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 18th December 2019.

Exposure is an offence under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A person is guilty of exposure if they deliberately expose their genitals, with the intention of another person seeing them and being caused alarm or distress thereby.

The maximum penalty for exposure is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Shipperley was driving a van along Station Road in Hayes on 17th September 2019.

He pulled up alongside a mother and her 16-year-old daughter, who believed he was slowing down to allow them to cross the road. The mother turned towards the open window of the van to thank Shipperley. It was at that stage both mother and daughter noticed that Shipperley had his penis in his hand and was masturbating.

Realising what had just happened, the mother and daughter swiftly started to walk away. Shipperley began to follow them in his van.

Prosecutor Shaan Sethi told the court: "He continued to stare at the two women this time while masturbating," adding that the pair tried to take a photo of his number plate.

"While the mother was on the phone to the police... they saw the defendant had parked himself between two buses further down the street, again staring at the two while masturbating."

In a victim impact statement the mother said: "Some people may see flashers as pests or a nuisance to society, my view of Neil Shipperley is as a predator.

"His aim was to intimidate us, to violate us, to shock us and to scare us."

She added: "My 16-year-old daughter was horrified and kept asking me 'mum what would have happened if I was on my own and you weren't with me'."

Sarah O'Kane, mitigating, said: "He has expressed anguish, embarrassment, shame, but above all remorse."

"He is in short appalled by his actions and he wishes to apologise unreservedly to the complaint in this case."

Ms O'Kane told the court that the former Chelsea striker had been battling a string of personal and financial problems, which came to the "crescendo" on the day of the offence. He had been undergoing counselling sessions in an attempt to address his recent difficulties.

Sheila Evans, Presiding Justice, told Shipperley: "We do find that it would be proper to place it into a community order level rather than a custodial order.

"However, we would have been perfectly within our right if there were other factors that gave us concern to give you a custodial sentence."

Shipperley was sentenced to a 12 month community order with 120 hours unpaid work and 20 days rehabilitation activity requirement.

He was ordered to pay £200 compensation, £90 victim surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Additionally, he was made subject to a five-year sexual offences notification requirement order and must report to Hayes police station within three days.

An Expensive Night Out for Carlisle Man

A Carlisle man has been convicted of being drunk and disorderly after shouting and swearing in the city centre.

Steven Weir, 24, of Osborne Avenue, Carlisle, admitted one charge of drunk and disorderly behaviour in a public place, when he appeared at the city's Magistrates' Court yesterday.

Drunk and disorderly behaviour in a public place is an offence contrary to section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The offence has a maximum penalty of a fine at level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1,000) on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Weir was observed shouting and swearing on Botchergate shortly before midnight on 30th November 2019.

Police officers approached Weir and asked him to moderate his language and leave the area.

"He became aggressive towards the officers, and towards members of the public," said the prosecutor Amy Labram.

"He was visibly drunk, and unsteady on his feet. He then became aggressive towards door security staff at a pub because they had refused to let him into the pub."

It was at this point that Weir was arrested.

The court heard that Weir has 20 offences on his criminal record, the most recent one being one of taking a vehicle without consent and failing to provide a specimen.

Weir was fined £200, with £85 costs and a £32 surcharge.

Shap Woman Admits £45k Benefit Fraud

A Cumbrian woman has admitted defrauding the public purse of more than £45,000 in benefits payments.

Natalie Johnson, 33, of The Lynchetts, Shap, Penrith, admitted two charges of dishonestly making a false statement to obtain benefit when she appeared at Carlisle Magistrates' Court earlier today (Monday, 16th December 2019).

The maximum penalty for the offence is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction, 7 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

In relation to the first charge Magistrates heard that Johnson, who was living in Derby at the time, failed to notify Erewash Borough Council that she was living with a partner whilst claiming Housing Benefit payments. This offence took place between 6th June 2014 and 23rd March 2016.

The second charge relates to Johnson failing to notify Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs that she was living with a partner whilst claiming Tax Credit payments. This offence took place between 6th June 2014 and 1st March 2017.

Magistrates were told that these offences were deliberately dishonest acts from the outset. Given the circumstances, the Bench declined jurisdiction and sent the case to Carlisle Crown Court.

Magistrates ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report prior to Johnson's next appearance at the Crown Court on 13th January 2020.

She was released on unconditional bail until then.

Government Publishes Latest Criminal Court Statistics

The Government has published the latest quarterly report on criminal court statistics.

Key highlights are as follows:

• Magistrates' Court: the number of cases received and disposed of have stabilise following previous falls.
• Crown Court: increase in the number of cases received, decrease in cases disposed of.
• Crown Court: increase in the number of cases outstanding.
• Crown Court: average waiting times continue to fall.
• Magistrates' Court: increase in time from offence to completion.
• Magistrates' Court: failure to appear warrant statistics published for the first time.
• Magistrates' Court: proportion of cases dealt with by the single justice procedure remains steady.
• Increase in the number of interpreter requests.

You can download the full report here.

Frustrations of Being a Magistrate: Episode 3: Inefficient Management of Bail Breaches

Deciding on the bail status of a defendant is quite possibly one of the most important roles of the Magistrates' Court.

Stood before the court is a defendant who has not yet been convicted of the offence with which they are charged. There are a multitude of factors that need to be carefully considered before the court arrives at its decision to either grant bail, with or without conditions, or to remand the defendant in custody.

Anyone unfamiliar with the Magistrates' Court bail process is invited to consult our earlier whistle-stop tour of the subject. The primary legislation relating to bail is the Bail Act 1976.

Frustration 1: Bail Time Limits

As mentioned in our earlier article, under section 7 of the Act the police have 24 hours to produce before the court anyone arrested for breaching their bail conditions. It would appear that the police sometimes struggle to achieve this within the allocated time limits.

In a rural area, with a sparse distribution of courts and police custody suites, it might take several hours to transport an alleged breacher to the police station and book them into custody. In those circumstances it would be unlikely they'd appear before the court on the same day. Any difficulties or delays the following morning might mean they cannot be produced within the 24 hour time limit.

What do the police do in those circumstances? I hear you ask. Well, what they cannot do is hold on to the individual for any longer than 24 hours in the hope of bumping them into the next available court. To do that would amount to unlawful detention. The police's preferred course of action is to release the detained person with words of advice (e.g. make sure you comply with your conditions, because next time we might get you to court in time).

There is nothing more frustrating than sitting on the Bench of a remand court and being told that Mr Bloggs on the list won't now be attending because he has been released due to time or transport constraints. It is even worse if Mr Bloggs is accused of a serious or violent offence, or has committed such offences previously.

Frustration 2: Ineffective Communication

In the not too distant past I was sitting on the Bench of a Monday morning remand court. On our list was a defendant arrested for breaching his bail conditions.

The defendant had appeared at the Crown Court the previous Friday and the Judge had decided to vary his conditions of bail by removing an exclusion requirement. Unfortunately the CPS prosecutor present at the Crown Court had failed to notify the police of the change.

That weekend the man was arrested for breaching the exclusion requirement that had been removed by the Judge. He was downstairs in the cells ready to appear before us, when the prosecutor in our court got the news that he hadn't actually been in breach and should never have been arrested.

After a series of embarrassing phone calls the man was released from custody. No doubt he went straight to see a solicitor about making a claim for his unlawful detention.

GPS Location Monitoring in Practice

We're now several months into GPS location monitoring in my area and my first impressions are very positive.

For those that don't already know, a GPS enabled ankle tag can now be fitted to anyone released on conditional bail or sentenced to a community or suspended sentence order. Data from the tag can be used to monitor the wearer's compliance with curfew and exclusion requirements imposed by the court.

Over the last couple of months I have been a strong advocate of the new technology and collectively, as a Bench, we have used it to good effect on several occasions. Until the introduction of the GPS tagging there was a certain degree of trust that anyone subject to exclusion requirements would actually comply with them. Now there is the reassurance that anyone stepping even a few metres into their excluded area will be detected, arrested and brought back before the court.

A couple of weeks ago I was in a remand court when one such transgressor appeared in the secure dock before us.

He had been the passenger in a vehicle that was travelling along a main road that bounded his excluded area. The driver of the vehicle had pulled up at the side of the road and nipped into a shop to buy a paper. The GPS tagged passenger, thinking nothing about it, took the opportunity to buy some chewing gum from the same shop.

By unwittingly entering the shop, therefore encroaching only 4 or 5 metres into his excluded area, a breach was detected by the system. A few hours later the police turned up and the man was arrested for breaching his bail conditions. After a sobering night in the cells he was stood before us the following morning.

The man immediately admitted the breach and was seemingly contrite for his lapse in judgement. Given that we had a map showing his exact movements to the nearest few paces, he couldn't plausibly have denied it. As this was the man's first breach and seemingly accidental we were content to re-bail him on the same conditions, with a few words of advice about the sensitivity and reliability of device he was wearing.

In that same court a second man appeared in custody, having been arrested a couple of days earlier and charged with a very serious (non-violent) indictable offence. He chose to withhold his plea until his appearance at the Crown Court the week after Christmas.

This man was lightly convicted and had nothing of note in the last five years. In the distant past he had failed to surrender to bail on a couple of occasions - this, coupled with the severity of the charge at hand, persuaded the CPS to make an application to have him remanded in custody.

Despite the defendant's lack of plea, his solicitor told us that he was under no illusions that he would be facing a significant period in custody. He wanted to spend Christmas with his family, as he realised it would be the last opportunity to do so for several years.

The defence solicitor asked that we grant his client bail with strict conditions, instead of remanding him in custody and separating him from his family during the festive period. We were also reminded of the defendant's prima facie right to bail, given that the charge in hand related to an alleged offence that was not committed whilst on bail.

Prior to the introduction of GPS tagging it would have been almost inconceivable that he would have been released on bail. Having carefully weighed up both the Crown and defence positions, we decided that strict conditions could be imposed that would allow his movements to be very closely monitored.

In this case we imposed strict GPS monitoring and police reporting requirements that would effectively confine him to his home town. Of course should he breach those conditions colleagues on the next Bench are unlikely to be as understanding.

It is reassuring that this new tool gives the court greater freedom and reassurance when granting bail or imposing community or suspended sentence orders.