Speeding Fine for Defender Clyne

A Premier League footballer has been fined for driving at almost twice the speed limit on New Year's Day.

Liverpool defender Nathaniel Clyne, 28, of Massams Lane, Formby, admitted driving at 52 mph on West Derby Road, Tuebrook, which has a speed limit of 30 mph.

The city's Magistrates fined the footballer £1,000 and endorsed his licence with 6 penalty points, which is the maximum penalty available in law. He was also ordered to pay £100 towards prosecution costs and £85 victim surcharge.

The court could have elected to disqualify Clyne for a period of up to 56 days, but clearly considered it more appropriate to impose penalty points in this case.

If Clyne is already carrying points on his licence, he will now be very close to receiving a mandatory 6-month disqualification under the totting up rule.

Clyne reportedly receives a salary of £70,000 a week, so should have no difficulty in paying his fine by 4th February 2020 as ordered by the court.

Lincolnshire Postie Convicted of Kerb Crawling During His Rounds

A Lincolnshire man has been convicted of kerb crawling during his rounds as a postman.

Lea Troth, 48, of South Parade, Skegness, admitted a charge of soliciting another person for the purpose of obtaining their sexual services as a prostitute when he appeared at Boston Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 22nd January 2020.

Soliciting is an offence under section 51A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction. Soliciting is synonymous with kerb crawling, which was an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1985.

Troth was employed by Royal Mail on a temporary basis over the Christmas period. We do not consider it likely that he will be re-employed by Royal Mail in the future.

The offence took place at around 1 pm on Thursday, 19th December 2019 when Troth, who was wearing uniform and driving a Royal Mail van, pulled up alongside a young woman on Kyme Road in Boston.

He wound his window down and pointedly asked: "Will you give me a blow job for £20?" The woman refused and continued walking along the street, telling Troth that she was not a prostitute. Troth continued asking for a blow job, but on receiving further refusals he changed tack and asked for a hand job instead.

The woman sought refuge in a shop and called her mother to come and collect her. Troth, who was still at the scene, apologised for his behaviour to the victim's mother when she arrived.

Troth was unrepresented in court and told Magistrates "it was a load of rubbish" to suggest he had followed the woman.

Magistrates said that it must have been a "particularly unpleasant experience for the young lady".

Troth was fined £80 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £32 victim surcharge.

Former East Midlands Ambulance Technician Convicted of Stalking

A former East Midlands Ambulance Technician has been convicted of stalking his ex-girlfriend for more than six months.

Michael Brookes, 31, of Coronation Street, Swadlincote, admitted a charge of stalking when he appeared at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court earlier this week.

Stalking is an offence under section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction. The legislation describes the elements of the offence and gives some examples of conduct that might amount to stalking, although it is ultimately a decision for the court.

Magistrates heard that Brookes, who recently won an award for his work with East Midlands Ambulance Service, broke up with his girlfriend in February 2019.

Unable to let go, he tormented her for months by sending her unwanted emails, visiting her property, damaging her possessions and making unfounded accusations against her.

Prosecutor Sarah Sanderson said Brookes used Tuff Cut scissors to destroy numerous items of his ex-girlfriend's clothing, including three pairs of Kurt Geiger shoes, gym trousers and her work clothing.

Ms Sanderson said: "(The ex-girlfriend) had to take out a loan from her employers to replace items so she could be dress suitably for work.

"He also removed the tops of her perfume bottles so she could no longer use them."

Brookes also:

• Used a pole to disconnect the wiring of a security camera in the victim's back garden;
• Sent an email blaming her for losing his job and demanded that she return his property;
• Went on to declare his love in other emails, saying "I will wait for you until this is over";
• Left a note on the victim's car and sent unwelcome messages over social media;
• Contacted his ex-girlfriend's manager and accused the two of them of having an affair.

In a victim impact statement, Brookes' former girlfriend said: "I am constantly on edge waiting for the next message. I've made it clear I want nothing more to do with him, but he disregards everything I've said.

"He has been told not to have contact with me, I don't know what I can do to make him leave me alone and get on with my life."

Alice Hornsby, mitigating, told the court Brookes had been "in a very poor state of mind" and had attempted to take his own life. He had ambitions of becoming a fully trained paramedic, but his conviction means those are in tatters. He now hopes to put the whole affair behind him and relocate to Staffordshire where his family is based.

Ms Hornsby said: "It is behaviour he deeply regrets. He is deeply sorry on reflection.

"His head was in rather a mess, but he is not seeking to make excuses."

Brookes was sentenced to an 18-month community order, with a maximum of 30 days rehabilitation activity requirement.

He was ordered to pay £1,000 compensation, £300 towards prosecution costs and £85 victim surcharge.

Magistrates also imposed a restraining order preventing Brookes from contacting his former girlfriend.

Barbara Richardson, Presiding Justice, said: "We do find that it was planned and we do find that it was intentional and that there was a significant amount of damage caused.

"It was aggravated by the fact that the offence continued over a sustained period of time."

Reading the details of this offence as reported, Brookes has conducted a particularly distasteful and protracted campaign against his victim. Many similar offences would attract an immediate custodial sentence, but Brookes' apparent remorse, previous good character and work with East Midlands Ambulance Service has saved him from custody.

Here is a man whose conduct has lost him his career and alienated him from friends and colleagues alike. He will live with the shame and consequences for years to come, so what more would it achieve to put him behind bars?

Celebrity Dog Breeder Convicted of Cropping Puppies' Ears

A Warwickshire dog breeder has narrowly avoided prison after he was convicted of mutilating the ears of puppies for cosmetic reasons.

Simon Davis, 34, of Acacia Crescent, Bedworth, admitted seven charges of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal when he appeared at Nuneaton Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 17th December 2019.

The case was sentenced at Coventry Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 22nd January 2020.

Causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It has a maximum penalty of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard the Davis ran a "lucrative commercial enterprise" selling designer dogs for up to £7,000 each through his online business, Lions Lair Kennels.

The charges relate to Davis cropping the ears of seven American Bulldog puppies using razor blades. One of the cropped puppies was sold to Little Mix singer Leigh-Anne Pinnock and another to Geordie Shore star Aaron Chalmers.

Cropping, which is done for purely cosmetic reasons, involves cutting tissue from a dog's ears in order to give it a more "street cred" look.

As a result of the publicity generated by Davis' business, the RSPCA and police executed a search warrant at his property in January 2019. Eight American Bulldogs were found in kennels in a garage at the rear of Davis' property.

A second warrant was executed concurrently at Davis' mothers' property, where a further nine American Bulldogs, two of which were pregnant, were discovered. Six of those dogs had cropped ears.

Davis' mobile phone was seized and subsequent examination of the device revealed that he had been seeking the assistance of an American "cropper" to perform the barbaric procedure. Cropping equipment was seized, as well as photographs showing puppies' ears before and after Davis' handiwork.

Sara Pratt, prosecuting for the RSPCA, said: "Simon Davis is the owner of Lions Lair Kennels, a professional commercial enterprise.

"A number of dogs have been bought by celebrities and have created further high-profile publicity for the breed and the business itself.

"Ear cropping for cosmetic reasons is an illegal practice in the UK and may only be undertaken by a qualified veterinary surgeon, and it’s prohibited except for medical reasons.

"The purpose of cosmetic ear cropping is to give the dogs a certain 'look', to have a more intimidating or more menacing appearance.

"There is an experience of pain for the dog. The dog would be caused suffering.

"This was a painful procedure for no reason other than cosmetic appearance.

"Davis knew the process of cropping was illegal. In one text he said 'it's banned'.

"But despite this he arranged for a cropper to visit the kennels and carry out cropping on the puppies."

Abid Hussain, mitigating, reminded Magistrates that Davis was entitled to maximum credit for his early guilty plea.

"He has always had a passion for animals, especially dogs," Mr Hussain said.

"He wanted to provide for his family and this opportunity arrived and he saw it was an opening and took advantage of it.

"There was no huge pot of money which he has lying around as a result of this.

"This is the first offence of its kind recorded against Davis. Efforts were made to minimize the suffering of the animals.

"No animals have died as a result of this procedure."

Davis was sentenced to 18 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with 160 hours unpaid work requirement.

He was ordered to pay £10,973 in prosecution costs and banned from keeping dogs for a minimum of 15 years.

Davinder Athwal, Presiding Justice, said: "You receive this sentence because of the unnecessary suffering to animals and financial gains you have made.

"This was a large scale commercial operation. You were clearly aware the operation you were running was illegal and accepted the risks associated with running an illegal operation contrary to the welfare of the animals."

Inspector Herchy Boal of the RSPCA, said: "We're opposed to ear cropping - a process where ears are removed or surgically altered. It's painful, wholly unnecessary and often done only for the purposes of appearance. Dogs should never be mutilated for cosmetic purposes and ear cropping can actually be detrimental to their health, behaviour and welfare.

"We'd urge people never to buy a dog with cropped ears and to report any concerns about ear cropping by calling us on 0300 1234 999."

Introduction of Stalking Protection Orders

Powerful new orders coming into force today will enable police forces to better protect the victims of stalking.

The new Stalking Protection Orders (SPOs) are a tough new measure designed to prevent stalkers from contacting victims or visiting their home, place of work or study. This will grant victims more time to recover from their ordeal.

Section 1 of the Stalking Protection Act 1999, which has just been commenced by virtue of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 (Commencement) Regulations 2020, allows the Chief Constable of any police force in England and Wales to apply to the Magistrates' Court for an order against a defendant living in their force area if:

(a) the defendant has carried out acts associated with stalking,

(b) the defendant poses a risk associated with stalking to another person, and

(c) there is reasonable cause to believe the proposed order is necessary to protect another person from such a risk (whether or not the other person was the victim of the acts mentioned in (a) above).

The order will allow the court to specify any requirements or prohibitions imposed on the defendant. It can last for a maximum of 2 years or until a newer order is imposed, whichever is sooner. An interim order can be imposed as a temporary measure if there is any delay in the court considering the main application.

It is an offence under section 8 of the Act for the defendant to breach either a full or interim order without reasonable excuse. The maximum penalty for the offence is 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine (subject to the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) on summary conviction, 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, almost one in five women over the age of 16 have experienced stalking, as well as almost one in ten men.

Minister for Safeguarding and Vulnerability, Victoria Atkins said: "Every year, thousands of people live with the terrifying experience of being stalked, which can lead to victims feeling isolated, abused or even losing their lives.

"I am determined that we do everything we can to better protect victims and new Stalking Protection Orders will help the police to intervene and take action against perpetrators at the earliest opportunity."

Suky Bhaker, Acting Chief Executive of The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, said: "Today is an important step forward in the way stalking is handled in England and Wales and an acknowledgement of the suffering victims of stalking can face.

"We welcome the introduction of Stalking Protection Orders and hope to see the new order complement the existing legislation to ensure that victims receive a proactive response when they come forward and report stalking."

Professor Clive Ruggles of the Alice Ruggles Trust said: "The Alice Ruggles Trust is working hard to make stalking victims more aware of the dangers they face and to come to the police earlier than many do at present.

"Stalking Protection Orders represent a powerful new tool to help the police respond in the right way when they do. It is critical, though, that there is no delay in arresting perpetrators who breach them: any other response may well escalate the risk to the victim.

"We believe that the existence of SPOs could have made a critical difference in Alice’s case, and will help improve the outcome for many others in the future."

Professor Ruggles' daughter Alice was murdered by her estranged boyfriend Trimaan Dhillon on 12th October 2016.

She had previously reported concerns about his behaviour to Northumbria Police, which was criticised in an Independent Office for Police Conduct report into its handling of the case.

Lincolnshire Man Went to Report One Crime and Ended Up Convicted of Three

A Lincolnshire man has been convicted of three offences after walking into a police station to report one.

Kerry Briggs, 42, of Townsend Way, Metheringham, admitted charges of failing to provide a specimen for analysis, possession of a bladed article and driving without valid third party insurance when he appeared at Lincoln Magistrates' Court on 17th January 2020.

The offences relate to incidents on 18th December 2019, when Briggs walked into Lincoln's South Park police station to report that he had been assaulted earlier that evening.

The officer dealing with Briggs could smell alcohol on his breath. Suspecting that he had driven a vehicle to the police station, which is located on the southern edge of the city, the officer required Briggs to provide a preliminary specimen of breath. Briggs agreed to provide that preliminary specimen of breath, which indicated he was over the limit.

Briggs was arrested on suspicion of driving a motor vehicle when the amount of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. This is an offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

On his arrest Briggs was searched and a Stanley knife was found in his trouser pocket. He was further arrested for possessing a bladed article in a public place. Possession of a bladed article is an offence under section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offence, which is triable either way, has a maximum penalty of 6 months' custody on summary conviction, 4 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Further enquiries revealed that Briggs did not have valid third party insurance to cover the car he had driven to the police station. He also failed to provide an evidential specimen of breath for analysis.

Marie Stace, prosecuting, said: "On December 18 at 11.30pm at South Park police station, he attended the location in a VW Golf and explained that he was assaulted.

"The officer noticed that he smelt of alcohol and the vehicle he drove showed as having no insurance.

"An initial breathalyser test gave a reading of 49 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, which is over the legal limit of 35 microgrammes.

"He was then arrested and when he was searched a Stanley knife was found in his left trouser pocket.

"He was asked if he would provide another specimen of breath but then refused to give a second reading.

"When interviewed, he said he didn't know about the car no having insurance and said that the knife was for his own protection and had no plans to use it on anyone."

Mark Wood, mitigating, said: "He went down to the police station to make a complaint about an assault. He had a couple of drinks but thought he was OK to drive.

"He wasn't able to provide a second specimen. He does have some health issues.

"It seems that the insurance might have lapsed and he wasn't aware and that's why he hadn't noticed.

"He is trying to seek help for some mental health issues."

Briggs was fined £240 and ordered to pay £385 towards prosecution costs and £32 victim surcharge.

He was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Self-Medicating Doctor Convicted of Stealing Painkillers

A doctor has been convicted of stealing painkillers from the hospital where she worked.

Hannah Ruth Roberts, 39, of High Street, Halstead, admitted one charge of theft when she appeared at Colchester Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 17th January 2020.

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.

Staff at Colchester General Hospital noticed that prescription only painkillers, which were stored securely under lock and key, were mysteriously disappearing from the drugs cabinet.

An internal investigation was launched and alternative security measures were introduced, which meant staff could only access the store room using a swipe card. Access records were cross-referenced against drug losses, which resulted in the finger of blame pointing squarely at Roberts.

Suspicions were also raised when Roberts arrived at work and was acting so erratically she was sent home.

Colleagues believed her actions were consistent with the side-effects of codeine.

The police were called and Roberts was arrested when a search of her car yielded packaging from the stolen drugs.

Roberts admitted stealing £105.66 worth of the opioid analgesic dihydrocodeine over a 15-day period in June 2019.

Frank O'Toole, mitigating, said Roberts was facing "dire consequences" whatever punishment was handed down because she was facing sanctions by the General Medical Council and could ultimately be struck off.

"The issue appears to have started following a severe toothache," Mr O'Toole told Magistrates.

"She bought over-the-counter painkillers which did not seem to do the trick.

"She should have gone to her GP for a prescription but didn't want to distract from her own work.

"As a result, unfortunately, she drifted into a situation where she took medication from the cupboard.

"She knows what she was doing was wrong - she had taken a dreadful risk and it now comes home to bite."

Martin Stuchfield, Presiding Justice, said Roberts had crossed a line.

"You could have so easily gone to the dentist - or even A&E - to receive treatment," he said.

Roberts was handed a 12-month community order with 250 hours unpaid work requirement.

She was also ordered to pay an £85 victim surcharge and £145 towards prosecution costs.

The General Medical Council has imposed interim restrictions on Roberts' registration that limit her prescribing abilities and employment opportunities.

Wrexham Social Worker Stole £90k from Vulnerable Clients

A Wrexham social worker has admitted stealing £90,000 from three vulnerable clients.

Karen Kersey-Smith, 47, of Wheat Close, Gwersyllt, admitted three charges of theft when she appeared at Chester Magistrates' Court earlier today.

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 offences took place between November 2015 and September 2017, when Kersey-Smith was employed as a social worker with Cheshire West and Chester Council.

Magistrates heard that Kersey-Smith took advantage of vulnerable clients who entrusted her to carry out financial transactions and errands on their behalf.

The first victim, who was fleeced to the tune of £41,494.38 over the course of two years, had poor eyesight and would rely on Keysey-Smith to make payments on her behalf.

The second victim, who mistakenly trusted Kersey-Smith with her bank card, had £27,642.74 stolen over the course of 15 months.

The third victim, who lacked mental capacity, had £21,191.86 stolen over a period of 15 months.

The total amount stolen was £90,328.98.

Alison Warburton, prosecuting, told the court that Kersey-Smith had been enjoying lavish holidays at the expense of her victims.

When interviewed by police, Kersey-Smith initially only admitted the £41k theft and claimed she used the money to put into charity boxes such as Cancer Research, after her father had recently been diagnosed with cancer.

She said she had £10,000 in her savings account and could use that to repay some of the money taken.

When further interviewed, she again did not admit the other two offences, saying she "did not even know" them.

Given the seriousness of the offences, Magistrates' declined jurisdiction and sent the case to Chester Crown Court for sentencing.

Magistrates' ordered the completion of pre-sentence and medical reports in preparation for that hearing on 14th February 2020.

Kersey-Smith, who is currently suspended from practising as a social worker, was granted unconditional bail until then.

Update (4/6/2020): Kersey-Smith appeared at Liverpool Crown Court earlier today, where she was sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment.

Geordie Joker In Hot Water Over Toy Gun Prank

A Newcastle man has been charged with possession of an imitation firearm after carrying a toy handgun in the city for a late night prank.

It is an offence under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 for a person to have an imitation firearm in their possession in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The maximum penalty for the offence is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction, 12 months' custody for conviction on indictment.

Section 57(4) of the Act defines an imitation firearm as: "any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm (other than such a weapon as is mentioned in section 5(1)(b) of this Act), whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile."

The 21-year-old joker was reported to the police by concerned members of the public, who noticed him carrying the realistic looking toy beside West Jesmond Metro station at around 11 pm.

Police officers arrived and quickly identified and apprehended the man, who was sporting a pink balaclava and carrying the replica Glock pistol by his side.

The imitation seized by Northumbria Police is shown against a genuine Glock pistol in the image below. At first glance they appear very similar to the untrained eye.

The man told officers that he had been posing for photographs for use on social media to prank his friends. Officers failed to see the funny side and promptly arrested him.

Inspector Anita Morgan, of Northumbria Police, said: "Our officers couldn't believe their eyes when they saw the man carrying the gun and acted quickly to confront him.

"He explained the gun was a toy and he was carrying it for a prank but that is not an acceptable excuse.

"We still had to go through the same precautions as if it were a real firearm and so it can be a drain on police resources.

"People need to think about the consequences of this type of behaviour and the impact it can have on the wider community.

"Our message is pretty clear, if you are found to be carrying out an imitation firearm then you face being arrested and put before the court."

The as yet unnamed 21-year-old has been charged to appear at North Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 5th February 2020.

Given the circumstances it is likely the case will reach completion at the first hearing. We will endeavour to report the outcome then.

Salford Care Workers Jailed for Abusing Elderly Dementia Patients

Two callous care workers have been jailed for abusing dementia patients at a Salford residential care home.

Abana Arshad, 24, of Crumpsall and Amy Greenhalgh, 24, of Eccles, were each convicted of ill-treating a person without mental capacity.

Their case was adjourned until from November pending the completion of pre-sentence reports. They were sentenced earlier today at Manchester and Salford Magistrates' Court.

Ill-treating or wilfully neglecting a person without mental capacity is an offence under section 44 of the Mental Health Capacity Act 2004.

The offence has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

The despicable duo committed their crimes whilst working as carers at the Laburnum Court Care Home in Salford, which offers around the clock nursing care for elderly residents with complex medical and mental health needs.

The offence which was subject to the specimen charge took place on 15th July 2018, when the pair were working together on Laburnum Court's specialist 31-bed elderly mentally infirm (EMI) unit.

You can read further details of Arshad and Greenhalgh's crime in our earlier article.

The pair conspired to cover up their crime by smearing a colleague and trying to shift the blame onto a vulnerable, elderly resident of the home. They have shown no remorse.

Ian Cochrane, mitigating for Arshad, said: "She led an exemplary life and was hard working and law abiding. She embarked upon a nursing degree with an ambition to become a nurse.

"But a long term relationship broke down and that was the catalyst for the course coming to an end. She went back to the care home on more of a temporary role still with the ambition to resume that nursing degree but that's not going to happen now virtue of these convictions."

Matthew Wallace, mitigating for Greenhalgh, said: "She wasn't the instigator - she was just present and she joined in.

"She is somebody who has struggled always to fit in and says she felt bullied and ostracised in dealings with other persons. She was new and it was not always easy for her to develop relationships.

"The motivation was more to fit in than to cause harm. The person she is most likely to harm is herself."

District Judge James Hatton, sentencing the pair, said: "The victims deserve more from two young people who should have been caring for them. They should have been treated with dignity, yet they were not. They should have been treated with respect, yet they were not. Instead these two defendants treated the victims like they were there for their own amusement.

"They mocked and bullied people who were unable to protect and defend themselves and they never demonstrated any genuine remorse for their behaviour."

Arshad and Greenhalgh were each sentenced to 20 weeks' immediate custody.

They were also ordered to pay £115 victim surcharge.

Based on the information available, the pair appear to been sentenced fairly lightly.

There are several aggravating factors that sit very uneasily in this case - the lack of remorse, the vulnerability of the victims, the degrading treatment of the victims, the abuse of trust of the offenders, the attempts to conceal evidence and wrongly apportion blame. There doesn't seem much in the way of genuine mitigation - a few sob stories about not fitting in and being the victim of bullying doesn't quite cut the mustard.

Given the nature of these offences, it is unlikely the District Judge will have sentenced anything similar previously. In this case there no guidelines to assist with sentencing, but it feels outside the normal sentencing range of the Magistrates' Court. In the Judge's shoes I would have been inclined to commit the case to the Crown Court sentencing.

Lancashire Man Convicted of Drink Driving After Christmas Do

A Lancashire man wishes he'd had none for the road, after being caught drink driving just marginally over the legal limit.

Unfortunately the Lancashire Telegraph forgot to publish the first name of the defendant, Mr Clifford. Despite this omission, we think his case is interesting enough to write about.

Clifford, 48, of Bridge Street, North Harwood, admitted driving a motor vehicle when the amount of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. This is an offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

He also admitted a charge of driving otherwise in accordance with a licence. This is an offence contrary to section 87(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and has a maximum penalty of a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000) on summary conviction.

Blackburn Magistrates heard that Clifford had taken friends to a Christmas do and never intended to drink any alcohol. Unfortunately he made the mistake of thinking that he would be fit to drive after consuming only a couple of alcoholic drinks during the evening.

On the journey home the police had cause to stop Clifford's vehicle. Suspecting he was under the influence of alcohol he was asked to undertake a roadside breath test, which proved positive.

Clifford was arrested on suspicion of drink driving and conveyed to the police station, where he provided an evidential specimen containing 40 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

The prescribed limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, but in accordance with Home Office guidelines a charge is not laid unless a reading of at least 40 microgrammes is obtained.

Damien Pickup, mitigating, said: "That is the reading my client blew and if it had been one microgramme less he would have been OK.

"He had two pints of lager over an hour and he thought he would be OK to drive.

"He has made a mistake although the margin was as fine as it could be."

Until April 2015 suspected drink drivers blowing in the range of 40 - 49 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath had the so-called "statutory option" of replacing their breath specimens with either blood or urine.

Under those rules drivers like Clifford were afforded an extra lifeline, as it might take hours longer to obtain the replacement specimens. Had the previous rules been applied in this particular case, it is almost certain that Clifford would have escaped prosecution despite being over the limit in breath.

Clifford was fined £173 and disqualified from driving for 12 months.

He was ordered to pay prosecution costs of £85 and victim surcharge of £32.

Cannabis Dealer's Grow Discovered by Police Responding to Burglary

A cannabis farm was found in the home of a Nottinghamshire man when police responded to a reported burglary at the property.

Aron Chadwick, 27, of Victory Road, Beeston, admitted a charge of possession with intent to supply a controlled drug when he appeared at Nottingham Crown Court on 6th January 2020.

He had previously admitted charges of possession of a controlled drug and cultivation of cannabis during an earlier appearance at Nottingham Magistrates' Court.

Chadwick had initially denied the PWITS charge. Sentence was withheld in relation to the other two offences, thereby giving the court opportunity to sentence in totality once the outcome of the PWITS charge was known.

The facts of the case were outlined to the court.

Chadwick rode away from his property on a motorcycle shortly before 8 pm on Wednesday, 25th October 2017. A short time later two men kicked in the front door, entered the property and were seen running away carrying a bag. A concerned member of the public, who had witnessed the men fleeing the scene, contacted the police.

Officers attended the property. Inside they discovered cannabis plants being grown in the upstairs bedrooms using hydroponics equipment. They also found drug dealing paraphernalia in the living room, including cling film wraps containing cannabis and digital scales.

Mobile phones, computers and other electronic equipment were also seized.

Chadwick was seen riding his motorcycle while officers were still at the scene, but sped off into the distance instead of returning home to face the consequences.

However, he later contacted the police and arranged to hand himself in the next day.

Analysis of one of his mobile phones showed evidence of drug dealing.

A drugs expert witness gave evidence that the 13 plants seized would have a street value of up to £10,000 and that the amount recovered was too high to be considered solely for personal use.

Chadwick was sentenced to 12 months' custody suspended for 12 months.

The normal forfeiture and destruction and victim surcharge orders were made.

Detective Constable Anna Haynes, of Nottinghamshire Police's burglary team, said: "Growing cannabis is not only illegal, it puts people at greater risk of being victims of burglary and home invasions.

"This case was just one example of a number of incidents that we attend which are reported as burglaries but also lead to further investigations into drug production and supply."

Train Driver Convicted of Exceeding the Prescribed Limit for Alcohol

A Southern trains depot driver has narrowly avoided a stint behind bars after taking control of a train when he was over the alcohol limit.

Joseph McKeraghan, of Worple Road, London, initially denied the charge, but was convicted in his absence when he failed to attend for trial on 2nd December 2019.

The 59-year-old, who no longer drives trains, was sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 6th January 2020.

It is an offence under section 27(2)(a) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 for a person to work as the driver of a railway vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in their breath exceeds the prescribed limit. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

On 27th December 2018, McKeraghan was driving a train in Southern's Selhurst depot in south London. Only half an hour into his shift, at around 4 pm, the train collided with scaffolding ladders. The ladders fell onto the live rail causing electrical arcing and damage to the bottom of the train.

McKeraghan left the scene without providing an explanation for the collision or undertaking a mandatory breath test. A Southern manager provided a statement saying that he could smell alcohol on McKeraghan's breath immediately after the collision.

British Transport Police officers attended McKeraghan's home several hours later, by which time he had consumed nearly a full bottle of wine.

McKeraghan was arrested and taken to the police station, where he provided an evidential specimen containing 38 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the prescribed limit being 13 microgrammes.

Given the delay in McKeraghan's arrest, a forensic back calculation was completed. Scientists concluded that McKeraghan would have provided a specimen containing 32 microgrammes - more than double the prescribed limit - at the time of the collision.

Inspector Dan Tanner of the British Transport Police, said: "A train driver is a safety critical role and it is frankly shocking that a driver would put themselves and the other rail staff in that depot in danger by being over the limit.

"McKeraghan has only himself to blame and I hope he reflects on what was a very poor and dangerous decision to make."

Magistrates sentenced McKeraghan to 12 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months.

He was disqualified from driving for 12 months and ordered to pay £775 towards prosecution costs and £115 victim surcharge.

Drunken New Year's Reveller Jailed for Biting West Midlands Police Officer

A drunken Birmingham woman has been jailed for a sickening assault on two police officers during the early hours of New Year's Day.

Judith Mundle, 36, of Hagley Road, Birmingham, admitted charges of assault causing actual bodily harm on an emergency worker and assault on an emergency worker when she appeared at Wolverhampton Magistrates' Court on 2nd January 2020.

The charges relate to an incident in the early hours of New Year's Day, when heavily intoxicated Mundle was being ejected from a bar on Bridge Street in Walsall. Hearing the commotion, two passing officers stepped in to assist the door staff who were dealing with a rather irate and uncooperative Mundle.

Officers took hold of Mundle, who became increasingly aggressive and ended up shoving them in the chest.

As the officers attempted to handcuff Mundle, she launched forward biting one of them on his arm through three layers of clothing and puncturing his skin.

He was taken to hospital where he received a tetanus shot and a course of antibiotics. He will also require a follow up appointment to determine if he will need any further medication.

Mundle was sentenced to 18 weeks' immediate custody.

Chief Superintendent Andy Parsons, the local West Midlands Police commander, said: "This is a heinous act on one of our colleagues, who was trying to ensure the safety of our community as we enter a new year.

"This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated on our streets.

"I very much welcome this sentence and hope people see this as a warning that we will take robust action against anyone who attempts to assault a member of our police family."

Biting any emergency worker is a very serious offence and rightly deserves a custodial sentence. In addition to the immediate pain, the bitten officer will no doubt be very concerned at the prospect of contracting an infection from Mundle.

Successful Appeal Against Drink Drive Sentence

As many readers will no doubt be aware drink driving is a summary only matter, which is ordinarily dealt with by the Magistrates' Court.

It is an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person to drive a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in their breath exceeds the prescribed limit (35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath). The maximum penalty for the offence is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

For anyone convicted by the Magistrates' Court there is an automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court. As mentioned in our earlier article, an appeal can be made against conviction or sentence.

A few days ago I was out on my Christmas week travels and thought I'd pop into the Crown Court to see the appeals that were listed that afternoon. I didn't make any notes, but there was one case - that of a drink driver - that is particularly memorable because of its circumstances and the apparent harshness of the sentence imposed by the Magistrates. I was away from my normal stomping ground, so did not recognise the Justices on the appeal bench.

The middle aged appellant, who was challenging the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court, was observed by police driving her car very slowly on a dual carriageway. The police pulled over her vehicle, breathalysed her and arrested her when she failed the roadside test. At the police station she provided an evidential specimen of breath containing 133 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, which was just short of four times the legal limit mentioned earlier.

The appellant, who was of previous good character, had appeared before the Magistrates and admitted the offence. Referring to the Sentencing Guidelines the Magistrates correctly placed the offence in the most serious category, which has a starting point of 12 weeks' custody and a range of a high level community order to 26 weeks' custody. It also attracts a disqualification of between 29 and 36 months.

The Magistrates decided to impose a 6 week immediate custodial sentence and 34 month disqualification. The appellant had clearly been granted bail pending the outcome of the Crown Court appeal.

Addressing the appeal bench, the appellant's barrister explained that she was of previous good character, had stable employment and responsibility for looking after her teenage daughter and grandchildren. The appellant had, quite sensibly, been open and honest with her employers, who had indicated their continuing support for her regardless of the outcome.

The appellant had gone through a recent rough patch and had taken to drinking at home in the evenings "as a crutch" to get her through the night. When she was stopped by the police, she was still under the influence of alcohol having had a particularly unsettled evening and drinking into the early hours of the morning. She was genuinely remorseful, had cooperated from the outset and you could see the terror on her face as she stood in the dock.

From the circumstances described during the appeal, quite how the Magistrates arrived at an immediate custodial sentence is beyond me. Here was a woman who had been in no trouble at all for her forty-plus years on Earth, who was making a positive contribution to society, had a supportive employer, loving family and had made a genuine mistake, albeit a potentially costly one. Notwithstanding the fact that the offence crossed the custody threshold, this was a textbook case where a suspended sentence would have been appropriate.

Fortunately the appeal bench was of the same mindset and within one minute, no exaggeration, had returned to deliver its verdict that the 6 weeks' custody should be suspended for 12 months instead of immediate. The disqualification period, which was never in dispute, was kept at 34 months.

A good day for justice, but shame the appellant and her family had to endure intervening weeks of uncertainty. We cannot be sure how her case was mitigated at the Magistrates' Court, but on the face of things it is disappointing that the original bench was so out of tune with its sentencing.